Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Roy Warden
6502 E. Golf Links Rd., #H129
Tucson, Arizona 85730
TELEPHONE: (520) 551-3496
E-MAIL: roywarden@hotmail.com
Pro Se Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA


IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA

13
14

)
)
Plaintiff, In Pro Se )
)
)
vs.
)
CODY WHITAKER, and MARI- )
SOL JACQUEZ WHITAKER, Hus- )
)
band and Wife,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ROY WARDEN,

NO: C20161574
COMPLAINT
(Assault, Abuse of Process, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
THE HON. SARAH R. SIMMONS

15
16

The Plaintiff, for his complaint, therefore alleges:

17

1. That, at all relevant times Plaintiff Roy Warden resided in Pima County,

18

Arizona;

19

2. That, at all relevant times Defendants Cody Whitaker and Marisol

20

Jacquez Whitaker were husband and wife and resided in Pima County,

21

Arizona;

22
23
24
25

3. That, the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Pima County, Arizona.
PARTIES
4. That, Plaintiff is a non-partisan and unpaid political activist working on

behalf of the people of Pima County1 who advocates holding malfeasant

public officials accountable, in courts of law, according to the rule of

law;

5. That, Defendant, a Republican precinct committeeman2 and spokesper-

son for Gun Owners of America, is well known in the Facebook blog-

osphere for his support of 1st and 2nd amendment rights, and his advo-

cacy for armed insurrection against the federal government.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. That, acquaintances Plaintiff and Defendant, had a falling out some-

10

time in early April 2013, when Plaintiff, a formerly homeless veteran,

11

secured temporary rapid emergent housing provided by the Veterans

12

Administration;

13

7. That, subsequently Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in contentious dis-

14

course on a variety of political, constitutional and legal issues in a vari-

15

ety of Facebook blogs, such as Arizona Politics, Arizona Republicans,

16

Pro-Se Litigants, etc.;

17

8. That, gradually the quality of the discourse deteriorated from contentious

18

political debate to the kind of commonplace name calling that, unfor-

19

tunately, has become a normal part of the Facebook blogosphere;


9. That, subsequent to the January 26, 2016 violent end of what the press

20

Plaintiff has so described himself in numerous court pleadings, including Warden


v. Miranda 14-cv-02050 TUC-DCB, now pending before the U.S. District Court.

Beginning in 2006, Plaintiff has written and posted numerous articles excoriating
the local republican political establishment for encouraging Open Border Policy and Cheap Mexican Labor Policy to supply local Republican business
owners and construction companies with an endless supply of illegal alien workers to drive down the cost of labor and drive up profits.

describes as the Oregon Standoff, Plaintiff, a decades long public ad-

vocate for law and order3, became profoundly disturbed by the increas-

ingly violent, anti-government Facebook rhetoric of white supremacists

and members of the patriot movement who advocate armed confron-

tation with federal law enforcement authorities and the violent overthrow

of the U.S. government;

10. That, Plaintiff posted on various Facebook blogs a notice of his intent to

hold an armed4 public demonstration in front of the U.S. District

Court, Tucson Arizona, to hold local federal employees, including U.S.

10

District Court Judges and U.S. Attorneys, personally liable for what ap-

11

pears to be the execution of Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum on January

12

26, 2016, and asked for volunteers to help with organizing the rally;

13

11. That, prior to the rally Plaintiff used the blogosphere to solicit Face-

14

book Warriors to Rally for Justice for LaVoy Finicum on March 4,

15

2016;

16

12. That, prior to the rally Plaintiff posted numerous articles setting forth the

17

purpose of the rally5, as well as his cooperation with TPD and Federal

Since 2005, Plaintiff has held numerous demonstrations, appeared before the Pima
County Board of Supervisors and the Tucson City Council and written extensively, to hold Pima County and Tucson Officials accountable, in courts of law,
for acts of public malfeasance, including the promulgation of Open Border Policy, cronyism, the use of public funds to pay punitive damage awards and the
theft of a reported 200 million dollars by Tucson City Officials from the Rio
Nuevo Project.

Plaintiff posted the Rules of Conduct for the event, making clear his intent to
hold a peaceful and lawful rally. See footnote 6.

Plaintiff planned to submit a Petition for Redress of Grievances.

law enforcement authorities6 who were justifiably concerned that mem-

bers of patriot militia groups would disrupt the rally with violent con-

duct;
13. That, prior to the rally Plaintiff made the following announcement in the

Tucson Weekly7:

Stop Police Murder of Citizens. From Amadu Diallo to


Eric Gardner to Freddie Gray to LaVoy Finicum, Police
Killing w/o due process is MURDER. We want Black Lives
Matter speakers.

6
7
8
9
10

14. That, prior to the rally, members of various Facebook patriot militia

11

groups declared Roy Warden works for the FBI. He is leading you into

12

an ambush on March 4, 2016 in front of the U.S. District Court, Tucson

13

Arizona;

14

15. That, during the rally the Defendant aggressively approached within sev-

15

eral feet of Plaintiff, shouting personal insults and calling Plaintiff a

16

drag-queen patriot, inviting Plaintiff to engage in physical conflict;

17

16. That, Plaintiff began retreating in the face of Defendants aggressive

18

advances, which continued for several minutes, until finally stepping

19

back into the street with no further room for retreat, and, and fearing that

20

Defendant8 was about to commence deadly attack9, Plaintiff warned,

21

step away from me or I will put a bullet through your skull;

On February 25, 2016 Plaintiff met with U.S. Marshal Richard Tracy, a U.S. Attorney, and 5 federal security specialists and members of TPD at the U.S. District
Court Tucson Arizona, to discuss security issues regarding the threat of militia
inspired violence on March 4, 2016.
7
Since 2006 Plaintiff has always sought widespread support on issues of community concern.
8

Defendant Whitaker, a powerfully built ex Marine, has posted pictures of himself


competing in body building contests.

Plaintiff, still recovering from a stroke, is 15 years older than Defendant.

17. That, during a post rally interview Defendant stated (1) he only came to

the rally to call out Plaintiff for perceived insults and defamations to

Whitakers character on Facebook, (2) the federal government was

usurping states rights; (3) there was a huge desire to get feds off our

backs, and that (4) in the future Defendant might involve himself in a

Nevada style armed confrontation with federal authorities, here in Ar-

izona, because the Declaration of Independence authorizes the right of

the citizens to abolish government.

18. That, on March 7, 2016 Defendant applied for an injunction against

10

harassment at Tucson City Court seeking that (1) Plaintiff have no con-

11

tact with Defendant, (2) Plaintiff not approach within 50 yards of De-

12

fendant in public places, (3) Plaintiff must make way and not impede

13

pedestrian travel, (4) Plaintiff possess no firearms or ammunition, and

14

(5) Plaintiff participate in domestic violence counseling;

15

19. That, upon the Courts refusal to impose such broad limitations on Plain-

16

tiffs constitutional rights, instead setting the matter for hearing on

17

March 21, 2016 (M-1040-16012021), Defendant immediately went to

18

Pima County Superior Court to seek the Court to enjoin Plaintiff from

19

(1) having contact with Defendant, (2) speaking to Defendant, (3 yell-

20

ing at Defendant or cajoling upon on coincidental contact, (4) antag-

21

onizing Defendant on the Facebook blogosphere, (5) possessing fire-

22

arms or ammunition, and (6) that Plaintiff should participate in domestic

23

violence counseling;

24
25
26
27
28

20. That, subsequently, on March 7, 2016, the Pima County Superior Court
issued a no contact order #C20161109;
21. That, on or about March 12-13, 2016 Plaintiff was served with both Tucson City and Pima County orders;
22. That, on March 21, 2016 Plaintiff appeared in Tucson City Court where

the Court, on Defendants motion, dismissed the complaint in action

number M-1040-16012021.

23. That, on March 29, 2014 the Clerk of the Pima County Superior Court

notified Plaintiff that the Defendant had called for a hearing regarding

action number C20161109 on April 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm in Department

808.

COUNT I (ASSAULT)

24. That, on March 4, 2016 Defendant did cause Plaintiff Warden to have a

reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact


as set forth in paragraphs 14-15.

10
11

COUNT II (ABUSE OF PROCESS)

12

25. That, on March 7, 2016, March 21, 2016 and April 14, 201610 Defendant

13

(1) willfully used a legal process or procedure to accomplish an ulterior

14

purpose for which the process or procedure was not designed and (2)

15

Defendants misuse of the legal process or procedure was a cause of in-

16

jury, damage, loss or harm to Plaintiff.

17
18

COUNT III (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL


DISTRESS) Extreme and Outrageous Conduct

19

26. That, on March 4, 2016 and March 21, 2016 Defendant, knowing that

20

Plaintiff was taking prescribed medications for stress, intentionally

21

caused Plaintiff emotional distress. Defendants conduct was extreme

22

and outrageous, causing Plaintiff, in fear for his life, to utter extreme

23

words in self defense, as set forth in paragraph 15.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against the Defendants as fol-

24
25

lows:
1a For special damages in an amount to be determined herein;

26

10

Pending as of the date this action was filed.

2a For compensatory damages in a just and reasonable amount;

3a For attorneys fees, if any;

4a For Plaintiffs cost of suit incurred herein;

5a For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by

5
6
7

law;
6a For such other and further relief as the Court or jury deems just and
proper.
DATED this 1st day of April, 2016.

8
9

By:
_________________________
Plaintiff, Roy Warden

10
11
12