Disparaging remarks to atty y clients threats to jail sock in mouth despite attyoppositions

warning

Cair trial

Icpc jurisd

5tamper ing with final coa opined official coa crt lerks tr at ct cr…

Extraordinary circumstances prevented cause Delay in siut prmerily Stocholm featu ptsd

with stockholm*(see article on ptsd and Stockholm syndrome defined-like features

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WILLIAM HAROLD GIDNEY JR.,

LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS, DAVID COLE,

HOLLY J. SCHREIRet al. Defendant(s).

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. 42 U.S.C. S1983

I.

Previous Lawsuits: I have not begun other lawsuits in state of federal court dealing with the

same facts involved in this action.

II.

Place of present confinement:

WILLIAM GIDNEY is presently confined in the State o 90f Florida

 III.

Parties:

A. Name of Plaintiff:

B. Defendant: LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS

Is employed as: Adoption agency.

Is employed at: Little Flower Adoptions, 3631 Fairmount Street, Suite 201, Dallas, Texas 75219.

C. Additional Defendants: DAVID COLE, Texas Bar No. 04537180.

Is employed as: Attorney for the adoption agency.

Is employed at: Little Flower Adoptions, 3631 Fairmount Street, Suite 201,Dallas, Texas 75219;

PH: 214-363-5117; FX: 214-265-0075.

Js-44 jv

G. Additional Defendants: JIM HAMLIN.

Is employed as: Clerk of the 305th Judicial Court of Dallas, Texas.

Is employed at: 305th Judicial Court, Juvenile Justice Center, 2600 Lone Star Drive, Dallas,

Texas 75219.

IV.

tatement of Claim:
 All Constitutional violations cited in the body of this legal instrument are under the

supreme authority of the United State Constitution as defined in Article 6 and are relevant to the

Plaintiffs 5th Amendment “liberty” interests.

A.

LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS, its executive director, KRIS MILLER, and its attorney,

DAVID COLE, acted with deliberate indifference toward and against the substantive rights of

the Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs son who is the subject child, SEBASTIAN VALOR RUANE, and the

Legally Appointed Custodial Relative of the subject child, JANET LEMMON, and thereby

violated their Constitutional rights.

ITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS, its executive director, KRIS MILLER, and its attorney,

DAVID COLE, violated Plaintiffs 1st Amendment Right of Association with the subject child by

illegally placing the subject child in the physical custody of prospective adoptive parents upon

discharge from the hospital following the birth and allowing the subject child to be transported

across State Lines out of the State of

Jurisdiction without written consent from either the Legal Parent [Plaintiff] or the Legally

Appointed Custodial Relative [Janet Lemmon], and without a Court Order granting them

authority to do so and/or without being judicially appointed as the conservators of the subject

child, and therefore such action violates the 1st Amendment of

the Constitution as an act of Federal Statutory Kidnapping. LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS, its

executive director, KRIS MILLER, and itsattorney, DAVID COLE, violated the Plaintiffs 5th

and 14th Amendment rights to Due Process and the Due Process Right of Privacy Regarding

Family Decisions by their various actions.

 LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS, its executive director, KRIS MILLER, and its

attorney, DAVID COLE, violated Plaintiffs 6th Amendment Right of Confrontation against

criminal allegations in court and Attainted Plaintiff in court in violation of Article I, Section 9,

Paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS, its executive director, KRIS MILLER, and its attorney,

DAVID COLE, violated Plaintiffs 14th Amendment Right to Equal Protection under the Law as

a substantive Due Process liberty by committing acts of Perjury in an Official Proceeding,

Perjury by False Official Statements in Writing, and Evidence Concealment/Suppression; and,

also by persuading the trial judge to not extend to the Plaintiff via JANET LEMMON his/their

Constitutional right[s] to be heard during the trial which is pertinent to citizens of different States

as noted in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and as relevant to Article IV, Sections 1 and

2 pertaining to the full faith and credit of public acts, records, and/or judicial proceedings of

every other State which extends such privileges and immunities to citizens in the several States,

and they did this by challenging the Legal Appointment of JANET LEMMON as the subject

child’s custodian who was so appointed by Plaintiff via a lawfully executed “Power of Attorney”

instrument notarized on March 19, 2004 in Florida which they argued to the court that

said legal instrument should not be recognized as an act legally cognizable in Texas and

therefore purported that Plaintiff had failed to provide for the subject child since the birth.

violated Plaintiffs 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights, as well as the substantive rights

defined and extended to the Plaintiff in Article III, Section 2 and Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, all

as defined above.

C.
 HOLLY J. SCHRIER was/is the court appointed attorney of and Guardian Ad Litem

for the subject child in the custodial cause at issue. HOLLY J. SCHREIR acted with deliberate

indifference and violated the Plaintiffs 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights, as well as the

substantive rights defined and extended to the Plaintiff in Article III, Section 2 and Article IV,

Sections 1 and 2, all as defined above, by failing to comport with the minimal Constitutional

standards of effective representation and assistance of counsel required of her by her client, the

subject child, as part of her fiduciary duties to society as an officer of the court; as such are

directly related to Plaintiffs Constitutional rights as the Legal Parent of the subject child.

HOLLY J. SCHREIR did this by not showing up and participating in the trial which

allowed the Plaintiff to be Attainted by LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS via its representatives.

HOLLY J. SCHREIR did this by not showing up and participating in the trial and therefore

allowed LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS to commit Peijury and exercise persuasion over the

court by testifying falsely to alleged facts which HOLLY J. SCHREIR knew to be patently

untrue. HOLLY J. SCHREIR did this by not showing up and participating in the trial and

contesting the statutory Kidnapping of the subject child. HOLLY J. SCHREIR did this by not

showing up and participating in the trial and attesting to the Constitutional legality of the Florida

executed and Notarized “Power of Attorney” instrument which appointed JANET LEMMON as

the legal custodial relative of the subject child. HOLLY J. SCHREIR also did this by not filing

any legal instruments regarding the substantive familial rights enjoyed by her client as aramount

to help him remain in the society of his Legal Family.

D.
JIM HAMLIN, who is/was the Clerk of the 305th Judicial Court of Dallas, Texas, acted with

deliberate indifference by failing to properly and timely file numerous properly and timely filed

pre-and-post-trial motions drafted by WILLIAM GIDNEY and/or JANET LEMMON and by

failing to properly and timely file numerous properly and timely filed pre-trial letters which

were/are cognizable as “written answers” to the “citation” as required to be filed from Plaintiff

according to the in¬ writing directions of said citation; “written answers” which were also

cognizable as legal instruments under a liberal construction review of Plaintiff s Pro Se in-writin

Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 legal arguments under mandate of the

United States Supreme Court. All letters and motions drafted by the Legal Parent and Legally

Appointed Custodial Relative[s] in the pre-trial cause contesting the adoptive placement were

cognizable as Pro Se legal instruments based upon the merit of the legal arguments proffered,

independent of procedural formats required by trained lawyers. Many of the aforementioned

letters were properly served upon both the trial court and LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONSas a

functional myriad of failures to properly administrate and execute his fiduciary duties as Clerk of

the Court, he violated Plaintiff s 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights, as well as the

substantive rights defined and extended to the Plaintiff in Article III, Section 2 and Article IV,

Sections 1 and 2, all as defined above. E. OFFICER CARMICHAEL, whose first name Plaintiff

does not know, but whom is a black female who worked at C.F.R.C. in May 2004 and in the “T

& R” [Transfer and Reception] building on May 12, 2004, acted with deliberate indifference by

illegally confiscating Plaintiffs legal materials pertinent to Plaintiffs June 2, 2004 trial and

thereby denied the Plaintiff affirmative access to the trial court which violated Plaintiffs 1st, 5th,

6th, and 14th Amendment rights, as well as the substantive rightsdefined and extended to the

Plaintiff in Article III, Section 2 and Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, all as defined above.
Department of Corrections, is culpable and liable due to his deliberate indifference to the

conduct of Officer Carmichael based upon not instituting proper training requirements requisite

for the lawful execution of a Correction Officer’s duties in relation to Constitutionally protected

legal materials and his deliberate indifference to the Sworn Affidavit the Plaintiff filed with

Inspector Tumage regarding the confiscation of Plaintiff s legal materials which led to a series of

Inmate Grievances, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the local judiciary, and Plaintiffs

eventual beating by Captain Perez which was instigated by Officer Carmichael based solely upon

Plaintiffs attempts to retrieve his legal materials. JAMES CROSBY, secretary of the Florida.

V.

Relief:

The Plaintiff in this instant legal cause seeks compensatory damages, special damages,

punitive damages, and any other damages this Honorable Court or an impaneled jury shall deem

just and fair, to include but not limited to the costs expended to fight the trial and appellate

causes. The Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $10,000,000.00 USD from each Defendant.

The Plaintiff also seeks all profits procured and/or assets from LITTLE FLOWER

DOPTIONS, DAVID COLE, and HOLLY J. SCHREIR in relation to the original adoptive

placement of the subject child, as well as the trial and appellate proceedings related to and/or in

defense of the adoptive placement of the subject child.

The Plaintiff also prays this Honorable Court or the impaneled jury to disbar DAVID

COLE and HOLLY J. SCHREIR, and to revoke LITTLE FLOWER ADOPTIONS’ license to

facilitate “adoptions” in order to protect other children and families from future acts of Human

Trafficking in search of profit. The Plaintiff further prays for the termination of employment of
JIM HAMLIN and OFFICER CARMICHAEL, or, that at least severe disciplinary sanctions be

administered against them and kept in their permanent work records. The Plaintiff prays this

Honorable Court or the impaneled jury to also find that RICK PERRY and JAMES CROSBY

failed to administrate their authority as required to protect the substantive familial rights of

citizens and/or prisoners and are therefore culpable and liable as parties to this cause.

Respectfully submitted,

William Gidrtey, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF NOTARy

CERTIFY that on this day of February 2006, I served, by U.S. Mail, a true and correct copy of

the above and foregoing “COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. §

1983” upon the following by sending copies for each to the Clerk of Court for the United States

District Court in the Middle District of Florida to be served upon the Defendant’s by the U.S.

Marshals [TRAP 9.5(b)]:

Fifth District Court of Appeals

of Texas at Dallas
Clerk of Court, Lisa Matz 600 Commerce Street, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75202

Holly J. Schreir
208 North Market Street, Suite 385 Dallas, Texas 75202
David Cole
3631 Fairmount Street, Suite 201
Dallas, Texas 75219

U.S. Courthouse U.S. Dist. CL— Middle District of Fla.

Clerk of the Dallas Trial Court

305th Judicial Court
2600 Lone Star Drive
Dallas, TX 75212-6307