1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1
 1 I. INTRODUCTION

2 1. This is an action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and
3 28 U.S.C. § 1343, seeking redress for conspiracy and the intentional deprivation
4 of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Venue is proper in the 9th District of
5 Arizona, as all of the acts complained of occurred in Pima County Arizona.
6 II. JURISDICTION
7 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) for
8 intentional violations of constitutional rights as provided by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
9 The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages—including punitive damages—as well as
10 attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
11 3. The Plaintiff seeks redress for violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to speech, press,
12 petition and assembly under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the
13 United States, the Plaintiff’s right to be free of illegal seizures under the Fourth
14 Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the Plaintiff’s right to be
15 free from malicious abuse of process and unlawful seizure as provided for by the
16 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and
17 the Plaintiff’s right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourth and
18 Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
19 III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
20 4. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests a
21 trial by jury.
22 IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

23 5. Plaintiff Roy Warden, writer and publisher of political newsletters Common

24 Sense II, CS II Press and Director of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, is a
25 citizen of the United States and was a resident of Pima County Arizona at all
26 times relevant to this complaint.
27 6. Defendant Isabel Garcia, believed to be a resident of Pima County Arizona, acted
28 individually, in her capacity as Director of Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, and
29 in her capacity as agent for the state at all times relevant to this complaint.

2
 1 7. Defendant Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, located at 631 South Sixth Avenue,
2 Tucson Arizona, provided organizational support and otherwise assisted Defen-
3 dant Isabel Garcia in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights at all times
4 relevant to this complaint.
5 8. Defendant Arizona Border Rights Foundation, a 501 ( c )(3) corporation and the
6 fiscal agent for Defendant Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, provided financial
7 resources, organizational support and otherwise assisted Defendant Isabel Garcia
8 in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights at all times relevant to this
9 complaint.
10 9. Defendant Arturo Rodriquez, believed to be a resident of Pima County Arizona,
11 acted individually, in his capacity as agent of Defendant Movimiento Estudiantil
12 Chicano De Aztlan, (hereinafter referred to as MEChA), and in his capacity as
13 agent of the state at all times relevant to this complaint.
14 10. Defendant Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan is a national revolutionary
15 organization “…founded on the principles of self determination for the liberation
16 of our people” which openly advocates the violation of federal law regarding U.S
17 immigration policy and promulgates the establishment of a new empire called
18 “Aztlan” located in the American Southwest. Defendant MEChA provided
19 organizational support and financial assistance to Defendant Arturo Rodriquez,
20 and other Defendants at all times relevant to this complaint.
21 11. Defendant Beth Tridico, believed to be a resident of Pima County Arizona, acted
22 individually, in her capacity as administrator to the Calli Olin Academy, and as
23 agent of the state at all times relevant to this complaint.
24 12. Defendant Calli Olin Academy1, located at 200 South Stone Tucson Arizona, is
25 believed to be a unit of local government organized under the laws of the State of
26 Arizona.
27 13. Defendant Lorraine Rivera, believed to be a resident of Pima County Arizona,
28 acted individually, in her capacity as newsperson employed by Defendant KVOA

1
State Assigned Agency ID: 108793, NCES Assigned Agency ID: 0400382

3
 1 Communications, Inc., and in her capacity as agent of the state at all times
2 relevant to this complaint.
3 14. Defendant Lupita Murillo, believed to be a resident of Pima County Arizona,
4 acted individually, in her capacity as newsperson employed by Defendant KVOA
5 Communications, Inc., and in her capacity as agent of the state at all times
6 relevant to this complaint.
7 15. Defendant KVOA Communications, Inc., located at 209 West Elm, Tucson
8 Arizona, provided organizational assistance to other Defendants at all times
9 relevant to this complaint.
10 16. Defendant Does 1-100 are (1) individuals and organizations who acted indivi-
11 dually and as agents of the state under the direction or control of named or
12 unnamed Defendants, and (2) government employees who acted individually
13 and at the direction of their superiors, within their enforcement, administrative
14 and executive capacities, under color of state law, regulations, customs and
15 policies at all times relevant to this complaint. Does 1-100 are sued in their
16 individual and official capacities.
17 V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

18 17. Plaintiff is an unpaid political activist working on behalf of the people of Pima
19 County, the publisher of Common Sense II and CSII Press, and the Director of
20 the Tucson Weekly Public Forum.
21 18. Plaintiff has spent the last 4 years investigating allegations of malfeasance within
22 the legal and political institutions of Pima County, including the malfeasance of
23 Pima County and Tucson City Officials who have used their public offices (1) to
24 protect the financial interests of local contractors, etc., who now depend upon a
25 continual flow of low cost Illegal Alien Mexican labor, and (2) to advance the
26 left-wing political agenda of various racist Hispanic hate groups2, which includes
27 but is not limited to the deliberate violation of federal immigration law, the
28 flooding of the American Southwest with millions of Illegal Alien Mexicans, and
29 the creation of a new empire called “Aztlan.”

2
These groups include La Raza and Defendants Coalicion de Derechos Humanos and MEChA

4
 1 19. Additionally, Plaintiff is the Plaintiff in Warden v Hoffman, Fell, Leonardo, etc.,
2 Case No. CV 05-020 TUC JCG, a Title 42 § 1983 action now before the Court,
3 alleging Pima County employees and Pima County Superior Court Judges have
4 committed a series of malicious, criminal and tortuous acts in violation of
5 Plaintiff’s right to engage in political communication within the public areas, and
6 on the front steps, of the Pima County Courthouse.
7 20. Plaintiff is also the Plaintiff in Warden v Walkup, et. al, Case No. CIV 07 190
8 TUC CKJ, a Title 42 §1983 action now before the Court, alleging Tucson City
9 Officials and Hispanic radical activists, acting in concert, committed a series of
10 malicious, criminal and tortuous acts in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
11 rights.
12 21. On April 10, 2006 Plaintiff participated in a lawful political demonstration pro-
13 testing 15,000 left-wing Open Border Activists, led by Defendants Isabel Garcia
14 and Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, who had gathered in Armory Park, Tucson
15 Arizona to hear public speakers, including members of the Tucson City Council
16 and Pima County Board of Supervisors, declare their support for the abolishment
17 of the American/Mexican border, the overthrow of the United States Government
18 and the governments of various states, and the creation of a new empire in the
19 American southwest called “Aztlan.”
20 22. The theme of the Open Border Activists, as set forth on Congressman Raul
21 Grijalva’s website, was “Hoy Marchamos! Manana Votamos!”3
22 23. Plaintiff submits the Tucson Police Department After Action Report, dated May
23 10, 2006, accurately documents numerous acts of violence committed by Open
24 Border Activists, including felony aggravated assaults on TPD Officers4, in
25 Armory Park, on April 10, 2006.
26 24. Sometime on or about April 10, 2006 both named and unnamed Defendants
27 conducted a series of private communications with officials from the Mexican

3
“Today we march! Tomorrow we vote!”
4
Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall made a “political” decision and did not prosecute any left wing
Open Border Activist for any act of violence committed on that day, even felony aggravated assaults on
police officers.

5
 1 Consulate5 and local public officials including the Tucson Police Department, for
2 the purposes of depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.
3 25. Sometime just prior to a public meeting on or about April 11, 2006, Defendant
4 Isabel Garcia issued a public communication which stated, in sum and substance,
5 “Tucson has lost the trust of the community.”
6 26. Immediately subsequent to the public meeting as set forth in paragraph 25,
7 Defendant Isabel Garcia issued a public communication which stated, in sum and
8 substance, “Tucson has begun to regain the trust of the community.”
9 27. Late in the afternoon of April 11, 2006, as a direct consequence of the private
10 and public communications between named and unnamed Defendants as set forth
11 in paragraphs 24-26, Plaintiff was arrested for events that occurred during the
12 rally the previous day, charged with Reckless Burning 6, Criminal Damage, and
13 Assault, denied a trial by jury, and tried without the benefit of counsel before the
14 bench of Tucson Municipal Court Judge Eugene Hays. On November 01, 2006,
15 Petitioner was acquitted.
16 28. On May 06, 2006 in Kennedy Park, Tucson Arizona, while Plaintiff engaged in a
17 political speech opposing Pima County Open Border Policy and the activities of
18 Defendants Isabel Garcia and Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, Plaintiff was
19 assaulted by Wade Colwell, Luke Salcido, and other local Open Border Activists,
20 in full view of Tucson Police Officers and Defendant KVOA News reporter
21 Lorraine Rivera. That night, via a KVOA News interview conducted by Lorraine
22 Rivera, Wade Colwell stated the purpose of his assault was to prevent Plaintiff
23 and his supporters from engaging in political speech and the commission of
24 symbolic acts protected by the First Amendment of the United States
25 Constitution.
26 29. Just prior to the assault on May 06, 2006, Defendant Lorraine Rivera spoke with
27 Wade Colwell and members of his group for the purpose of producing video of

5
Mexican Foreign Ministry Subsecretary Lourdes Aranda echoed the language used by Tucson Mexican
Consul Alejandro Cardosa and local Open Border Activists in condemning Plaintiff’s Mexican Flag
Burnings: “We consider unacceptable any act of provocation or vandalism of national symbols.”
6
Reckless Burning is a subdivision of the Arizona Arson Statute.

6
 1 the event showing Colwell and his group had successfully prevented the burning
2 of the Mexican flag.
3 30. Just prior to the assault on May 06, 2006 Wade Colwell asserted his prior com-
4 munications with TPD Assistant Police Chief Kathleen Robinson, whom Colwell
5 stated, counseled him and others and approved of the assault: “We spoke with
6 Kathy (Robinson) for 2 hours. She told us what we could do!”
7 31. Plaintiff now possesses a DVD video recording revealing Assistant TPD Police
8 Chief Robinson and other uniformed police officers aiding, abetting, and con-
9 gratulating Colwell, Salcido, and other activists, for the success of their assault in
10 Kennedy Park on May 06, 2006, which did prevent Plaintiff and his followers
11 from completing their speeches and committing the constitutionally protected
12 symbolic act of Burning the Mexican Flag7.
13 32. On June 03, 2006 Plaintiff participated in a political demonstration in front of the
14 Mexican Consulate, located at 553 S. Stone Street, Tucson Arizona. At this and
15 all future events, Plaintiff erected a simple rope barrier to maintain a perimeter
16 between speakers and counter-demonstrators, and to protect public safety8.
17 33. During the June 03, 2006 protest in front of the Mexican Consulate, Plaintiff was
18 compelled to take minor defensive measures to promote public safety and to
19 repel an assault committed by Arturo Rodriquez, a “Chicano” student activist,
20 filmmaker and self proclaimed “proud member of MEChA9” who (1) told Plain-
21 tiff “I want to fuck your mother”, and (2) pushed across Plaintiff’s rope barrier
22 and advanced provocatively towards the public speaker.
23 34. On June 06, 2006 Plaintiff was arrested during a demonstration outside the
24 Tucson City Council and charged with Assault, Disturbing the Peace and Making
25 Threats and Intimidation, all misdemeanor charges arising out of Plaintiff’s po-
26 litical activities outside the Mexican Consulate on June 03, 2006 as set forth in

7
Plaintiff has repeatedly stated: “I burn this Mexican Flag because it is a symbol of the oppression of the
Mexican poor. I stand next to Emiliano Zapata and Marcos, who now fights in Chiapas, and call for
revolutionary change in Mexico.”
8
In a taped interview with Plaintiff, TPD Captain Mike Gilhooly asserted the barrier between protestors
and counter-protestors on April 10, 2006 significantly protected public safety and reduced the occurrence
of violence.
9
Defendant MEChA, a radical student organization, actively promotes the establishment of Aztlan in the
American southwest.

7
 1 paragraph 33. The case was eventually assigned (again) to Tucson Municipal
2 Court Judge Eugene Hays. Again, Plaintiff was denied trial by jury.
3 35. On August 17, 2006, Plaintiff and a group of supporters were prevented from
4 engaging in public speech using a public address system from a public sidewalk
5 located directly across the street from the entrance to the Armory Park Commun-
6 ity Center, where a group of Open Border Activists, led by Defendants Isabel
7 Garcia and Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, and Congressman (CDR 7) Raul
8 Grijalva, were conducting what had been advertised as a “public meeting to
9 address community concerns on border issues.”
10 36. Defendant TPD Assistant Chief Robinson, under the direction of Defendant
11 Isabel Garcia, moved Plaintiff and supporters ½ block away to another location.
12 When Plaintiff asked Defendant Robinson her authority for moving the group’s
13 location and denying his use of a bullhorn, she provided none, other than to say,
14 “If you don’t stop you will be arrested.”
15 37. On December 15, 2006 Defendant Arturo Rodriquez and his brother Alexander
16 Rodriquez testified at Plaintiff’s trial10, under the direction and control of Defen-
17 dant Isabel Garcia, who, obscured partially from the view of Tucson Municipal
18 Court Judge Eugene Hays11 and other court officials, mouthed words, gave hand
19 signals and otherwise “coached” both complaining witnesses while each gave
20 testimony.
21 38. Judge Hays, who took specific steps to assist Defendant Isabel Garcia in gaining
22 a strategic vantage point within his courtroom from which she could direct the
23 testimony of the complaining witnesses, is not named herein as a defendant;
24 judges have immunity for their commission of judicial acts.
25 39. On December 15, 2006 Defendant Lupita Murillo, newsperson for Defendant
26 KVOA News, sat directly behind Defendant Garcia and whispered in her ear as
27 Garcia “coached” Arturo and Alexander Rodriquez.

10
Trial, #2 was for Plaintiff’s demonstration in front of the Mexican Consulate on June 03, 2006.
11
See the Declarations of Steve Aiken, Lew Ewing, Laura Leighton, and Victor Mergard attached as
Exhibit One.

8
 1 40. Defendant Arturo Rodriquez, testified (1) he was “a proud member of MEChA,”
2 (2) his purpose for attending Plaintiff’s rally on June 03, 2006 and breaching
3 Plaintiff’s roped safety barrier even after being warned not to, was to “get the
4 shot”, and otherwise gather video data of Plaintiff’s rally for the purpose of
5 making a film.
6 41. On December 22, 2006 Plaintiff was legally restrained from giving additional
7 testimony and convicted by Judge Hays, in absentia12, for assault, and two counts
8 of making threats and intimidation. Subsequently, Judge Hays sentenced Plaintiff
9 to three years probation, prohibited Plaintiff from going within 500 feet of any
10 public demonstration (even his own) and suspended Plaintiff right to carry a side
11 arm in self defense.
12 42. On February 01, 2007, Plaintiff filed an appeal of conviction and the sentence
13 imposed by Judge Hays.
14 43. On March 12, 2007 between 11:45 am. and 1:15 pm13, Plaintiff set up a roped
15 barrier to protect public safety and convened the first Tucson Weekly Public
16 Forum on the public sidewalk near the corner of Pennington and Stone adjacent
17 to the Tucson City Public Library and distributed the “Isabel Garcia” edition of
18 Common Sense II to attendees.
19 44. Plaintiff’s literature was torn up by “Chicano” students. Plaintiff was sworn at,
20 spat upon and threatened with death by these same “Chicano” students, in spite
21 of Plaintiff’s invitation to enter the rope barrier, use the public address system
22 and speak, all in full view Tucson Police Officers14 who stood idly by and did
23 nothing to stop the assaults or to maintain public order.
24 45. On March 19, 2007 Plaintiff held the second Tucson Weekly Public Forum. A
25 crowd of “Chicano” students gathered, including self announced members of “La

12
Tucson Municipal Court Judge Bowman issued a restraining order on behalf of Defendant Isabel Garcia,
which prevented Plaintiff from attending the second day of his own trial.
13
Plaintiff chose this time frame to insure maximum contact with the public during lunch hour and to min-
imize any possibility of unnecessary disruption of commercial activity.
14
Several “Chicano” students appeared to be under the direction and control of TPD Officer Lucero.

9
 1 Raza” and Defendant MEChA, who originated from Defendant Calli Olin
2 Academy, a charter school adjacent to “Chicanos por la Causa15”.
3 46. The “Chicano” students again ignored Plaintiff’s invitation to speak, declared
4 that Plaintiff would be raped should he ever end up in jail, and began spitting on
5 and swearing at Plaintiff and other public speakers, in full view of Tucson Police
6 Officers, including Captain Gilhooly and Lieutenant Coleman, who stood idly by
7 and made no effort to stop the assaults or to maintain public order.
8 47. Via public address system, Plaintiff described the rape threats with particular
9 detail, excoriated Defendant Isabel Garcia, and declared: “Someday federal
10 agents are going to surround your building, come into your office and arrest
11 you!”
12 48. At Captain Gilhooly’s direction, Petitioner was cited for violation of the Tucson
13 City Sound Ordinance, TCC 16-31 (A), in spite of the fact Tucson Police made
14 no attempt to measure the decibel level of Plaintiff’s speech, as required by law.
15 49. On March 20, 2007 during the “Call to the Audience” portion of the Mayor and
16 City Council meeting, Plaintiff turned his back on the Mayor and Council, and
17 in sum and substance, told the citizens in attendance: “On the issue of illegal
18 immigration, there is a concert of action between the Tucson City Council, Legal
19 Defender Isabel Garcia, and rich contractors, to import Illegal Mexican Aliens,
20 exploit their labor and exploit their votes.”
21 50. Plaintiff invited members of the audience to attend the Tucson Weekly Public
22 Forum, to speak their views, “…especially if they are contrary to mine. We want
23 to hear the Left Wing explain just why we need to keep importing and exploiting
24 Mexico’s poor.”
25 51. On March 26, 2007 Plaintiff held the third Tucson Weekly Public Forum, inside
26 its’ customary and necessary protective rope barrier, at its’ usual location, on
27 public property, near the corner of Pennington and Stone.

15
In the window of this organization a poster reminiscent of the work of ace Hitler propagandist Leni
Rifenstahl in the 1930’s states: “Prayer and Dialog, on Immigration”, yet every invitation for “Dialog”
Petitioner extends has been met with curses and violence.

10
 1 52. Plaintiff began his public address by robustly excoriating Judge Hays’ attempt to
2 silence his public speech, concluding: “Municipal Court Judges don’t have the
3 authority to silence political speech.” Plaintiff then extended an invitation to
4 speak via the public address system to the “Chicano” students who had begun to
5 gather.
6 53. One of the “Chicano” students responded by spitting on public speaker Russell
7 Dove, declaring: “This is not America! This is Mexico!”
8 54. In response to Plaintiff’s invitation, an unidentified member of the public not
9 connected to Plaintiff’s group, asked for permission and entered the perimeter to
10 speak.
11 55. In full view of TPD officers who stood idly by, a “Chicano” student kicked over
12 the corner post of the rope barrier Plaintiff had erected to keep the opposing
13 factions separate and to protect public safety, and tore down a political sign.
14 56. “Chicano” students, hurling spit, insults and death threats, then kicked down a
15 second barrier, in full view of TPD Officer Traynor, who stood smiling. Plaintiff
16 informed Officer Traynor: “You’re going up on charges for failure to protect us.”
17 57. A female counter-protester, formerly combative, accepted Plaintiff’s invitation
18 and entered the protective circle, where she used the public address system to
19 express her opinion in support of Left Wing Open Border Policy.
20 58. When a large group of “Chicano” students approached, Plaintiff extended an
21 invitation to them to speak, and told them: “I support Zapata’s dream. Mexico
22 oppresses its poor. I burn the Mexican Flag in support of Mexico’s poor.”
23 59. A Tucson Police Officer later reported that one “Chicano” student responded to
24 Plaintiff’s invitation to speak with the following comment: “Take off that gun,
25 you pussy white faggot, and step out here and we will take care of you!”
26 60. The “Chicano” students, some 50-75 in number and now under the direction and
27 control of Defendant Beth Tridico and other administrators/teachers employed by
28 Defendant Calli Olin Academy, began cursing and spitting on Plaintiff and other

11
 1 public speakers, and made the following assertions: “This is Mexico!” “We are in
2 our land, Aztlan!” “Viva La Raza!”, “All white people deserve to die!16”, etc.
3 61. Plaintiff then received a second citation for violation of the Tucson City Sound
4 Ordinance, TCC 16-31 (A), in spite of the fact Tucson Police made no attempt to
5 measure the decibel level of Plaintiff’s speech, as required by law.
6 62. In full view of Lieutenant Coleman and Officer Traynor, “Chicano” students
7 again spat upon Plaintiff, who, now angry at police for their failure to even take
8 minimal steps to protect public safety, then addressed Lieutenant Coleman and
9 Officer Traynor: “He spit on me! Go arrest him. Hop to it, Boy!”
10 63. The “Chicano” students, still under the control and direction of Defendant Beth
11 Tridico and other administrators/teachers employed by Defendant Calli Olin
12 Academy, tore and stomped on an American Flag they had stolen17, and later
13 began chanting in unison: “Mexico! Mexico! Mexico!”
14 64. All of the preceding was filmed by Plaintiff and his supporters, and by Defendant
15 KVOA Communications, Inc. That evening, Defendant KVOA News presented a
16 stunning and biased report which excoriated Plaintiff for “cursing and scream-
17 ing” and failed to mention the desecration of the American Flag, the pro-Mexico
18 chanting or any of the provocative and criminal acts committed by the “Chicano”
19 students, under the direction and control of their school administrators.
20 65. The following day, March 27, 2007, Plaintiff, in sum and substance, made the
21 following comments to the Mayor and the Tucson City Council:
22 “For the past 25 years you people and your predecessors have loaded up
23 this county and loaded up this country with Illegal Mexican Aliens. You’ve
24 done it for money and for votes. And now it’s all coming to a head.
25
26 “You’ve got one week to get your police department in shape and protect
27 public safety, or there will be bodies in the street. I’ll use deadly force to
28 protect myself from the imminent threat of death. It’ll make the OK Corral
29 look like a Sunday school picnic.
30

16
The purpose and effect of the “education” offered by the Radical Hispanic Charter Schools, based on a
racist world viewpoint, is reminiscent of the indoctrination of the German Hitler Youth in the 1930’s.
17
Officer Rede, Supplementary Narrative # TPD 0703260414, dated 3/26/06.

12
 1 “There’s a federal lawsuit and injunction coming. And some of you people
2 are going to jail!”
3
4 66. On March 31, 2007 Plaintiff was arrested for his conduct on March 26, 2007 at
5 the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, and charged with various misdemeanors, in-
6 cluding unlawful assembly and intent to riot.
7 67. As a condition of release Municipal Court Judge Riojas ordered Plaintiff not to
8 possess a firearm, come within 500 feet of any demonstration or come within
9 500 yards of the location of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, located at the
10 corner of Pennington and Stone, Tucson Arizona.
11 68. Judge Riojas’ Order barred Plaintiff from (1) attending the meetings of the Pima
12 County Board of Supervisors and the Tucson City Council and, (2) entering the
13 Pima County Superior Court and the Pima County Justice Court even though
14 Plaintiff had actions before both courts.
15 69. On April 04, 2007, after assigning Plaintiff’s defense to the Tucson City Public
16 Defender18, Judge Hays threatened Plaintiff: “You probably will be arrested if
17 you return to address the Tucson City Council.”
18 70. On April 19, 2007 and April 24, 2007 representatives of Defendant Coalicion de
19 Derechos Humanos met with Tucson Police Department Officials for the
20 purpose of denying Plaintiff his constitutional rights.
21 71. On April 23, 2007 Municipal Court Judge Riojas, upon motion by Tucson City
22 Prosecutor Alan Merritt who clearly stated his objective was to stop Plaintiff
23 from speaking at a political rally in Armory Park on May 01, 200719 in
24 opposition to Defendants Isabel Garcia, Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, and
25 other left wing radical Hispanic hate groups who openly seek the violent over-
26 throw of the United States government, issued another Order which suspended
27 all Plaintiff’s first amendment rights, all of Plaintiff’s second amendment rights
28 within 500 feet of any political demonstration, and prevented Plaintiff from
29 speaking in Armory Park on May 01, 2007.

18
The Tucson City Public Defender declined Plaintiff’s defense in Case 1 and 2, citing a “conflict of
interest.”
19
Defendants Isabel Garcia and Coalicion de Derechos Humanos organized the May 01, 2007 demonstra-
tion.

13
 1 72. On September 12, 2007 Superior Court Judge Hector Acuna reversed Municipal
2 Court Judges Hays order prohibiting Plaintiff from coming within 500 feet of
3 any demonstration.
4 73. On November 01, 2007 Judge Hays reversed his own order barring Plaintiff
5 from coming within 500 feet of any demonstration.
6 74. On November 27, 2007 Judge Hays reversed all Judge Riojas’ orders barring
7 Plaintiff from coming within 500 feet of any demonstration or 500 yards of the
8 former location of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, located near the corner of
9 Pennington and Stone, thus restoring Plaintiff’s right to address his public
10 officials at their public meetings and on the public square.
11 VI. COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
12 75. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
13 1-73 as though fully set forth herein.
14 76. The Arizona Supreme Court has stated:
15 “Any question regarding infringement of First Amendment rights is of the
16 utmost gravity and importance, for it goes to the heart of the natural rights
17 of citizens to impart and acquire information which is necessary for the
18 well being of a free society. Since an informed public is the most
19 important of all restraints upon misgovernment, (the government may not
20 take) any…action which might prevent free and general discussion of
21 public matters as seems essential to prepare the people for an intelligent
22 exercise of their rights as citizens.” New Times Inc. v Arizona Board of
23 Regents, 110 Ariz. 367, 519 P.2d 169 (1974)
24
25 77. In harassing, intimidating, and working in concert with local government
26 officials to stop Plaintiff’s political communications and the commission of con-
27 stitutionally protected acts, Defendants acted maliciously, with an evil mind, in
28 bad faith, and, with a callous and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights guaran-
29 teed by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona, as
30 generally set forth above and as set forth with particularity in paragraph 3.
31 Defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of the harm done to Plaintiff.
32 VII. COUNT TWO: ABUSE OF PROCESS
33 78. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
34 1-76 as though fully set forth herein.

14
 1 79. By directing the Tucson Police Department to (1) cite Plaintiff for alleged vio-
2 lations of the Tucson City Noise Ordinance (TCC 16-31), and (2) to arrest Plain-
3 tiff for speaking out in opposition to open border policy and left wing political
4 agendas, and (3) by directing the Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin to com-
5 mence a series of three criminal prosecutions intended to intimidate and prevent
6 Plaintiff from engaging in political activities in opposition to Tucson City Policy,
7 and (4) by “coaching” and assisting in the coaching of the complaining wit-
8 nessses at Plaintiff’s second trial, Defendants acted maliciously, with an evil
9 mind, in bad faith, and, with a callous and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights
10 guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona, as
11 generally set forth above and as set forth with particularity in paragraph 3.
12 Defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of the harm done to Plaintiff.
13 VIII. COUNT THREE: CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
14 80. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
15 1-78 as though fully set forth herein.
16 81. Title 18 U.S.C. Part 1 Chapter 13 §241, provides:
17 “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate
18 any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District
19 in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
20 by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having
21 so exercised the same…(t)hey shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
22 not more than ten years, or both.”
23
24 82. From on or about April 10, 2006 when Defendants first communicated with (1)
25 each other, (2) officials from the Mexican Consulate, and (3) local government
26 officials, for the purpose of denying Plaintiff rights secured by the Constitutions
27 of the United States and the State of Arizona, to April 23, 2007 when Municipal
28 Court Judge Riojas, acting under the direction of Defendant Isabel Garcia and
29 other named and unnamed defendants, suspended Plaintiff’s right to enter
30 Armory Park on May 01, 2007 and speak out against the malfeasant activities of
31 Defendants Isabel Garcia, Coalicion de Derechos Humanos and MEChA, and
32 other racist Hispanic hate groups intent on the continued violation of US immi-
33 gration policy and border law, Defendants received and responded to Plaintiff’s

15
 1 various protected communications and publications, communicated with each
2 other, and individually and in concert with others, acted maliciously, with an evil
3 mind, in bad faith, with a callous and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights,
4 with the specific intent of depriving Plaintiff of rights guaranteed by the
5 Constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona. Defendant’s actions
6 were the proximate cause of the harm done to Plaintiff.
7 IX. CONCLUSION
8 For nearly a century the Federal Courts have energetically protected the
9 expressive rights of those who exist on the fringes of American society—Communists,
10 Nazis, Klansmen and Hells Angels—with the following rationale: “If we don’t protect
11 the rights of the minority among us, someday the government will step in and deny these
12 rights to the rest of us.”
13 In Whitney v People of the State of California, 47 S.Ct. 648, 649 the Supreme
14 Court wrote eloquently on the issue of free speech:
15 “Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did
16 not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. They
17 believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of
18 liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you
19 think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth;
20 that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile;…that the
21 greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a
22 political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American
23 government.”
24
25 “They recognized…that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable gov-
26 ernment…They eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its
27 worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they
28 amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaran-
29 teed.”
30 Moreover; “(a)s Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v Oregon, 299 US 353,
31 365, 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government
32 remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to
33 speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief
34 distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.” Terminiello v City of Chicago,
35 337 U.S. 1 (1949).

16
 1 The long-feared day of totalitarianism, of blatant disregard for the right of free
2 political expression and the harsh reality of brown-shirted thugs wearing jack boots
3 strutting through the streets of an American city, has finally come to pass. The
4 Defendants’ conspiracy to (1) silence the voice of political dissent, and (2) to protect the
5 criminal activities of their own radical Hispanic hate groups whose clearly stated
6 objective is the violent overthrow of the United States government, and (3) to shape
7 public opinion and to protect from public view the local government’s criminal enterprise
8 to extend its’ financial and left-wing political agenda, is taken directly from Hitler’s play-
9 book.
10 Our Founding Fathers established the Courts for perilous and revolutionary times
11 such as these. During the great Civil Rights era, the Courts protected the political rights
12 of the American people so they could organize, assemble and accomplish what in effect
13 was a peaceful revolution; Plaintiff earnestly prays this Court will do no less now.
14 X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
16 A) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount deemed fair, just and
17 reasonable, for (1) the harm Plaintiff has suffered as set forth in paragraph 3
18 above, (2) the emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered by his loss of rights and
19 reputation, (3) Plaintiff’s loss of income as a result of having to defend himself
20 in three criminal prosecutions, (4) the intentional deprivation of the Plaintiff’s
21 civil rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
22 United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983;
23 B) Award Plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000.00 (ten million
24 dollars) as an example to the Defendants and to deter other individuals, media,
25 and political groups from acting with an evil mind in a similar malicious and
26 unlawful manner;
27 C) Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
28 §1988; and;

17
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28
 1

10

11

12

13

14

29