Gottschalk Federal Complaint
-
Upload
joemaflage -
Category
Documents
-
view
917 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Gottschalk Federal Complaint
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff vs. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK, BARBARA LASSITER, Esq., MICHAEL MANELY, Esq., THE MANELY FIRM, PC HON. S. LARK INGRAM, HON. C. LATAIN KELL, JEANNE DIANE WOODS, HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY SONNY PURDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, CASEY CAGLE, in his official capacity of Lieutenant Governor of the State of Georgia, THURBERT E. BAKER, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Georgia, CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, in their official capacities as members of the GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, COBB COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GENE THOMAS SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, in their official capacity as members of the GEORGIA COMPOSITE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS,
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
CIVIL ACTION FILE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
2
THERAPISTS, SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON, and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SHERI M. SIEGEL, EMMETT FULLER, SUSAN VOLENTINE, PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC, ANN BOST, LARRY O. BOST, JANE DOE JOHN DOE Defendants
AMENDED COMPLAINT Introduction
Dean Mark Gottschalk (“Plaintiff” or “I” or “Me”), of
Georgia, hereby asserts the following claims agains t Defendants
in the above-referenced action:
(1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of equal
protection of the law under the 14 th Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(2) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - denial of proce dural due process of law under the 14 th Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(3) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of substan tive due process of law under the 14 th Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(4) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3), conspiracy;
(5) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Jurisdiction
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to:
a. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983(civil action for deprivation
of rights, 1985(conspiracy to interfere with civil
3
rights), 1986 and 1988(proceedings in vindication o f
civil rights); and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3 ),
and (4)(civil rights and elective franchise), and
1367(a)(supplemental jurisdiction);
b. Pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent
claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arise s
under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set
forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715
(1966).
Venue based on Location of Parties and Events
2. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U .S.C. §§1331
& 1391(a) because all the parties reside, work or o perate
in this District and because the location of the ci vil
rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is in this Distr ict.
3. This complaint is not frivolous.
4. This is a proceeding for declaratory relief, and permanent
injunction, enjoining all defendants, and each of t hem, their
agents, employees and successors from continuing th eir policy,
practice, and actions depriving me of the privilege s and
immunities as a citizen of the United Sates, as fur ther set
forth herein.
Parties
5. DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff, 2589 Beckwith T rail,
Marietta, GA 30068, is an individual residing in Co bb County,
Georgia. I am a white, heterosexual male.
4
6. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK (“Defendant Gottschalk”), 3 580 Oak
Knoll Dr., Marietta, GA, 30068, is an individual re siding in
Cobb County, Georgia, and my former wife.
7. BARBARA LASSITER (“Defendant Lassiter”), 1700 Wa ter Place
NW, Suite 306, Atlanta, GA, 30339, is an attorney l icensed in
the state of Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and
represents my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the underlying
state litigation in the trial court presided over b y Defendant
Kell. On information and belief, Defendant Lassite r is a
homosexual female.
8. HON. C. LATAIN KELL (“Defendant Kell”), 30 Wadde ll Street,
Marietta, GA 30090 is a judge of the Superior Court of the State
of Georgia, Cobb Judicial Circuit.
9. HON. S. LARK INGRAM (“Defendant Ingram”) is the Chief Judge
of the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Cobb Judicial
Circuit. At all times herein, Defendant Ingram sup ervises,
commands, and controls Defendant Kell.
10. JEANNE DIANE WOODS (“Defendant Woods”), 707 Whi tlock
Avenue, SW, Suite G-5, Marietta, GA 30064,is a lice nsed attorney
in the State of Georgia and was appointed and did a ct as
Guardian Ad Litem in the Underlying Action.
11. HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5,
Marietta, GA 30064 (“Defendant Huff, Woods and Hamb y”) is a
partnership one of whose partners is Defendant Wood s, and who
employs Defendant Woods.
12. MICHAEL MANELEY (“Defendant Maneley”), 7 Atlant a St., Suite
C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is an attorney licensed in the state of
5
Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and represented
my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the Underlying Action at the
time it was presided over by The Hon. Adele Grubbs.
13. THE MANELEY FIRM, PC (“Defendant The Maneley Fi rm”), 7
Atlanta St., Suite C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is a professional
corporation formed in the state of Georgia attorney , employing
and supervising the efforts of Defendant Michael Ma neley.
14. COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, 100 Cherokee Street, Mari etta, GA,
30090, is a political subdivision of the State of G eorgia.
15. SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON,
and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (“Defendant Board of
Commissioners”), 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA 30090, is the
governing body of Defendant Cobb County. Defendant Board of
Commissioners oversees and operates the administrat ive aspects
of the Cobb County court system.
16. SONNY PURDUE, State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334( “Defendant
Purdue”) is the governor of the State of Georgia.
17. CASEY CAGLE, 240 State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 303 34
(“Defendant Cagle”) is the lieutenant governor of t he state of
Georgia.
18. THURBERT BAKER, 40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334
(“Defendant Baker”) is the Attorney General of the State of
Georgia, who is responsible to protect the public a s well as to
uphold the laws and the Constitution of Georgia.
19. CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGL ASS, BILL
DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, 2 37 Coliseum
Drive, Macon, GA 31217 (“Defendant Board of Psychol ogists”), are
all members of the Georgia State Board of Examiners of
Psychologists, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia,
6
formed to provide consumer protection and public he alth and
welfare through the regulation of the profession, a nd to
investigate and adjudicate complaints issued agains t licensed
psychologists.
20. DEFENDANTS GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GE NE THOMAS
SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL,
JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, 237 Coli seum Drive,
Macon, GA 31217-3858, are all members of the Georgi a Composite
Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers An d Marriage
And Family Therapists (“Defendant Composite Board o f
Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriag e And Family
Therapists”), a political subdivision, charged by l aw with
regulating the practice of professional counseling, social work,
and marriage and family therapy in order to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the people of Georgia, by enf orcing the
education and training requirements established by law for
licensure in each profession, by adopting and enfor cing a code
of ethics governing licensees, by establishing and enforcing
continuing education requirements, and by addressin g unlicensed
practice in these professions.
21. SHERI M. SIEGEL (“Defendant Siegel”), 122 Cherr y St NE,
Marietta, GA, 30060, is a clinical psychologist who evaluated
the Minor Children, and who testified against me in the
Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
22. EMMETT FULLER (“Defendant Fuller”), 899 Burns S t. SE,
Marietta, GA, 30067, is a licensed professional cou nselor,
practicing in Marietta, Georgia, and who provided t herapeutic
counseling to me, but then testified against me in the
Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
7
23. SUSAN Z. VOLENTINE (“Defendant Volentine”), 268 8 Tritt
Springs Drive, Marietta, GA, 30062, is a licensed p sychologist
practicing in the state of Georgia and who testifie d against me
in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
24. PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC (“Defendant Psycho logical
Affiliates”), 122 Cherry Street NE, Marietta, GA, 3 0060, employs
and directs the conduct of Defendants Volentine and Fuller.
25. ANN BOST, 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 300 68
(“Defendant Ann Bost”) is the mother of Defendant G ottschalk.
26. LARRY BOST 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30 068
(“Defendant Larry Bost”) is the father of Defendant Gottschalk.
8
Plain Statement of Facts as Required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure
27. On May 2, 1998, I married Karen Ann Gottschalk. Two
children were born of our marriage, Lexi Gottschalk , born
on July 20, 1999 and Tanner Gottschalk born on July 24,
2002. Lexi Gottschalk and Tanner Gottschalk are mi nor
children (the “Minor Children”).
28. As life would have it, the marriage did not las t. On
February 19, 2004, Defendant Gottschalk filed for d ivorce.
29. On March 31, 2005, Judge Grubbs granted a final judgment
and decree of divorce.
30. Defendant Maneley drafted an order that did not follow
Judge Grubbs’ verbal findings, and limited my time and
decision making beyond what was intended by the Cou rt.
31. Judge Grubbs adopted the Defendant Maneley’s dr aft order
verbatim.
32. I was not made aware at the time that I had a r ight to
contest the inaccuracies in the order.
33. Unhappy with the result, Defendant Gottschalk s ought and
found new counsel, Defendant Lassiter.
34. On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter h arbors bias
and resentment against me because I am a heterosexu al man.
35. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk conspired wi th each
other and acted to deny me my civil rights.
36. On April 24, 2006, by and through Defendant Las siter,
Defendant Gottschalk filed a Petition for Modificat ion of
Visitation under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3.
9
37. In the petition, Defendants Lassiter and Gottsc halk
demanded that my contact with my children be superv ised,
and my parental rights curtailed. 1
38. Defendants embellished the facts alleged in the complaint,
that I had been “arrested for aggravated assault” b y
threatening someone with a shotgun. I never admitt ed any
guilt, but had entered a plea under the authority o f North
Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to a simple act of
pointing a weapon. I was never convicted of aggrav ated
assault.
39. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk alleged that I was
violent, and was a threat to my children. This was untrue.
The Shadow Justice System
40. Cobb County is somewhat unique among the Georgi a counties
in the manner that is handles domestic cases involv ing
contested custody. There is a de facto “shadow justice”
system that functions by designating a Guardian Ad Litem
under U.S.C.R. 24.9, usually an old, established on e that
has been doing it for 20 or 30 years, to “evaluate” the
case.
41. The Guardian Ad Litem then typically appoints a custodial
evaluator.
42. The attorneys for the parties go along with thi s process,
and refrain from a zealous advocacy for their clien ts.
43. The report and recommendation of the Guardian A d Litem,
made first to the parties and then to the Court, is more
1 In reality, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk like ly wanted a change of
custody, but feared meeting the “material change in circumstances” standard applicable. See O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. Inste ad they brought the action as one seeking a change of visitation becaus e such changes are not subject to any showing of fitness or any change in circumstances.
10
than merely advisory, becomes the de facto ruling of the
Court, and are in practice extremely difficult to
challenge.
44. This system operates to protect the state actor
participants and quickly dispose of family law case s
without the need for a protracted trial on the meri ts.
45. The Cobb County Courts give great deference to the
appointed Guardians Ad Litem, and protect them.
46. Attorneys and litigants that challenge or fail to “go
along” with this shadow justice system are chastise d by the
court officials through unofficial and official mea ns, such
as the power of contempt, refusal to seriously cons ider
evidence, and declining to hear significant issues.
47. As a result, the Guardians frequently are allow ed to ignore
the rules of court and Georgia law in the conduct o f their
duties, including, for example, the filing of prope r
motions, and rules regarding ex parte communications with
the Court.
Pre-Trial Actions
48. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk used their e mbellished
facts to attract the attention of the court.
49. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then conspir ed to have a
Guardian Ad Litem appointed in my case. Without a formal
request from either side, or motion therefore, Defe ndant
Grubbs, sua sponte, appointed a Guardian Ad Litem,
Defendant Woods. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Woods was
given full authority to access all of my medical re cords,
including my mental health records despite the exis tence of
Georgia law making such records absolutely privileg ed.
11
50. Defendant Woods has been acting as a Guardian A d Litem for
over 20 years, is viewed as a “fixture” in Cobb Cou nty, and
the Cobb County Superior Court judges routinely def er in
substantial part to her judgment when she is appoin ted as a
Guardian Ad Litem.
51. Despite this being only a visitation case, Defe ndant Woods
furthered the conspiracy with Defendants Gottschalk and
Lassiter by filing a motion seeking a full custodia l
evaluation by Defendant Siegel. Custodial evaluatio ns are
done in cases where custody is at issue, which was not the
case here.
52. In that motion she represented that she had the agreement
of my counsel, however, I was never made aware of t he
consequences of this action or that a full custodia l
evaluation was being requested.
53. As a result of the mandatory custodial evaluati on, I was
forced to undergo examination and evaluation by a c ustodial
evaluator.
54. Following the custodial evaluation, I was order ed to
undergo therapy with Defendant Fuller. I understood this to
be a confidential, therapeutic relationship. I was not
advised by Defendant Fuller that he could or would disclose
my statements or his impressions of me to Defendant Woods
or any other party.
55. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Fuller and Defenda nt Volentine
were both associates with Defendant Psychological
Associates.
56. As a result of the mandatory treatment, I was f orced to
undergo weeks of examination and evaluation by Defe ndant
Fuller.
12
57. Defendant Fuller never administered any recogni zed tests to
me. Despite this, after a mere two weeks of “treat ment”,
Defendant Fuller announced to me that he had diagno sed me.
58. Defendant Fuller shared his findings with Defen dant Woods,
who in turn shared those findings with others.
Attempts to Hide Secret Custodial Report
59. Defendants conspired to keep the Siegel report secret from
professional review.
60. Defendant Woods requested special language inte nded to
punish unauthorized distribution of the report.
61. On information and belief Defendant Woods took this action
primarily in response to having been previously sue d over
her recommendations in another custodial case.
62. Judge Grubbs thereafter issued an order that un authorized
distribution of the custody evaluation report would be
punishable by contempt.
63. The same order directed that a copy was to be p rovided to
counsel and Defendant Woods.
Conspiracy to Issue Biased Report
64. Defendant Woods’ pattern of practice is to send business to
her close associates.
65. On information and belief, Defendant Woods and Siegel have
a long professional relationship.
66. Based on Defendant Woods recommendation, Defend ants secured
the appointment of Defendant Siegel as the custody
evaluator in my case.
67. Prior to my meeting with Defendant Siegel, Defe ndants
Gottschalk and Lassiter submitted to Defendant Sieg el a
13
mountain of alleged documentation critical of me th at
Defendant Siegel admitted weighed at least 25 pound s.
68. On information and belief, this documentation w as intended
to heavily bias Defendant Siegel, and skew the resu lts of
her analysis.
69. Defendant Siegel thereafter conducted an examin ation and
evaluation of the parties, and issued a report find ing that
I had no level of clinical pathology.
70. Even though there was no clinical pathology to support a
diagnosis, Defendant Siegel included statements in her
report that were highly critical of my parenting ab ilities
and my psychological well-being in her report, insi nuating
and implying that I may have tendencies toward cert ain
conditions that may not be in the best interest of the
children.
Secret Evaluations of the Children
71. Defendant Gottschalk arranged without my knowle dge and in
secret to take the Minor Children to Defendant Vole ntine
for evaluation.
72. On information and belief the purpose of the ev aluations
was to establish a false record that I was a threat to my
children.
73. I was not allowed to know about these sessions, which I
discovered afterwards. I was not allowed to attend or
participate in these sessions.
74. Following the secret evaluations, Defendant Vol entine
issued secret communications to Defendants Lassiter and
Gottschalk, insinuating that I might be a threat to my
children.
14
75. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then filed a n
“emergency” motion on March 10, 2008, containing gr oss
exaggerations and embellishments of actions they cl aimed to
occur that were dangers to my children. That motion was
denied.
Secret Suggestions about Psychological Condition of Defendant
76. Defendant Volentine was retained by Defendant G ottschalk to
treat the Minor Children on a continuing basis.
77. Defendant Volentine did, from time to time, cou nsel the
Minor Children.
78. On information and belief, Defendant Gottschalk gave
significant false and misleading information about me to
Defendant Volentine.
79. Even though I was not her patient, Defendant Vo lentine took
it upon herself to contact Defendant Woods, and inf orm her
that Defendant Volentine believed that I may have a “high-
functioning form of Asberger’s syndrome”, and sugge sted
that I be evaluated for such a condition.
80. Defendant Woods received this information and t hen provided
it to Defendant Lassiter.
81. Defendant Volentine, despite having no therapeu tic or other
relationship with me, then took it upon herself to research
for Defendant Woods professionals who “possess the
requisite skills to conduct such an evaluation”.
Illegal Attempts to Seize Counseling Records
82. Any attorney is presumed to know the law. Geor gia law
provides therapist/patient privilege to confidentia lity.
Defendant Lassiter is presumed to know this.
15
83. Despite this knowledge, prior to trial Defendan ts Lassiter
and Gottschalk attempted to secure my confidential
counseling records by sending a court-signed subpoe na.
84. As a result, I was forced to pay my attorney to file a
formal objection and quash the subpoena.
85. Defendant Lassiter stated on occasion that “she would get
them” despite the legal privilege.
Ongoing Efforts to Harass and Intimidate
86. From the time the action was filed, until and t hrough the
trial, Defendants Gottschalk, Ann Bost and Larry Bo st
engaged in a continuous pattern of actions intended to
thwart my parenting time with my children.
87. Without limitation to specific acts, Defendants Gottschalk
and Bost continually attempted to usurp and limit m y role
as parent, prevent me from communicating with my ch ildren
during extracurricular events and at other times, a nd to
encourage my children to believe that Defendants Bo st and
Gottschalk are my children’s “true” family, and enc ouraging
my children to believe I was no longer part of thei r
family.
88. This matter came on for hearing on September 29 , 2009.
89. At trial I was repeatedly denied my civil right s.
Surprise In-Chambers Announcement by Defendant Wood s
90. On the morning of the second day of trial Defen dant Woods
met the attorneys first thing and asked them to ste p back
into chambers to see the Judge.
91. Thereupon she proceeded to inform Defendant Kel l, out of
the presence of the parties and the Court Reporter, that
16
she had just received information that “triggered” her
obligation to do a mandatory report to the Departme nt of
Family and Childrens Services (“DFCS”) under the ch ild
abuse statute, and had done so.
92. My counsel immediately objected to this disclos ure, and the
unfair prejudice to the Defendant’s case, but Defen dant
Kell declined to declare a mistrial.
93. Because Defendant Woods chose to reveal her inf ormation to
Defendant Kell in chambers, rather than in court on the
record, I was denied the opportunity to be present during
this testimony.
94. I sought, but was denied, the opportunity to cr oss-examine
Defendant Woods on any facts that supported her cla im.
95. I have repeatedly contacted DFCS, and have been unable to
confirm that any investigation or report was made r egarding
myself.
96. Upon information and belief, the intent of Defe ndant Woods’
actions was to prejudice the judge on the case agai nst me,
to do so off the record where she could escape cens ure, and
to avoid having to introduce any actual facts.
97. As a result of Defendant Woods’ clandestine dis closures,
Defendant Kell’s perception of me was fatally poiso ned, and
I was denied a fair trial.
98. As a result of Defendant Kell’s refusal to allo w me to
cross-examine Defendant Woods, denied the opportuni ty to
challenge the evidence against me, and denied a fai r
hearing.
17
Denial of Expert Cross Examination,
and Threats Against Counsel
99. During the trial I qualified my expert, Dr. Mon ty
Weinstein, PSY.D., M.P.A., D.A.P.A., N.C.P. Dr. Wei nstein
is a Clinical Fellow of the American Association fo r
Marriage and Family Therapy. He is also a Fellow of the
American Orthopsychiatric Association. He has quali fied as
an expert in custodial issues over 2,500 times in 4 5 states
and 4 countries. Recipient of the Distinguished Pub lic
Service Award in Kings County, Adjunct Professor, N assau
Community College, New York. Holds two masters and a
doctorate. Mentor at the New York University Gradua te
School of Public Affairs. Supervised interns at Con necticut
State University in Family Therapy. Has an earned
doctorate. On the editorial advisory board for the American
Psychotherapy Association. Published numerous book reviews
for the American Orthopsychiatric Association. Chai red the
ethics committee in a psychiatric facility. Publish ed fifty
journal articles in the area of mental health. Clin ical
administrator for years at a large children's psych iatric
facility. Developed expertise on the deliverance of mental
health services by editing the psychiatric journal
reviewing book reviews, studying clinical administr ation at
New York University, and being a clinical administr ator at
psychiatric facilities for numerous years.
100. Dr. Weinstein testified in the Underlying Acti on about my
qualifications as a parent, and my relationship wit h my
children.
101. I then attempted to have him testify about iss ues with the
Siegel Report.
18
102. When I attempted to have Dr. Weinstein critiqu e the Siegel
psychological report, Defendant Kell became enraged , and
accused me and my counsel of having illegally distr ibuted
the report to Dr. Weinstein.
103. Defendant Kell threatened to hold my counsel i n contempt
for letting my expert review the report.
104. Defendant Kell refused to let Dr. Weinstein te stify
regarding problems in the Siegel report.
105. As a result of Defendant Kell’s actions, I was denied the
opportunity to challenge facts and conclusions in t he
Siegel report.
Seizure of Expert Report
106. Upon cross-examination, Defendant Lassiter dem anded to see
the contents of Dr. Weinstein’s bag, and then deman ded that
the court do an in-camera inspection of the bag, ov er the
objection of my counsel.
107. Defendant Kell personally searched Dr. Weinste in’s bag from
the bench, and seized certain reports therein, incl uding
Dr. Weinstein’s own report of an MMPI-2 that he had
administered to me.
108. Defendant Kell had no right to seize Dr. Weins tein’s
personal reports.
109. Defendant Kell’s conduct was excessive, and ca st a pall
over the courtroom and my conduct of the case.
110. The intent of these actions was to protect the court-
appointed experts from criticism, and to prevent me from
fairly litigating the competency of the Siegel Repo rt.
19
111. As a result of Defendants’ actions, I was deni ed a fair
hearing, denied the opportunity to present signific ant and
material evidence, and denied due process of law.
Prejudicial Announcement by GAL During Trial
112. Prior to the conclusion of the trial in this c ase, counsel
for Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded tha t the
Court impose supervised visits upon me while the pa rties
drafted and submitted written closing arguments.
113. Following this demand, Defendant Woods also th en and there
asked for supervision.
114. Over the objection of my counsel, and without allowing
cross-examination of Defendant Woods, Defendant Kel l
granted supervision, for one visit during one week.
115. This “one week” grew to ten weeks of supervise d visits,
without any response, advice, or relief from Defend ant
Kell.
116. The intent of this supervision requirement was to drive a
wedge between me and my children, to alienate them from
their father, and to deny me an active and meaningf ul role
in their lives.
117. As a result of this requirement, I was denied substantial
time with my children, and forced to pay a heavy bu rden in
supervision fees for the time I did have.
Refusal to Approve Supervisor
118. Once the supervision requirement was implement , Defendant
Woods then refused to approve reasonable supervisor s other
than her favorites.
20
119. I attempted to get approval for the use of Phy llis McNeal,
a supervisor who has had hundreds of hours of prior
supervising experience, and had never been refused as a
qualified supervisor.
120. Despite this, Defendant Woods refused Ms. McNe al initially
on the basis that she did not have proof of passing a GCIC
(criminal background) screen, and she could not con firm her
malpractice insurance.
121. On November 5, 2008, I again submitted Ms. McN eal, after
receiving confirmation from Wagner Consulting that Ms.
McNeal had a clean GCIC report and confirmed her
malpractice insurance. A letter from Wagner was in cluded
with the submission to Defendant Woods.
122. Despite receiving all of this information, Def endant Woods
still denied Ms. McNeal, this time adding a new req uirement
that the supervisor have “clinical skills.” Defend ant
Woods recommended two other supervising services, w ith
which she has “been familiar for at least fifteen y ears.”
Defendant Woods presented a “take it or leave it”
proposition, that if this is “not acceptable” that I must
“schedule a hearing before Judge Kell” so that he c an make
the determination as to who will supervise.
123. The new “clinical skill” requirement was arbit rary and
capricious. It not only ruled out Ms. McNeal, but the
current supervisor as well, who had been writing re ports
reflecting positively on my parenting skills.
124. As a result of Defendant Woods pattern of prej udicial
behavior, I filed a motion to have her recused from the
case. The motion was denied by Defendant Kell.
21
125. As a result of being denied approval for Ms. M cNeal, I was
forced to use one of Defendant Woods’ hand picked
favorites, or miss time with my children.
126. As a result of Defendant Woods’ behavior, I wa s denied
substantial parenting time with my children, and fo rced to
incur burdensome supervision expenses.
Refusal To Sanction Defendant Volentine
127. Following Defendant Volentine’s unethical atte mpts to
diagnose me, her discussions of her impressions of my
condition with Defendant Woods, and her continuing
exclusion of me from counseling sessions with my ch ildren,
I filed a complaint with Defendant Board of Psychol ogists
outlining Defendant Volentine’s unprofessional and
inappropriate behavior.
128. Defendant Board of Psychologists failed to tak e any action
to discipline Defendant Volentine.
Refusal To Sanction Defendant Fuller
129. Following Defendant Fuller’s failure to advise me of the
lack of privilege, his ineffective and incomplete a ttempts
to diagnose me, and his discussions of impressions of my
condition with Defendant Woods, I filed a complaint with
Defendant Composite Board Of Professional Counselor s,
Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists ,
outlining Defendant Fuller’s unprofessional and
inappropriate behavior.
130. Defendant Composite Board Of Professional Coun selors,
Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists f ailed to
take any action to discipline Defendant Fuller.
22
Refusal to Recuse Guardian
131. As the result of Defendant Woods’s attempts to prejudice
the court with factually unproven claims before and during
trial, I filed a motion to recuse her.
132. The filing of this motion upset both Defendant Woods and
Defendant Kell.
133. Defendant Kell denied my motion for recusal in an order
that made no mention whatsoever of Defendant Woods’
attempts to influence the Court by her in chambers
announcement at the start of trial.
Denial Of Emergency Access To The Court
134. Following Defendant Woods’ refusal to allow me another
supervisor acceptable to me, I then applied to the Cobb
County Superior Court for Emergency relief in order to be
able to see my children over the Thanksgiving holid ay.
135. Initially, my attorney was told that an emerge ncy hearing
would be granted.
136. However, when it came on for hearing, Judge Br antley
advised that he had made no decision to hear the ma tter.
137. He then, without entertaining my motion, asked for
Defendant Woods’ input into the case.
138. Defendant Woods was allowed to state on the re cord her view
of the case before I was allowed to present my moti on.
139. Defendant Woods was further permitted to state that she had
not yet been paid her fees granted in the case.
140. I was not permitted to testify as to whether I was
willfully failing to pay the fees.
141. Instead, Judge Brantley simply ruled that I wa s guilty of
“unclean hands” and he would not hear my motion.
23
142. As a result, I was not permitted to see my chi ldren over
the Thanksgiving holiday.
Ruling
143. Subsequently, the Court issued a ruling forcin g me to
attend therapeutic counseling with a psychologist h and-
picked by Defendant Woods.
144. The Court’s order further allowed Defendant Wo ods to talk
freely about me to the psychologist, totally invadi ng and
denying me patient/therapist privilege.
145. The Court’s order further imposed supervision upon me at my
own expense until such time as Defendant Woods was
satisfied with my progress.
Count One: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Due Process)
146. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 45 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
147. At all relevant times herein, I had a right un der the due
process clauses of the state and federal constituti ons not
to be deprived of my life, liberty, or property. U. S.C.
Const. Amend. 14.
148. At all times relevant herein, the defendants w ere state
actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. § § 1983,
1985, and 1988. 2
149. All Defendants acted to deprive me of my funda mental right
to the care, custody, and control of my children.
2 "Private persons, jointly engaged with state offici als in the challenged action, are acting `under color' of law for purpose s of Section 1983 actions." Dennis v. Sparks . 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).
24
150. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized
that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the car e,
custody and control of his children. See Troxel v.
Granville , 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of
Social Services , 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson , 345
U.S. 528 (1952).
151. This right has sought to be, and has been, inj ured and
foreclosed by all Defendants.
152. Defendants have conspired to and have injured and continue
to injure me by acting, aiding, and abetting in the conduct
of a proceeding in Superior Court, Cobb County, Geo rgia,
attempting to modify the visitation granted to me i n my
divorce decree under the “best interest of the chil d”
standard adopted by the Georgia Legislature in O.C. G.A. §
19-9-3.
153. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have injure d and
continue to injure me by the filing of a complaint, and
several subsequent motions, in Cobb County Superior Court,
seeking to limit and interfere with my established
parenting time with my Minor Children.
154. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have contin ued their
campaign for over four years, including the making of ex
parte communications with the court.
155. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, Woods and Kel l acted to
deprive me of my ability to have my trial expert cr oss-
examine the expert witnesses against him.
156. Defendant Woods acted to deprive me of a fair trial by
intentionally making out-of-court statements to the judge
regarding her alleged mandatory abuse reporting, wh ich
25
reporting has not been verified with the state agen cy to
date.
157. Defendant Woods and Lassiter acted willfully a nd
maliciously intending to prejudice and bias the tri al court
against me.
158. Defendants Lassiter and Kell acted to willfull y and
unlawfully seize and retain my expert’s private mat erials
without authority.
159. Defendant Kell acted to intimidate my counsel and harass my
expert by attempting to hold them in contempt of an order
that unreasonably restricted my right to prepare my case
and challenge the witnesses against me.
160. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause o f my failure
to receive a fair trial.
161. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause o f my failure
to receive due process of law.
162. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause o f my failure
to receive my fundamental right to the care, custod y, and
control of my children.
163. Defendants’ actions denied me a fair trial, my right to due
process of the law.
164. Acting under color of law, all Defendants work ed a denial
of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
United States Constitution or by Federal Law and gu aranteed
by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to t he
Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sou ght and
got court orders based on their actions.
165. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious
conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to due pr ocess of
law, of my right to the care, custody and control o f my
26
children, and the due course of justice was impeded , in
violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amen dments
of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S .C. sec.
1983.
166. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
167. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 66 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
168. Defendants single me out for harsh treatment a nd
restriction of my rights to parenting time because of my
status as a heterosexual male.
169. Singling me out for harsh treatment and denial of my
parenting time rights on the basis my sex and sexua l
orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitut ion.
170. As a result of this harsh and discriminatory t reatment, I
have been harmed by being denied the right to the c are of,
and association with, my Minor Children.
171. The actions of Defendants are ongoing and they are
continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, l imit and
restrict my right to the care of and association wi th my
Minor Children.
27
172. Acting under color of law, all Defendants work ed a denial
of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
United States Constitution or by Federal Law and gu aranteed
by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to t he
Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sou ght and
got court orders based on their actions.
173. The actions of Defendants are the proximate ca use of my
injuries.
174. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious
conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to equal
protection of all the laws, of my right to the care ,
custody and control of my children, and the due cou rse of
justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth, Fi fth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the Un ited
States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
175. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.
COUNT THREE
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
176. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 75 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
177. Defendant Sonny Purdue acted to violate and li mit my
fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my
children by signing and implementing O.C.G.A. § 19- 9-3,
28
permitting judges to modify and restrict visitation without
the necessity of showing any material change in con ditions,
or any lack of fitness.
178. All Defendants acted in concert to deprive me of my
fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my
Minor Children.
179. Defendant Kell acted to limit my fundamental r ight to the
care, custody and control of my children by holding under a
mere “best interest of the children” standard (O.C. G.A. §
19-9-3), that my visitation should be supervised an d
substantially curtailed, and further imposing manda tory
counseling requiring that Defendant surrender my ri ght to
patient/therapist privilege.
180. The action of Defendants are ongoing and they are
continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, l imit and
restrict my right to the care of and association wi th my
Minor Children.
181. Acting under color of law, all Defendants work ed a denial
of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
United States Constitution or by Federal Law and gu aranteed
by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to t he
Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sou ght and
got court orders based on their actions.
182. The actions of Defendants are the proximate ca use of my
injuries.
183. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious
conduct, I was deprived of my fundamental right to the
care, custody and control of my children, and the d ue
course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth,
29
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitutio n of the
United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
184. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have su ffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.
COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985(3) (conspiracy)
185. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 84 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
186. All Defendants have conspire and acted in conc ert to deny
my civil rights.
187. The conspiratorial purpose was to deny me (i) my
fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my
children, (ii) my right to due process and a fair t rial,
(iii) my right to equal protection of the law.
188. The conspiracy, as it developed, also emerged to protect
the participants in the unofficial “shadow justice” system
that operates in Cobb County family courts.
189. The first step in the conspiracy was taken by Defendant
Gottschalk when she retained Defendant Lassiter to
represent her, and they together the filed a compla int
making outlandish and derogatory claims against me.
190. All individual Defendants, other than those ac ting in their
official capacity for the State of Georgia, insinua ted
30
themselves into the conspiracy and metamorphosed th e
private actors into State actors.
191. This action took the form of involvement in so me or all of
the litigation seeking to limit and deny my visitat ion with
my children.
192. The Defendants intentionally interfered with m y exercise
and enjoyment of my clear and established rights se cured by
the state and federal constitutions or laws of the United
States and/or the State of Georgia, and thereby dep rived me
of those rights and caused me injuries.
193. As a result of the concerted unlawful and mali cious
conspiracy of all the Defendants, I was deprived of my
rights to both due process and the equal protection of the
laws, the due course of justice was impeded, and my
fundamental rights to the care, custody and control of my
children was taken, in violation of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the Un ited
States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
194. The conspiratorial acts of Defendants were the legal and
proximate cause of my injuries.
195. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.
31
COUNT FIVE
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
196. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 1 95 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
197. All Defendants acted individually and in conce rt to impose
cruel and unusual punishment upon me for challengin g the
recommendation of Defendant Woods, and the Cobb Cou nty
family law “shadow justice” system.
198. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded th at
supervision be imposed upon my visitation with my c hildren,
without any finding of fitness or danger to my chil dren.
199. Defendant Woods recommended supervised visitat ion be
imposed upon me.
200. Defendant Kell imposed supervised visits upon me in his
final order as punishment for my actions named abov e and an
effort to prevent further exercise of my legitimate right
to petition the court for redress of grievances.
201. That all Defendants were aware of and approved of Defendant
Kell’s imposition of supervised visitation.
202. Defendant Ingram failed to supervise and educa te Defendant
Kell.
203. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.
32
COUNT SIX
42 U.S.C. § 1983:
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING3
204. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 2 03 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
205. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s
performance on the bench.
206. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s
continuing education and training in the applicatio n of
constitutional law.
207. Defendant Ingram failed to adequately supervis e and train
Defendant Kell.
208. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant I ngram’s
failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s impositi on of
supervision on my visits with my children.
209. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.
COUNT SEVEN
18 U.S.C. 1513: RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF CIVIL R IGHTS
210. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 2 09 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
3 See City of Canton v. Harris , 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
33
211. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeki ng to have my
expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defe ndant
Siegel.
212. Defendant Kell further retaliated against me f or filing my
motion to recuse Defendant Woods.
213. Defendant Kell retaliated against me by issuin g a final
order that imposed supervised visits, compelled me to
undergo psychological treatment, denied me my right to
patient/therapist privilege, and denied me my funda mental
right to the care, custody and control of my Minor
Children.
214. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant I ngram’s
failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s impositi on of
supervision on my visits with my children.
215. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suf fered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betra yal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damage s.
COUNT EIGHT
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
216. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporat es by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 2 15 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set for th.
217. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeki ng to have my
expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defe ndant
Siegel.
34
218. All Defendants intentionally and recklessly in flicted
emotional distress on me by denying me my constitut ional
rights, by forcing me to defend costly litigation f or over
four years, by conspiring with other Defendants to deny my
civil rights, by retaliating against me for the law ful
exercise of my right to cross examination and prese ntation
of witnesses, and knew or should have known that em otional
distress was the likely result of their conduct.
219. Defendants’ conduct was directed at me.
220. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous , beyond all
possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community.
221. The actions of the Defendants were the cause o f my
distress.
222. The emotional distress I sustained was severe.
223. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and out rageous
conduct, I was, am, and, with a high degree of like lihood,
will continue to be emotionally distressed.
224. Defendants Board of Commissioners and Defendan t Sonny
Purdue are liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
225. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and out rageous
conduct, I have suffered and will continue to suffe r mental
pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarras sment,
and humiliation.
35
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
226. A declaratory judgment that each and every §19 83 cause of
action numbered 1 through and including 7 lies as a
violation of my civil rights.
227. A declaratory judgment that each and every com mon law claim
lies.
228. A declaratory judgment that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3( b) permitting
reduction of visitation and imposition of supervisi on
“without the necessity of any showing of a change i n any
material conditions and circumstances of either par ty or
the child” violates my fundamental right to the car e,
custody, and control of my children under the Const itution
of the United States.
229. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoini ng
Defendants, jointly and severally, from continuing to
violate my civil rights under the United States
Constitution; and
230. Judgment, where available, and against all Def endants not
protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severa lly for
all actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the
amount of $5,000,000 and
231. Judgment, where available, and against all Def endants not
protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severa lly, for
punitive damages in an amount to be determined by t he jury,
232. Costs of this action, including attorney's fee s, and such
other relief deemed to be just, fair, and appropria te.
36
This ___ day of April, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Dean Mark Gottschalk