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

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

2
 1 IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

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

3 Sense II, CS II Press and Director of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, is a
4 citizen of the United States and was a resident of Pima County Arizona at all
5 times relevant to this complaint.
6 6. Defendant Mike Hein was employed by the City of Tucson and acted indivi-
7 dually and in his official capacity as Tucson City Manager, under color of state
8 law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein. Defendant
9 Hein is sued in his individual and official capacities.
10 7. Defendant Richard Miranda was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
11 individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Tucson Police
12 Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
13 times relevant herein. Defendant Miranda is sued in his individual and official
14 capacities.
15 8. Defendant Kathleen Robinson was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
16 individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Tucson Police
17 Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
18 times relevant herein. Defendant Robinson is sued in her individual and official
19 capacities.
20 9. Defendant Mike Gilhooly was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
21 individually and in his official capacity as Captain of the Tucson Police
22 Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
23 times relevant herein. Defendant Gilhooly is sued in his individual and official
24 capacities.
25 10. Defendant Jeff Coleman was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
26 individually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the Tucson Police
27 Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
28 times relevant herein. Defendant Coleman is sued in his individual and official
29 capacities.
30 11. Defendant Anemone was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted individually
31 and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the Tucson Police Department, under

3
 1 color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein.
2 Defendant Anemone is sued in his individual and official capacities.
3 12. Defendant Bradley Traynor was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
4 individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant of the Tucson Police
5 Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
6 times relevant herein. Defendant Traynor is sued in his individual and official
7 capacities.
8 13. Defendant D. Azuelo was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted indivi-
9 dually and in his official capacity as Sergeant of the Tucson Police Department,
10 under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant
11 herein. Defendant Azuelo is sued in his individual and official capacities.
12 14. Defendant Brian Moore was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
13 individually and in his official capacity as Detective of the Tucson Police
14 Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
15 times relevant herein. Defendant Moore is sued in his individual and official
16 capacities.
17 15. Defendant Sharon Smith was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
18 individually and in her official capacity as Detective of the Tucson Police
19 Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
20 times relevant herein. Defendant Smith is sued in her individual and official
21 capacities.
22 16. Defendant Portillo was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted individually
23 and in his official capacity as Officer of the Tucson Police Department, under
24 color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein.
25 Defendant Portillo is sued in his individual and official capacities.
26 17. Defendant Lucero was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted individually
27 and in his official capacity as Officer of the Tucson Police Department, under
28 color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein.
29 Defendant Lucero is sued in his individual and official capacities.
30 18. Defendant Peg Weber was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
31 individually and in her official capacity as Director of the Northwest District of

4
 1 the Tucson City Parks and Recreation Department, under color of state law,
2 regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein. Defendant Weber is
3 sued in her individual and official capacities.
4 19. Defendant Marco Alcantara was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted
5 individually and in his official capacity as employee of the Tucson City Parks
6 and Recreation Department, under color of state law, regulations, customs and
7 policies at all times relevant herein. Defendant Alcantara is sued in his individual
8 and official capacities.
9 20. Defendant Wade Colwell, believed to be a resident of Pima County, acted indivi-
10 dually and in his capacity as agent of the state, under the direction and control of
11 Kathleen Robinson and other Defendants, when he assaulted Plaintiff on May 06,
12 2006 in Kennedy Park, Tucson Arizona, for the purposes of depriving Plaintiff of
13 his constitutional rights.
14 21. Defendant Luke Salcido, believed to be a resident of Pima County, acted indivi-
15 dually and in his capacity as agent of the state, under the direction and control of
16 Kathleen Robinson and other Defendants, when he assaulted Plaintiff on May 06,
17 2006 in Kennedy Park, Tucson Arizona, for the purposes of depriving Plaintiff of
18 his constitutional rights.
19 22. Defendant Arturo Rodriquez, believed to be a resident of Pima County, acted
20 individually and in his capacity as agent of the state on June 03, 2006 in front of
21 the Mexican Consulate when, under the direction and control of Kathleen
22 Robinson and other Defendants, he assaulted Plaintiff for the purposes of
23 interrupting Plaintiff’s rally and depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.
24 23. Defendant Alexander Rodriquez, believed to be a resident of Pima County, acted
25 individually and in his capacity as agent of the state on June 03, 2006 in front of
26 the Mexican Consulate when, under the direction and control of Kathleen
27 Robinson and other Defendants, he assisted Defendant Arturo Rodriquez in
28 assaulting Plaintiff for the purposes of interrupting Plaintiff’s rally and depriving
29 Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.
30 24. Defendant City of Tucson, a municipal corporation, is a unit of local government
31 organized under the laws of the State of Arizona. Municipalities “…may be sued

5
 1 for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even
2 though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s
3 official decision-making channels.” Monell v. Department of Social Services,
4 436 U.S. 658, 690, 691 (1978)
5 25. Defendant Does 1-100 are (1) individuals or members of radical, racist Hispanic
6 hate groups, who acted as agents of the state under the direction or control of
7 named or unnamed Defendants, and (2) Tucson City employees, including em-
8 ployees of the Tucson Police Department, who acted individually and at the
9 direction of their superiors, within their enforcement, administrative and execu-
10 tive capacities, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
11 times relevant herein. Does 1-100 are sued in their individual and official
12 capacities.
13 26. All of the original named Defendants1 were served with Notices of Claim,
14 pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01, that included an administrative demand. None of
15 the original Defendants responded to the administrative demand.
16 V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

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

1
Original Defendants were named in the First Amended Complaint

6
 1 29. Additionally, Plaintiff is the Plaintiff in Warden v Hoffman, Fell, Leonardo, etc.,
2 Case No. CV 05-020 TUC JCG, and Warden v. Garcia, et. al , Case No. CV 07-
3 664 TUC JMR, both Title 42 § 1983 actions now before the Court.
4 30. On March 06, 2004 a small group of “Protect the Border” political activists2
5 gathered in Presidio Park, Tucson Arizona, to protest the open border policies of
6 Pima County and Tucson City Officials.
7 31. On March 06, 2004 Tucson Police Department officers, in furtherance of Tucson
8 City Policy3, stood idly by and allowed a group of open border “counter
9 protestors”, some wearing masks and carrying signs which stated “Gringo
10 Dumb-Fucks. We Are All Standing in Mexico Here” and other assertions of
11 Mexican sovereignty over Tucson Arizona, to spit, swear , approach menacingly,
12 physically assault and otherwise terrify those protesting the open border policies
13 of Pima County and Tucson City Officials.
14 32. On March 06, 2004 TPD Officer Wall arrested Maydell Purvis, an 80 year old
15 “Protect the Border” activist, when she reached out defensively to pull the mask
16 off of a counter protestor who was tormenting her. Ms. Purvis was charged with
17 and convicted for assault.
18 33. Subsequently, “Protect the Border” activists were subdued and deterred from en-
19 gaging in any form of public protest in Tucson Arizona. See Declaration of
20 Kathy McKee attached as Exhibit One.
21 34. On April 10, 2006 Plaintiff organized a lawful political demonstration to protest
22 15,000 left-wing Open Border Activists who had gathered in Armory Park,
23 Tucson Arizona, to hear public speakers, including members of the Tucson City
24 Council and Pima County Board of Supervisors, declare their support for the
25 abolishment of the American/Mexican border, the overthrow of the United States
26 Government and the governments of various states, and the creation of a new
27 empire in the American southwest called “Aztlan.”

2
These activists included Kathy McKee, the author of Proposition 200, the seminal Arizona proposition
which first limited the “rights” of illegal immigrants and denied them access to some public benefits.
3
For a number of years in furtherance of Tucson City Policy, the Tucson Police Department has employed
the specific tactics of “Cointelpro,” a discredited program covertly operated by the F.B.I, which exposed,
disrupted, misdirected, discredited and otherwise neutralized dissident political organizations operating
within the United States between 1956 and 1971.

7
 1 35. The theme of the Open Border Activists, as set forth on Congressman Raul
2 Grijalva’s website, was “Hoy Marchamos! Manana Votamos!”4
3 36. On April 10, 2006 Plaintiff and a small group of supporters entered Armory Park,
4 stood on the shuffleboard court and used a bullhorn to communicate the
5 following political message to 15,000 Open Border Activists:
6 “Your left wing leadership has betrayed you and Emiliano Zapata. The
7 Mexican government exploits its people and sends two million of its
8 citizens into exile each year. They come to America where they are
9 econominally and politically exploited by right wing employers and left
10 wing radical Hispanic hate groups who advocate the violent overthrow
11 of the United States. You must return to Mexico and fight your revolu-
12 tion there.”
13
14 37. On April 10, 2006, Plaintiff’s group was surrounded by a group of Open Border
15 Activists named “Peacekeepers” who joined hands in a protective circle to keep
16 the opposing groups separate and promote public safety. In spite of numerous
17 pleas by the “Peacekeepers” the Open Border Activists spit, cursed and hurled
18 objects at Plaintiff and his supporters. Plaintiff was struck in the head by a frozen
19 water bottle.
20 38. Plaintiff submits the Tucson Police Department After Action Report, dated May
21 10, 2006, accurately documents numerous acts of violence committed by Open
22 Border Activists, including felony aggravated assaults on TPD Officers5, in
23 Armory Park, on April 10, 2006.
24 39. Sometime on or about April 11, 2006 Defendants Hein and Miranda met with
25 Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia and other prominent Open Border
26 Activists, and came to an agreement to deprive Plaintiff of his rights under the
27 First Amendment.
28 40. On April 11, 2006 Plaintiff was arrested by Defendant Moore for events that
29 occurred during the rally the previous day, charged with Reckless Burning 6,
30 Criminal Damage, and Assault, denied a trial by jury, and tried before the bench

4
“Today we march! Tomorrow we vote!”
5
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.
6
Reckless Burning is a subdivision of the Arizona Arson Statute.

8
 1 of Tucson Municipal Court Judge Eugene Hays. On November 01, 2006,
2 Plaintiff was acquitted.
3 41. Several days after Plaintiff’s arrest on April 11, 2006, TPD assistant Chief
4 Robinson came to his residence, promised TPD protection for Plaintiff’s future
5 rallies and political events if he would agree not to demonstrate on May 01,
6 2006, and emphatically stated: “You don’t understand just how much these
7 people hate you Mr. Warden. They mean to kill you!”
8 42. On or about May 05, 2006, Tucson Parks and Recreation Department employee
9 Marco Alcantara, directed by unknown Tucson City Officials, submitted a fraud-
10 ulent work estimate regarding repairs to the Armory Park Shuffleboard Court to
11 North West District Supervisor Peg Weber, who, knowing it was fraudulent,
12 gave it to Tucson City Prosecutor Alan Merritt for Plaintiff’s prosecution in Case
13 One, as set forth in paragraph 40.
14 43. On May 06, 2006, while engaged in lawful7 political activities in Kennedy Park,
15 Tucson Arizona, Plaintiff was assaulted by Wade Colwell, Luke Salcido, and
16 other local Open Border Activists, in full view of Tucson Police Officers (in-
17 cluding Defendants Anemone, Azuelo and Portillo) and KVOA News reporter
18 Lorraine Rivera. That night, via a KVOA News interview conducted by Lorraine
19 Rivera, Wade Colwell stated the purpose of his assault was to prevent Plaintiff
20 and his supporters from engaging in political speech and the commission of
21 symbolic acts protected by the First Amendment of the United States Consti-
22 tution.
23 44. Just prior to the assault on May 06, 2006 Wade Colwell asserted his prior com-
24 munications with TPD Assistant Police Chief Kathleen Robinson, whom Colwell
25 stated, counseled him and others and approved of the assault: “We spoke with
26 Kathy (Robinson) for 2 hours. She told us what we could do!”
27 45. Plaintiff now possesses a DVD video recording revealing Assistant TPD Police
28 Chief Robinson and other uniformed police officers (including Defendants
29 Anemone, Azuelo and Portillo) aiding, abetting, and congratulating Colwell,

7
Plaintiff’s basic political message, as set forth in paragraph 36, has remained constant..

9
 1 Salcido, and other Open Border Activists, for the success of their assault in
2 Kennedy Park on May 06, 2006, which did prevent Plaintiff and his followers
3 from completing their speeches and committing the constitutionally protected
4 symbolic act of Burning the Mexican Flag8.
5 46. Plaintiff’s DVD records an unidentified TPD officer (presumed to be either
6 Defendants Anemone, Azuelo or Portillo), engaged in the following communica-
7 tion with Defendants Salcido, Colwell and other Open Border Activists, subse-
8 quent to their successful assault on Plaintiff in Kennedy Park on May 06, 2006:
9 TPD Officer:
10 “You did good…(W)e need to try and out-think him (Plaintiff), and
11 when we make a statement that we’re gonna leave you and you’re
12 gonna have to contend with this crowd on your own, it gives him a
13 little something to think about, and maybe that’s a little bit more
14 reason for him to leave...”
15
16 Open Border Activist:
17 “It came out good. That’s the way it’s supposed to go.”
18 Defendant Wade Colwell :
19 “So that’s really...it did work, and it’ll work the next time. Just one
20 second... (turning to Defendant Kathleen Robinson) “Kathy, thanks
21 for giving me the “heads up!”
22
23 47. In his Supplementary Report No 0605068012, Defendant Azuelo stated, in
24 reference to Plaintiff, that Defendant Gillooly told him in Kennedy Park, “I was
25 not to make an arrest or take any action as this was going to be handled in
26 another venue.”
27 48. On June 03, 2006 Plaintiff participated in a political demonstration in front of the
28 Mexican Consulate, located at 553 South Stone Street, Tucson Arizona. At this
29 and all future events, Plaintiff erected a simple rope barrier to maintain a
30 perimeter between speakers and counter-demonstrators, and to protect public
31 safety9.

8
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.”
9
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.

10
 1 49. During the June 03, 2006 protest in front of the Mexican Consulate, when
2 Plaintiff and other demonstrators were first approached by Defendants Arturo
3 and Alexander Rodriquez, one of Plaintiff’s fellow protestors called 911 because
4 he feared Defendants Arturo and Alexander Rodriquez, and a companion, would
5 commit violence against Plaintiff and his fellow protestors.10
6 50. At Plaintiff’s trial on December 15, 2006 Defendant Robinson testified that she
7 had assigned officers to provide police protection at all of Plaintiff’s demonstra-
8 tions, including the June 03, 2006 protest in front of the Mexican Consulate;
9 however no police were present at the demonstration and no one responded to the
10 911 call for help cited above even though TPD is less than 4 blocks away from
11 the Mexican Consulate.
12 51. During the June 03, 2006 protest in front of the Mexican Consulate, in the
13 absence of any police presence whatsoever, Plaintiff was compelled to issue stern
14 words of warning and take minor defensive measures to promote public safety
15 and to repel an assault committed by Arturo Rodriquez, a “Chicano” student
16 activist and self proclaimed “proud member of MEChA11” who, after first in-
17 forming Plaintiff that “I want to fuck your mother12,” aggressively pushed across
18 Plaintiff’s rope barrier and advanced menacingly towards the public speaker.
19 52. On June 06, 2006 Tucson Police Officers, acting upon a citation issued by
20 Defendant Smith, arrested Plaintiff while he participated in a demonstration
21 outside the Tucson City Council and charged Plaintiff with Assault, Disturbing
22 the Peace and Making Threats and Intimidation, all misdemeanor charges arising
23 out of Plaintiff’s political activities outside the Mexican Consulate on June 03,
24 2006. The case was eventually assigned (again) to Tucson Municipal Court
25 Judge Eugene Hays. Again, Plaintiff was denied trial by jury.

10
See testimony of Victor Walker and Roy Warden, Reporter’s Transcript of Plaintiff’s second trial, held
on December 15, 2006.
11
MEChA, a radical student organization, actively promotes the establishment of Aztlan in the American
southwest.
12
See testimony of Roy Warden, Victor Walker and Arturo Rodriquez, Reporter’s Transcript of Plaintiff’s
second trial, held on December 15, 2006.

11
 1 53. On December 15, 2006 Defendants Arturo and Alexander Rodriquez testified at
2 Plaintiff’s trial, under the direction and control of Pima County Legal Defender
3 Isabel Garcia13, who gave hand signals and otherwise “coached” both Defendants
4 while each gave testimony.
5 54. On December 22, 2006 Plaintiff was legally restrained from giving additional
6 testimony and convicted by Judge Hays, in absentia14, for assault, and two counts
7 of making threats and intimidation. Subsequently, Judge Hays sentenced Plaintiff
8 to three years probation, prohibited Plaintiff from going within 500 feet of any
9 public demonstration (even his own) and suspended Plaintiff right to carry a side
10 arm in self defense. The conviction is now under appeal. The suspension of
11 Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights was reversed by Pima Superior Court Judge
12 Hector Acuna on September 12, 2007. (See paragraph 91)
13 55. On August 17, 2006, Plaintiff and a group of supporters were prevented from
14 engaging in public speech using a public address system from a public sidewalk
15 located directly across the street from the entrance to the Armory Park Commun-
16 ity Center, where a group of Open Border Activists, led by Isabel Garcia and
17 Congressman (CDR 7) Raul Grijalva, were conducting what had been advertised
18 as a “public meeting to address community concerns on border issues.”
19 56. Defendant TPD Assistant Chief Robinson moved Plaintiff and supporters ½
20 block away to another location; when Plaintiff asked Defendant Robinson her
21 authority for moving the group’s location and denying his use of a bullhorn, she
22 provided none, other than to say, “If you don’t stop you will be arrested.”
23 57. On March 06, 2007, during the customary “Call to the Audience” portion of the
24 Tucson City Council meeting, Plaintiff announced the beginning of the Tucson
25 Weekly Public Forum, and offered robust condemnation to the Mayor and City
26 Council for their support of Open Border Policy, the violation of federal immi-

13
Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia is now under suit in Warden v Garcia, et. al, CIV 07-664
TUC JMR.
14
Tucson Municipal Court Judge Bowman issued a restraining order on behalf of Pima County Legal Def-
ender Isabel Garcia, Director of an Open Border advocacy group called “Derechos Humanos, which pre-
vented Plaintiff from attending the second day of his own trial.

12
 1 gration law, and the importation of millions of Mexican Illegal Aliens into the
2 United States.
3 58. On March 12, 2007 between 11:45 am and 1:15 pm15, Plaintiff convened the first
4 Tucson Weekly Public Forum on the public sidewalk, near the corner of
5 Pennington and Stone, adjacent to the Tucson City Public Library, and began
6 distributing the “Isabel Garcia” edition of Common Sense II to all those in
7 attendance.
8 59. Plaintiff’s literature was torn up by “Chicano” students. Plaintiff was sworn at,
9 spat upon and threatened with death by these same “Chicano” students, in spite
10 of Plaintiff’s invitation to enter the rope barrier, use the public address system
11 and speak, all in full view Tucson Police Officers16 who stood idly by and did
12 nothing to stop the assaults or to maintain public order.
13 60. On March 13, 2007 Plaintiff, via the “Call to the Audience”, again excoriated the
14 Mayor and Tucson City Council, and declared: “For the past 25 years the
15 business of Pima County and Tucson has been the importation and exploitation
16 of Illegal Alien Mexicans, and for 25 years business has been good!”
17 61. On March 19, 2007 Plaintiff held the second Tucson Weekly Public Forum. A
18 crowd of “Chicano” students gathered, including self announced members of “La
19 Raza” and “MEChA” who (apparently) originated from the Calli Ollin Academy,
20 a charter school adjacent to “Chicanos por la Causa17”.
21 62. The “Chicano” students again ignored Plaintiff’s invitation to speak, declared
22 that Plaintiff would be raped should he ever end up in jail, and began spitting on
23 and swearing at Plaintiff and other public speakers, in full view of Tucson Police
24 Officers, including Defendants Gilhooly and Coleman, who stood idly by and
25 made no effort to stop the assaults or to maintain public order.
26 63. Via public address system, Plaintiff described the rape threats with particular
27 detail, excoriated Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia, and declared:

15
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.
16
Several “Chicano” students appeared to be under the direction and control of TPD Officer Lucero.
17
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.

13
 1 “Someday federal agents are going to surround your building, come into your
2 office and arrest you!”
3 64. At Captain Gilhooly’s direction, Petitioner was cited for violation of the Tucson
4 City Sound Ordinance, TCC 16-31 (A), in spite of the fact Tucson Police made
5 no attempt to measure the decibel level of Plaintiff’s speech, as required by law.
6 65. On March 20, 2007 during the “Call to the Audience”, Plaintiff turned his back
7 on the Mayor and Tucson City Council, and, in sum and substance, told the
8 citizens in attendance: “On the issue of illegal immigration, there is a concert of
9 action between the Tucson City Council, Legal Defender Isabel Garcia, and rich
10 contractors, to import Illegal Mexican Aliens, exploit their labor and exploit their
11 votes.”
12 66. Plaintiff invited members of the audience to attend the Tucson Weekly Public
13 Forum, to speak their views, “…especially if they are contrary to mine. We want
14 to hear the Left Wing explain just why we need to keep importing and exploiting
15 Mexico’s poor.”
16 67. On March 26, 2007 Plaintiff held the third Tucson Weekly Public Forum, inside
17 its customary and necessary protective rope barrier, at its usual location, on
18 public property, near the corner of Pennington and Stone.
19 68. Plaintiff began his public address by robustly excoriating Judge Hays’ attempt to
20 silence his public speech, concluding: “Municipal Court Judges don’t have the
21 authority to silence political speech.” Plaintiff then extended an invitation to
22 speak via the public address system to the “Chicano” students who had begun to
23 gather.
24 69. One of the “Chicano” students responded by spitting on public speaker Russell
25 Dove, declaring: “This is not America! This is Mexico!”
26 70. In response to Plaintiff’s invitation, an unidentified member of the public not
27 connected to Plaintiff’s group, asked for permission and entered the perimeter to
28 speak.
29 71. In full view of TPD officers who stood idly by, a “Chicano” student kicked over
30 the corner post of the rope barrier Plaintiff had erected to keep the opposing
31 factions separate and to protect public safety, and tore down a political sign.

14
 1 72. “Chicano” students, hurling spit, insults and death threats, then kicked down a
2 second barrier, in full view of Defendant Traynor, who stood smiling. Plaintiff
3 informed Defendant Traynor: “You’re going up on charges for failure to protect
4 us.”
5 73. A female counter-protester, formerly combative, asked permission and entered
6 the protective circle, where she used the public address system to express her
7 opinion in support of Left Wing Open Border Policy.
8 74. When a large group of “Chicano” students approached, Plaintiff extended an
9 invitation to speak, and told them: “I stand up in support of Zapata’s dream.
10 Mexico oppresses its poor. I burn the Mexican Flag in support of Mexico’s
11 poor.”
12 75. A Tucson Police Officer later reported that one “Chicano” student responded to
13 Plaintiff’s invitation to speak with the following comment: “Take off that gun,
14 you pussy white faggot, and step out here and we will take care of you!”
15 76. The “Chicano” students, some 50-75 in number and now under the direction and
16 control of their teachers, began cursing and spitting on Plaintiff and other public
17 speakers, and made the following assertions: “This is Mexico!” “We are in our
18 land, Aztlan!” “Viva La Raza!”, “All white people deserve to die!18”, and a host
19 of other expletives so vile and so disgusting, that a proper sense of decorum
20 inhibits Plaintiff from setting them forth here.
21 77. Plaintiff then received a second citation for violation of the Tucson City Sound
22 Ordinance, TCC 16-31 (A), in spite of the fact Tucson Police made no attempt to
23 measure the decibel level of Plaintiff’s speech, as required by law.
24 78. In full view of Defendants Coleman and Traynor, “Chicano” students again spat
25 upon Plaintiff, who, now angry at police for their failure to even take minimal
26 steps to protect public safety, then addressed Defendants Coleman and Traynor:
27 “He spit on me! Go arrest him. Hop to it, Boy!”

18
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.

15
 1 79. The “Chicano” students, still under the control and direction of their teachers
2 from the Calli Ollin Academy, tore and stomped on an American Flag, and later
3 began chanting in unison: “Mexico! Mexico! Mexico!”
4 80. All of the preceding was filmed by Plaintiff and his supporters, and by Channel
5 50 News. That evening, KVOA News presented a stunning and biased report
6 which failed to mention the desecration of the American Flag, the pro-Mexico
7 chanting or any of the provocative and criminal acts committed by the “Chicano”
8 students.
9 81. The following day, March 27, 2007, Plaintiff, in sum and substance, made the
10 following comments to the Mayor and the Tucson City Council:
11 “For the past 25 years you people and your predecessors have loaded up
12 this county and loaded up this country with Illegal Mexican Aliens. You’ve
13 done it for money and for votes. And now it’s all coming to a head.
14
15 “You’ve got one week to get your police department in shape and protect
16 public safety, or there will be bodies in the street. I’ll use deadly force to
17 protect myself from the imminent threat of death. It’ll make the OK Corral
18 look like a Sunday school picnic.
19
20 “There’s a federal lawsuit and injunction coming. And some of you people
21 are going to jail!”
22
23 82. On Saturday March 31, 2007, five days after the third meeting of the Tucson
24 Weekly Public Forum, a TPD squad wearing full body protection, under the
25 command of Defendant Coleman, arrested Plaintiff as he left the residence of a
26 personal friend and political supporter who was in New York, away on family
27 business.
28 83. Plaintiff was charged with various misdemeanors including three counts of
29 Disorderly Conduct, one count of Making Threats and Intimidation and one
30 count of Unlawful Assembly, all arising out of Plaintiff’s conduct at the Tucson
31 Weekly Public Forum the previous Monday.
32 84. Over Plaintiff’s strenuous objections, TPD officers, (apparently) acting on a
33 warrant issued by Superior Court Judge Bernini, searched Plaintiff’s car, seized
34 the public address equipment necessary for the Tucson Weekly Public Forum,
35 entered the private residence of Plaintiff’s supporter, seized Plaintiff’s firearm

16
 1 and Taser device, rifled through various drawers and clothing, emptied and re-
2 filled several small jewelry boxes, examined Plaintiff’s evidentiary tape and
3 video recordings and (apparently) viewed and copied Plaintiff ‘s computer files.
4 85. Plaintiff was booked into the Pima County jail, put into protective custody, and
5 subjected to various threats by Hispanic Pima County Deputy Sheriffs, includ-
6 ing: “We got Ramos and we’ll get you!”
7 86. The condition of Plaintiff’s release, preventing him from coming within 500
8 yards of the location he used for the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, was
9 confirmed on April 04, 2007 by Judge Hays who was assigned Plaintiff’s case
10 again for the third time. Plaintiff was prohibited from (1) attending monthly
11 meetings of the Tucson Civilian Police Advisory Review Board, (2 ) making a
12 report to the Independent Police Auditor, (3) going to the offices of attorneys
13 who represented some of Plaintiff’s various interests, (4) entering the Pima
14 County Justice Court or the Pima County Superior Court, (5) attending meetings
15 of the Pima County Board of Supervisors and Tucson City Council, and (6)
16 engaging in any activity within the vicinity of the Tucson Municipal Court,
17 except to attend his own hearings.
18 87. On April 04, 2007, after assigning Plaintiff’s defense to the Tucson City Public
19 Defender19, Judge Hays told Plaintiff: “You probably will be arrested if you
20 return to address the Tucson City Council.”
21 88. In his Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record dated April 12, 2007, Tucson
22 City Public Defender Charles Davis succinctly apprised Judge Hays of the poli-
23 tical ramifications of Plaintiff’s current prosecution, as set forth in paragraphs
24 38-43 above:
25 “(I)t has come to our attention that the defendant recently addressed the
26 City Council “Call to the Audience.” Apparently, several of the
27 Council members felt threatened by defendant in his remarks20. This
28 puts us in an untenable position in terms of our ability to represent
29 the defendant. We are a City department that relies on the City

19
The Tucson City Public Defender declined Plaintiff’s defense in Case 1 and 2, citing a “conflict of
interest.”
20
Referring to the March 27, 2007 meeting of the Tucson City Council, as set forth in paragraph 37, when
Plaintiff apprised the Tucson City Council: “Some of you people are going to jail!”.

17
 1 Council for budget support and policy direction. Defendant must
2 have an attorney who has no ties to the City Council or the City of
3 Tucson government.” (emphasis added)
4
5 89. On April 23, 2007 Municipal Court Judge Riojas, upon motion by Tucson City
6 Prosecutor Alan Merritt who clearly stated his objective was to stop Plaintiff
7 from speaking in Armory Park on May 01, 2007 in opposition to left wing radi-
8 cal Hispanics who seek the violent overthrow of the United States government,
9 issued an Order of the Court which suspended all Plaintiff’s first amendment
10 rights, all of Plaintiff’s second amendment rights within 500 feet of any political
11 demonstration, and prevented Plaintiff from speaking in Armory Park on May
12 01, 2007.
13 90. On May 04, 2007, in an editorial entitled “Immigration reform: The time is now”
14 noting the lack of enthusiasm of Counter Protestors to the demonstration in
15 Armory Park for Immigration Reform (Open Border Policy) on May 01, 2007,
16 the editor of the Arizona Star stated:
17 “According to a story by Lourdes Medrano and Dale Quinn in
18 Wednesday’s Star, some 2,500 Tucsonans marched in favor of
19 reforming the nation’s broken immigration laws. Counter protestors
20 numbered about half a dozen.
21
22 “The Tucson showing was a high-point for anti-immigration forces.
23
24 “If more people truly feel it is in the best interest of this country to
25 deport all illegal immigrants and greatly increase border security, then
26 more counter-protestors would have gone out to blunt the message of
27 those in favor of immigration reform.”
28
29 91. On September 12, 2007 Superior Court Judge Hector Acuna reversed Municipal
30 Court Judges Hays order prohibiting Plaintiff from coming within 500 feet of
31 any demonstration.
32 92. On November 01, 2007 Judge Hays reversed Judge Riojas’ order, dated April
33 23, 2007, and his own order barring Plaintiff from coming within 500 feet of any
34 demonstration, thus restoring Plaintiff’s right to address his public officials at
35 their public meetings and on the public square.

18
 1 93. On November 01, 2007 Plaintiff, after having been denied his rights under the
2 First Amendment for eight months, resumed his public speaking in front of the
3 Mexican Consulate, Tucson Arizona.
4 VI. COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
5 94. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
6 1-93 as though fully set forth herein.
7 95. The Arizona Supreme Court has stated:
8 “Any question regarding infringement of First Amendment rights is of the
9 utmost gravity and importance, for it goes to the heart of the natural rights
10 of citizens to impart and acquire information which is necessary for the
11 well being of a free society. Since an informed public is the most
12 important of all restraints upon misgovernment, (the government may not
13 take) any…action which might prevent free and general discussion of
14 public matters as seems essential to prepare the people for an intelligent
15 exercise of their rights as citizens.” New Times Inc. v Arizona Board of
16 Regents, 110 Ariz. 367, 519 P.2d 169 (1974)
17
18 96. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants violated Plaintiff rights under the
19 First Amendment as set forth in the Order of the Court dated December 21, 2007
20 and as set forth below:
21 A. Defendant Moore for the April 11, 2006 arrest. (See paragraph 40)
22 B. Defendant Robinson for her April 2006 visit. (See paragraph 41)
23 C. Defendants Robinson, Anemone, Azuelo, Portillo, Colwell and Salcido
24 for the May 06, 2006 incident in Kennedy Park. (See paragraphs 43-46)
25 D. Defendant Smith for the June 06, 2006 arrest. (See paragraph 52)
26 E. Defendant Robinson for the August 17, 2006 incident. (See paragraphs
27 55-56)
28 F. Defendant Lucero for the March 12, 2007 incident. (See paragraph 59,
29 and footnote)
30 G. Defendants Gilhooly and Coleman for the March 19, 2007 incident. (See
31 paragraph 61-64)
32 H. Defendants Traynor and Coleman for the March 26, 2007 incident. (See
33 paragraphs 67-80)
34 I. Defendant Coleman for the March 31, 2007 arrest.

19
 1 97. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of the harm done to Plaintiff.
2 VII. COUNT TWO: FALSE ARREST
3 98. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
4 1-97 as though fully set forth herein.
5 99. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Moore’s arrest of Plaintiff on April 11, 2006,
6 Defendant Smith’s arrest of Plaintiff on June 06, 2006 and Defendant Coleman’s
7 arrest of Plaintiff on March 31, 2007 were motivated by Defendants’ desire to
8 intimidate Plaintiff and discourage him from the exercise of his rights under the
9 First Amendment.
10 100. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of the harm done to Plaintiff.
11 VII. COUNT THREE: CONSPIRACY
12 101. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
13 1-100 as though fully set forth herein.
14 102. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants met, came to an agreement and
15 acted in concert for the purpose of denying Plaintiff his rights under the First
16 Amendment as set forth below:
17 A. Defendants Hein and Miranda when they met with Isabel Garcia and
18 other prominent Open Border Activists on or about April 11, 2006. (see
19 paragraph 39)
20 B. Defendants Alcantera and Weber when they communicated with un-
21 known Tucson City Officials on or about May 05, 2006 for the purposes
22 of producing a fraudulent work estimate for alleged damage done to the
23 Armory Park Shuffleboard Court on April 11, 2006. (See paragraph 42)
24 C. Defendant Robinson when she met with Defendants Colwell and Salcido
25 prior to their successful assault in Kennedy Park on May 06, 2006 which
26 did deprive Plaintiff of his rights secured by the First Amendment. (See
27 paragraphs 44)
28 D. Defendants Robinson, Anemone, Azuelo and Portillo in Kennedy Park on
29 May 06, 2006 when they worked in concert with Defendants Colwell and
30 Salcido for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of his rights secured by the
31 First Amendment. (See paragraphs 43-47)

20
 1 E. Unknown Tucson City employees who instructed Tucson Municipal
2 Court Judge Hays to discourage Plaintiff from future communications
3 with the Tucson City Council. (See paragraph 87)
4 103. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of the harm done to Plaintiff.
5 XI. CONCLUSION
6 For nearly a century the Federal Courts have energetically protected the expres-
7 sive rights of those who exist on the fringes of American society—Communists, Nazis,
8 Klansmen and Hells Angels—with the following rationale: “If we don’t protect the rights
9 of the minority among us, someday the government will step in and deny these rights to
10 the rest of us.”
11 In Whitney v People of the State of California, 47 S.Ct. 648, 649 the Supreme
12 Court wrote eloquently on the issue of free speech:
13 “Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did
14 not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. They
15 believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of
16 liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you
17 think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth;
18 that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile;…that the
19 greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a
20 political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American
21 government.”
22
23 “They recognized…that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable gov-
24 ernment…They eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its
25 worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they
26 amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaran-
27 teed.”
28 Moreover; “(a)s Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v Oregon, 299 US 353,
29 365, 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government
30 remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to
31 speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief
32 distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.” Terminiello v City of Chicago,
33 337 U.S. 1 (1949).
34 The long-feared day of totalitarianism, of blatant disregard for the right of free
35 political expression and the harsh reality of brown-shirted thugs wearing jack boots

21
 1 strutting through the streets of an American city, has finally come to pass in Tucson
2 Arizona.
3 Defendants’ long term custom, practice and usage of the Tucson Police Depart-
4 ment to employ well-documented Cointelpro tactics (1) to silence the voice of political
5 dissent, (2) to protect the criminal activities of radical, racist Hispanic hate groups whose
6 clearly stated objective is the violent overthrow of the United States government, and (3)
7 to protect from public view the local government’s criminal enterprise to extend its
8 financial and left-wing political agenda, is taken directly from Hitler’s play-book.
9 Our Founding Fathers established the Courts for perilous and revolutionary times
10 such as these. During the great Civil Rights era, the Courts protected the political rights
11 of the American people so they could organize, assemble and accomplish what in effect
12 was a peaceful revolution; Plaintiff earnestly prays this Court will do no less now.
13 XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
15 A) Order Tucson City to provide all enforcement level employees with mandatory
16 training regarding their duty, independent of the direction of their superiors, to
17 establish all the elements of probable cause related to a specific criminal offense
18 prior to effecting an arrest;
19 B) Order Tucson City to provide all enforcement level employees with mandatory
20 training regarding all aspects of their duty to protect the constitutional rights of
21 the people;
22 C) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount deemed fair, just and
23 reasonable, for (1) the harm Plaintiff has suffered as set forth above, (2) the
24 emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered by his loss of rights and reputation, (3)
25 Plaintiff’s loss of income as a result of having to defend himself in three
26 criminal prosecutions, and (4) the negligent and intentional deprivation of the
27 Plaintiff’s civil rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments
28 to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983;

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

26