UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA -----------------------------Teen Reach Inc, and Rev.

Bobby Torres, and Emma Grillo, and Brandon Murray, and Ellen Crill, and Ryan Finn, and Matthew Worl, and Jasmin Soto, and Danette Davis Cynthia Martinez ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) The Arizona Department Of Economic Security, and Child Protective Services, and Aimee Amato, and Christopher Deere, and Wendy Rosenberg, and Leslie Wingate, and Enola Thompson, and Julie Callagher, and Susan Morris, and Gretel Hoesch, and Daniel Moe, and Rhonda Cash, and Jacob Schmitt, and Bruce Nittle, and Brian Baum, and Shelia Davis, and Tracey Everett, and and Janet Sabol Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C . Sec 1983/1985

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

-----------------------------INTRODUCTION

Now come Plaintiffs, as and for their complaint, alleges and asserts the following claims against the Defendants in the above entitled action:

Jurisdiction
1. This action arises under:

a. The Constitution of the United States, and specifically the First Amendment (right to petition government, freedom of religion); Fifth Amendment (right to due process and equal protection of the law); Article IV, 1 (privileges and immunity clause); and under: b. Title 28 United States Code 1331, which provides that anyone stating facts raising a federal cause of action has the right to file in the district courts a civil action stating claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. c. Title 28 United States Code 1343, which provides a federal court forum in which citizens may seek redress from the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities under color of state law. d. Civil Rights Act, Title 42 United States Code 1983-1986, that provides a federal remedy to anyone suffering from violations of his civil rights perpetrated under color of state law including: Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; Deprivation Of Rights; : illegal detention and confinement , refusing or neglecting to prevent; religious freedom; ; (6) violation of 1st amendment religious freedom; Freedom Of Speech. e. Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, based upon the conspiracy by the defendants that repeatedly violated plaintiff's civil rights. f. Title 42 United States Code 1986, which provides for damages from those defendants who had knowledge of the violations of plaintiff's civil rights, who had the duty and the ability to prevent or aid in the prevention of them, and who failed to perform that duty. g. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 2

(1971). The Bivens claim is based upon the violations of plaintiff's civil rights under color of federal law, which occurred continuously and inter-related from 1983 to the present date. h. Title 18 United States Code 1961-1964. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act (hereafter "RICO") claim arises from the pattern of multiple predicate acts perpetrated by defendants over a 3-year span. The predicate acts of racketeering by multiple defendants affected the civil rights of defendants. i. Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28 United States Code 2201 and 2202, which provides for district courts to declare rights and legal relations that are in controversy, and provide whatever remedies are appropriate. (Also FRCivP 57) j. Title 18 United States Code 4. This federal crime reporting statute requires any person who knows of a federal crime to promptly "report it to a federal judge" or other officer. k. violation of 1st amendment religious freedom. l. right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. m. malicious abuse of process. n false arrest and imprisonment o. negligence p. assault q. battery r. intentional infliction of emotional distress s. The matters in controversy exceed ten million dollars.

Venue
2. Venue is based upon the following:

a. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331 as it involves claims under TITLE 42 UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS b.Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1391 (1)(2)(3) as the 3

Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in this district, and the violations of law complained of herein occurred in this district. c. A number of the wrongful acts and federal causes of action occurred while plaintiff was a resident of the Northern District of Nevada. d. A number of the wrongful acts and federal causes of action occurred while plaintiff was a resident of the District of Arizona. e. Plaintiff resides in Arizone and consider Arizona their domicile. f. Plaintiff's non-profit 501 (C) (3) corporation was and is incorporated in Arizona Nevada and has its principal place of business and operation in the District Of Arizona. g. Property that was wrongfully taken from Plaintiff included property located in the District of Arizona. h. All defendants participated in wrongful conduct that affected District of Arizona interests, including property and plaintiffs residences and domicile. i. Venue exists in any location for reporting criminal activities to a federal judge, as required by federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 4. j. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a), (b), (e); 1392(b); 1402(b). k. CPS Workers and The Arizona Department Of Economic Security in Arizona have feloniously retaliated against plaintiff for seeking to report these crimes. These retaliatory acts were felonies under Title 18 U.S.C. 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513(b). They are also felonies by obstructing justice under Title 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, and PLAINTIFF PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Teen Reach (herein known as Teen Reach) , address

5. Plaintiff name Address 6. Plaintuiff Name address, occupation and position 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. DEFENDANT PARTIES 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. n n n n n n n n Unkown Parties Child Protection Services police Aimee Amato, resides at address, her occupation and position name if you do not know the addy, then place currently unkown name n The Arizona Department Of Economic Security who are they, describe ,.address, pl pl pl pl

Preliminary Statement
5

33.

This action raises multiple federal causes of actions for which federal judges

have a mandatory responsibility to provide a federal court forum and relief. Plaintiffs, both individually and as a class, a Religious Organization and Church and its Members, have been deprived of personal and property rights, and civil rights in direct and repeated violations of due process of law. Although all allegations must be accepted as true at this stage of the pleading, most of the allegations are stated in attached Affidavits, and plaintiffs request that judicial notice be taken of these Affidavits. Further, during discovery, this evidence will be entered into these proceedings. 34. Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in Paragraph 1 through 33 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth.

Statement Of Facts
35. Evidence strongly indicates that the reasons for the record setting numbers

of violations inflicted upon plaintiff by Arizona, Phoenix and Scottsdale organizations, officials and their employees arose from a convoluted scheme concocted somewhere high in the Arizona Department Of Economic Security, and Child Protective Services to destroy and strip plaintiff of assets they hold and strip them of rights they are entitled to under the Constitution Of The United States. This alleged pre-planned scheme would: a) Create a situation of harassment against a church and ministry to force said Church to apply for a License for its religious faith based programs that assists members children and young adults even though it was not required; b) Then use said License to force said Church and Ministry to remove biblically instituted ways, speech, reason and prayer from its well known and successful programs, ministries and the Church itself.

c) And when the Church and Church Ministries continued to practice their faith and use it in their programs, to use a false charge of child Abuse to remove Civil Rights and to attack and cause financial, physical and mental injury to the Church, Church ministries and Members, associates, families and staff. d) And then to raid the Church and remove Adult members who were involved in a Bible study without cause, warrant or right; to hold said adult members for 4 hours with armed police officers at hand; to deny them their right to council or phone call; and to continue to harass and defame said Church, Ministries of said Church, its members, its council and its staff in an attempt to justify the illegal actions it performed under the color of Arizona Law and Statute. 36. To begin, Teen Reach is a 501c3 non-profit religious Church that holds its

primary Church services in Scottsdale, Arizona, and performs Ministry works Nation Wide. The Sr. Pastor of record is the Rev. Bobby Torres. ( Exhibit # 1 ) 37. Teen Reach is listed as a district affiliated Church of the Assemblies of God since

1993 (exhibit # 2 ). 38. Teen Reachs Primary Christian Worldview relates to care for those less

fortunate and believes that spiritual treatment through prayer, preaching and scripture can provide a better world and add greatly to the emotional, physical and psychological well being of children and young adults alike (exhibit # 3 ). 39. Teen Reach provides a Christian School and a Temporary Live In Christian

Program for Children and young adults of its members who have had the standard problems facing many families today with their children: Drugs, Sex and Violence (exhibit # 4 ). 40. Teen Reach maintains accountability with:

a) Planning and Zoning for group home clearance. b) Fire Department for safety clearance. 7

c) Department of Justice for criminal clearance. d) CPR and First Aid certification. e) De-escalation and Assault Response Training Agencies. f) Association for Christian Teachers and Schools. g) Health and Safety clearance parents who place their children in the homes.

41.

In the years 2001/2, a general harassment by The Arizona Department Of

Economic Security and Child Protective Services (known herein after as CPS) began to occur. They wanted Teen reach to apply for a State License for their group homes. Police Officers and Zoning Department would routinely show up at various services and Homes and Offices. Cars were towed from the Church. And other minor events unfolded (exhibit #5 42. ). And then, on or around the beginning of April of 2002, a neighbor of one of the

group homes complained to the zoning board of Scottsdale Arizona that Teen reach was running a business out of a residential home. One thing led to another and soon the CPS got involved and a hearing was held in the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 11, 2002 on the issue alleging that Teen Reach was operating unlicensed group homes (exhibit # 6 ).

43.

Though Teen Reach operated under the protection of the Constitutional Right of

Separation of Church and State. And demonstrated that the children in their care were placed with parental consent, Teen reach decided to apply for a License in order to stop what had become all out harassment by The Arizona Department Of Economic Security, and CPS and avoid costly litigation. 44. One of the criteria for the license was that the Church policy of corporal

punishment by paddling would not be allowed by CPS. Even though said policy was one of a supervised, biblically scriptured event, metered out only in special circumstances, with care and non-abuse, Teen Reach agreed not to paddle or spank children, but did not 8

give up the right for a parent to do so and provided a document to CPS stating so (exhibit # 7 ) And the License was issued (Exhibit # 8 ) and renewed with the understanding of that requirement of Teen Reach ( Exhibit # 9 ). 45. One of the causes of the State License, was that CPS could take action in many

forms without the permission of Teen Reach or the need for a Court Order. 46. All was well until DATE when a parent spanked a child and CPS revoked the

Teen Reach Child Welfare Agency License on DATE ( exhibit # 10 ). 47. With the License revoked, CPS had given up any right to enforce its rules,

regulations and make surprise visits and enforcements. 48. Then, on DATE , CPS sent a letter by registered mail to Teen Reach. It was a

letter explaining that the Teen Reach License was SUSPENDED (exhibit # 11 ). Plaintiff Rev Torres was confused. In one hand he had the REVOCATION, in the other the SUSPENSION, it did not make sense to him. 49. Then on DATE, at LOCATION, the Defendant Aimee Amato, Christopher

Deere, Wendy Rosenberg, Leslie Wingate, Enola Thompson, Julie Callagher, Susan Morris, Gretel Hoesch, Daniel Moe, Rhonda Cash, Jacob Schmitt, Bruce Nittle, Brian Baum, Shelia Davis, Tracey Everett, Janet Sabol, all employees of CPS, Acting under the color of law, and three UNIDENTIFIED armed police officers, acting under the color of law, and several other UNIDENTIFIED individuals, appeared at LOCATION during a bible study where the Plaintiff Emma Grillo, Brandon Murray, Ellen Crill, Ryan Finn, Matthew Worl, Jasmin Soto, Danette Davis and Cynthia Martinez, all legal adults, aged 18 to 22, were performing bible study, showed up at the Teen Reach Church, which is not a group home, and, without cause, without warrant, without court order or right, while threatening and using bodily force, proceeded to drag out the Plaintiffs above , where they were then forced into a Automobiles and taken incommunicado to a CPS office.

50.

Once at the CPS office, they were sequestered for 4 hours with no food, no

phone calls, and, while their pleas for Attorneys went disregarded, with armed police intimidation, were physically and mentally abused during an unconstitutional interrogation. 51. The PLANTIFF, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO

KEEP THIS COMPLAINT AS LIMITED AS THEY CAN, AND ADVISING THIS HONORABLE Court that discovery will be required to sort out who did what to who, HAVE PROVIDED Affidavits detailing specific infractions and violations of rights by the Defendants, including Religious slurs and debasing of the plaintiffs for their religious beliefs during the incarceration; such as ridiculing Plaintiff when they prayed for relief from what amounted to an allegation of torture by the Defendants. (Exhibit Affidavits #12 ). 52. It is the Plaintiff allegation that Defendant Arizona Department Of Economic

Security, parent of Defendant CPS, Defendant CPS and the Defendants listed herein this complaint and other yet to be identified individuals, whom invaded the Church as stated above, were under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations and custom of Arizona when they realized that the REVOCATION of the license meant they had to get a Court order or Warrant to enter any of the premises of Teen Reach; when they decided to send another letter, this one stating that the License was Suspended; when they used a pretext yet unidentified to enable Armed Police Officers to assist in the raid and detention of Adult Plaintiffs; and when they went to the Church and committed the acts as stated above that Violated the Plaintiff Rights. 53. It is Plaintiff allegation that there are yet unidentified individuals such as the

Police Officers and several unidentified individuals, who, under color of law, assisted in the cause and actions of the events as described herein above. And believe that only Discovery will allow these individuals to be identified. 54. Plaintiff Rev Torres and Teen Reach, though not arrested, where harmed and

had their rights to Due Process, Protection Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Freedom to Assemble, Freedom Of Religon and the Right To Assemble To practice the 10

same and their Right to Free Speech violated by the actions and events of the Defendants, specifically their entering the Church and performing search and seizures without warrant, and creating terror and fear and inflicting great distress and emotional harm. 55. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all the Defendants were subject to 42

U.S.C. secs. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. 56. wit, Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056, 1061 (1st Cir. 1997); McNamara v. Honeyman, 406 Mass. 43, 52 (1989). (a) by depriving Defendants of their liberty without due process of law, by taking them into custody and holding him there against his will, County of Sacramento v. Lewis. 523 U.S. 833 (1998); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982 (b) by making an unreasonable search and seizure of their property without due process of law, (c) by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny Defendants equal protection of laws, (d) by refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to plaintiff, thereby depriving plaintiff of their rights, privileges, and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial of Plaintiffs rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law, to

11

57.

Plaintiffs incorporates the attached Exhibits and Affidavits # 1 through 8 into this

Complaint by reference as if set forth herein. 58. 59. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in Paragraph 1 through 53 above, inclusive, as though fully set forth. 60. COUNT ONE: CONSPIRACY TO DENY PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS

Defendants' above-described, acting in collusion, with predetermination, conduct under color of law, and with particularly the acts, commissions and omissions of the conspirators in preparing and mailing fraudulent documents in order to carry out the mass raid on a Church and Teen Reach, and the subsequent detention by Police and CPS Workers, combined with the custodial maltreatment of the plaintiffs, violated the plaintiffs' rights to religious freedom, freedom of speech, assembly and association, be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection of the laws and to due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 61. COUNT TWO DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

Defendants' above-described, acting in collusion, with predetermination, conduct, and particularly the acts, commissions and omissions of the conspirators, and of the command, supervisory and rank-and-file defendants in ordaining, directing and carrying out the mass raid on a Church and Teen Reach and subsequent custodial maltreatment of the plaintiffs, violated the plaintiffs' rights to religious freedom, freedom of speech, assembly and association, be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection of the laws and to due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 62. COUNT THREE: VIOLATION OF FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. 1983 Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the acts and omissions of those defendants involved in the groundless mass raid, arrest, detention and custodial maltreatment of the plaintiffs, and those involved in individual acts of brutality against 12

Plaintiff as outlined in their Affidavits, violated plaintiffs' rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution U.S.C. 1983 35. COUNT FOUR: VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. 1983 Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the custodial maltreatment of plaintiffs, including but not limited to the conduct described, violated plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the laws and to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 63. COUNT FIVE: ASSAULT AND BATTERY

The above described conduct of defendants, and particular those named herein the attached Affidavits, constituted assault and battery on plaintiffs. Defendants caused physical contact to be inflicted on plaintiffs without plaintiffs' consent. As a direct and proximate result of said assault and battery, plaintiffs suffered general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 64. COUNT SIX: FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Defendants' above-described conduct constitutes false arrest and/or false imprisonment of plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of said false arrest and/or false imprisonment, plaintiffs suffered general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 65. COUNT SEVEN: 1 st AMENDMANT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR

FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Defendants' afore described conduct, and all of it, denied plaintiffs their rights to be free from violence and intimidation by threat of violence because of their religious and political affiliation or viewpoint in violation of their 1 st Amendment Constitutional right of religious freedom. 66. COUNT EIGHT: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS Defendants' above-described conduct was extreme, unreasonable and outrageous. By 13

engaging in such conduct, defendants intentionally ignored or recklessly disregarded the foreseeable risk that plaintiffs would suffer extreme emotional distress as a result of defendants' conduct. As a proximate result of said conduct, plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress, pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, discomfort and humiliation, all to their general damage in an amount to be proven, and incurred special damages in an amount to be proven. 67. COUNT NINE: NEGLIGENCE

Defendants had a duty to properly hire, train, oversee, supervise and discipline their agents, employees and social workers so as to prevent violations of plaintiffs' constitutional, statutory, and common law rights and to prevent physical injury to plaintiffs, and a duty to use their powers and equipment properly to avoid harm to plaintiffs. By the conduct described above, defendants breached the duty of care owed to plaintiffs and proximately caused them general and special damages in an amount to be proven.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: A. An award of compensatory and general damages against defendants and each of them, in an amount to be determined according to proof; B. An award of exemplary and punitive damages against all defendants sued in their individual capacities in an amount to be proven at trial; C. An award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to 42 U.S.C Sec1985 and 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983; D. An award of plaintiffs' costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; 14

E. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from harassing or again making any baseless raid as a pretext for suppressing legitimate First Amendment activities by plaintiffs and their associates; and from using the tactics and measures such as holding citizens against their will or using intimidation and summary punishment without COURT ORDER or WARRANT; F. Trial By Jury; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted,

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that we are the Plaintiffs herein, and have read the foregoing pleading filed on our behalf, and the facts stated therein are true.

Day month year

_____________________________

(All the PLAINTIFFS MUST SIGN ) Name address phone number Prose Attorney for the DATED: month day , year

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this ___th day of May 2001.

______________________________ Notary Public 15

Exhibit List 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12.

16

Certificate Of Service

17