5 – Federal Case – I Call Bullshit

Who needs an attorney in a civil suit against the government when the defendants have a senior united states district court judge representing them?

CONTENTS

1. – INTRODUCTION

2. – 9th CIRCUIT CASES

3. – FRIENDS?

4. – CASE HISTORY

5. – DISTRICT COURT FILINGS & RULINGS

A.  Complaint & Amended Complaint Order

B.  Amended Complaint & Case Dismissed Without Prejudice

C.  Rule 60(b) Motion For Relief From Judgment & Rule 60(b) Motion Denied

1.  Introduction

I call bullshit on the ruling by senior united states district court judge frank zapata for the district of arizona-Tucson for bias.  My case was thrown out by zapata for supposedly failing to state of claim upon which relief could be granted but my complaint and amended complaint were not even close to being as deficient as zapata tried to claim.  I’ll get to that later.

I ended up having to file an appeal to the 9th circuit to challenge zapata’s ruling.  However, once a u.s. district court judge like zapata rules against a pro se litigant like me then the pro se litigant is screwed unless someone steps up to the plate, which no one did, but as I have already written the deck is stacked against poorer people that cannot afford an attorney.

2.  9th Circuit Cases

Here are some cases from my brief with the 9th circuit supporting my claim that zapata should not have dismissed my case.  I never got to discovery which was crucial in my case and would have significantly strengthened it.

A Complaint may not be dismissed unless it appears certain that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle Plaintiff to relief. Baker v. McNeil Island Corrections Center, 859 F.2d 124, 127 (9th Cir.1988)

“In appraising the sufficiency of a complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)

“The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.”  Conley @ 48. (citing Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938))

“The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the “liberty” it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint.” Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause “protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them'”) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302 (1993); Planned Parenthood Of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 851 (1992). Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719-720 (1997)

“Under the federal rules a complaint is required only to give the notice of the claim such that the opposing party may defend himself or herself effectively. The theory of the federal rules is that once notice-giving pleadings have been served, the parties are to conduct discovery in order to learn more about the underlying facts.” Starr v. Bacca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1212 (2011)

“The factual allegations of the complaint need only “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.”  As the Court wrote in Twombly, Rule 8(a) “does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” to support the allegations.” Starr @ 1217.

“Whether a local government has displayed a policy of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its citizens is generally a jury question.” Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1194-1195 (2002)

A complaint clearly would have to be flawed beyond belief to be dismissed based on case law and even what the 9th circuit has stated in its own opinions.

3.  Friends?

Originally when the case was assigned to zapata I thought he might be a good judge for a case like this based on his bio.  Wikipedia states the following:

“Zapata was a Staff attorney of Pima County Legal Aid Society, Arizona from 1973 to 1974. He was an Assistant federal public defender, Arizona from 1974 to 1984. He was a Chief assistant federal public defender, Arizona from 1984 to 1994. He was an Assistant adjunct professor, University of Arizona College of Law from 1988 to 1990.”

Based on this zapata should know all too well that it is critical for law enforcement and prosecutors to do a thorough investigation before deciding to move forward with a felony case.  Zapata should also know the damage that can be inflicted on a citizen, especially a poorer citizen, if the criminal case is flawed to the point of the defense filing a motion to remand the case to the grand jury to redetermine probable cause alleging a violation of the due process rights of a citizen secured by the 14th Amendment.

If the case is not continued but is dropped after the allegations then there is probable cause of a constitutional violation which would mean, based on the prosecutor’s office own website, that this case should not have moved forward and been resolved within 10 days after I was arrested on some dumbass charge of stalking a woman who was completely discredited.

Why did I suffer 84 days worth of damage with 74 of the days coming after the grand jury hearing?  There is no excuse for the significant damage I incurred.  I should have been compensated immediately for this unconstitutional damage but instead my violators are left off the hook when there is, without a doubt, probable cause.

Was zapata biased in his ruling?  I say yes just based on the arguments made in the filings.  Zapata made assumptions instead of dealing with facts as zapata did not have access to the criminal case.  These are the same assumptions that both the sheriff’s department and the prosecutors office made that was debunked in the criminal case.

Does zapata actually know pima county attorney barbara lawall?  The odds are slim to none that they do not know each other, they surely have mutual friends, and very well could be friends themselves.  Their children could know each other as they could be of similar age etc.  It is also not beyond belief that zapata would have known the sheriff as well as both were in office at the same time 20 years or so.

Part of lawall’s bio on the PCAO website states the following:

“In 1996 Barbara LaWall became the first woman ever to be elected Pima County Attorney. Previously, she had been a Deputy County Attorney for 20 years, during which she prosecuted criminal cases as a trial lawyer; managed the Criminal Division as the Chief Criminal Deputy; and oversaw administrative, budgetary, and policy matters as Chief Deputy County Attorney.

A nationally recognized expert on criminal prosecution issues, Barbara LaWall has been appointed to numerous commissions and task forces. She is a current member and past chair of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and currently serves on the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council. In 2003, she was appointed by Governor Janet Napolitano to chair the search committee for the new director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and, in 2006, chaired the statewide Methamphetamine Task Force.”

Zapata was born in Safford, Arizona, received an Associate of Arts degree from Eastern Arizona College in 1964, a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arizona in 1966, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Arizona College of Law in 1973. – wikipedia

Lawall grew up in Tucson which is a two-hour drive from Safford.  She got her bachelors at the University of Arizona and taught at the Tucson United School District for several years before attending U of A law school.  Lawall joined the PCAO after law school as a deputy county attorney in 1977.  Lawall worked as a deputy county attorney for 20 years until 1996 when she became the pima county attorney.

The University of Arizona is in Tucson which is in pima county.

Both zapata and lawall did well for themselves in the Tucson area.

Based on these bios, zapata and lawall are of similar age, grew up two hours away from each other, attended the University of Arizona at approximately the same time, went to law school at U of A just one or two years apart, and have been in the legal field working for some form of government in the Tucson area for 42 years.

They are graduates of the same university, they are graduates of the same law school, and both have lived in the Tucson area at least from the early 1970s and possibly even the 1960s.

These two people know each other.  People have “taken care” of issues for a lot less reasons than my case.

So, lawall has this stellar reputation and some country hillbilly from Kentucky is rocking the boat by challenging lawall and her office for constitutional violations in which she and her office, along with the sheriff’s department, are responsible.  It only takes one case to ruin a reputation as it can expose who a person really is.

Judge zapata was biased in his rulings so I never had a chance.  He was the defendant’s lawyer.  There are multiple statements in his rulings that shows he was not fair as I will get to later.

4.  Case History

First of all, I did not want to file the federal case in arizona to get as far away from pima county and arizona as possible as I do not trust them and rightfully so.  As a matter of fact, I wanted to file in Kentucky to ensure the federal case would be fair and unbiased but according to the federal rules I had to file in Tucson.

I had sent a notice of claim to pima county April 16, 2018 informing them that a lawsuit was forthcoming but realized later that is not necessary in federal court.  However, pima county was made aware, again, of what transpired in 2014 and did nothing for the second time.

I filed the complaint on 5/29/2018 that was 35 pages long along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) so the fees would be waived because I was poor.  The case was assigned to senior judge frank zapata on 5/30/2018.

On 6/7/2018, zapata ordered that the complaint be amended to “state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”  IFP status was granted.

On 6/28/2018 an amended complaint was filed but it did not comply with the local rules which shows what parts were changed so I was ordered to send another which was the exact same as only the charges against the defendants were altered to get it in “compliance” with the original order.  The second amended complaint was filed on 7/12/2018.

On 8/7/2018 the case was dismissed by zapata who claimed that the “Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies pointed out by this Court in the original Complaint” and “Ultimately, the Amended Complaint still fails to allege facts that would render either Pima County, the County’s Attorney, or current and former County Sheriffs liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Additionally, the following day judgment was entered stating “judgment is entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. Plaintiff to take nothing, and complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order.”

At this point I was at an absolute loss and extremely pissed as that was about the best I could do.  Neither complaint was fatally deficient as claimed by zapata.  As good as an experienced lawyer would do in this specific area of civil law?  No.  But zapata’s arguments were weak and biased.

Next, I emailed an attorney that essentially specializes in these sorts of cases in federal court.  He had beaten pima county at a trial in which the PCSD was accused of violating two different households’ constitutional rights stemming from the same incident.  It was obvious that the PCSD was in the wrong, but they fought it anyway.  The attorney won an award of $1.25 million and the case with the other household was settled after the first households trial took place.

I knew the attorney was in the middle of a trial, but I asked him if he could recommend anyone to help with the complaint.  Since it was dismissed without prejudice, I figured I could file again.  The attorney emailed me back on a Saturday and told me he did not think zapata should have thrown the case out for a deficient complaint.  I was actually surprised he read it, but he did inform me that I could file a rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment but that it would not stop the clock ticking to appeal it to the 9th circuit.  I am glad he emailed as I was not aware of the deadlines which were fast approaching and it did support my suspicion that zapata was being unfair in my case.  I had also talked to a friend of mine that is an attorney and we both thought that this would not have been dismissed if it was filed in Kentucky.

I filed the rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment on 8/31/2018 as well as the notice of appeal.  A rule 60(b) motion is basically making arguments of why the judgment should be reversed so the case the continues.  The rule 60(b) motion was, of course, denied on 9/14/2018.

The appeal with the 9th circuit was filed on 10/27/2018.  I made a misspelling on the caption page and resubmitted it 1/5/2019.  The 9th circuit upheld zapata’s ruling on 2/21/2019.  However, the jackasses with the 9th circuit did not even rule on the Rule 60(b) motion as evidently I was supposed to file a separate appeal.  I had no idea about that rule because I am not an attorney and they could have excused that and notified me instead of not making a ruling on it.  I was obviously appealing the entire case.

The writ for certiorari was filed 5/28/2019 and denied on 10/7/2019.  The petition for rehearing was filed 10/28/2019 and denied on 11/25/2019.

I got a life sentence and did not commit a crime.

5.  District Court Filings & Rulings

A.  Complaint & Amend Complaint Order

The first order to amend complaint was on 6/6/2018 and is four pages long.

The criminal case makes the allegation, which is not challenged and is supported by actual facts, that the culmination of me flying to Tucson to check on the wellbeing of Ms. Wrists was a premeditated plot orchestrated by Ms. Wrists.  This is the thing – it is just as crazy as that sounds but there is much more to it than is even brought up in the criminal case.

One paragraph of the criminal case specifically states the following:

“The state failed to instruct the jury on the requirements of A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(2) and (B), the very statute Mr. Webb was accused of violating.  Additionally, the State withheld crucial exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury – Ms. Shaw’s history of suicidal ideation, the fact that she contacted him seeking help, the fact that Ms. Shaw did not fear Mr. Webb was stalking her but was instead upset when she believed he stopped talking to her, the fact that Ms. Shaw encouraged Mr. Webb to quit his job, and the fact that she knew he planned to come to Tucson out of worry for her.”

Another fact from the criminal case is that Ms. Wrists was testing loyalty to see if I would be in a committed relationship with her.  The evidence clearly shows that is a fact.

“On March 2, 2014, Ms. Shaw sent a series of text messages that show she was testing his loyalty and commitment to her.  First, she told him, ‘Things have changed.  Thought you were off the bus.’  Then she wrote, ‘Well we should talk soon because things have changed.  I’m giving this life a go.  Had to.  Thought you were out.’  Mr. Webb called her bluff and wrote back, ‘Ok.  I tried.’  Ms. Shaw then expresses her displeasure with Mr. Webb’s answer, ‘Wow that was easy.’  She again made it clear that she was upset that she believed Mr. Webb had not contacted her.  ‘I had no idea you weren’t getting my messages.’”

“On March 3, 2014, Ms. Shaw again expressed her fear that Mr. Webb was not serious about being a permanent part of her life, ‘You are either [in] my life or not what are you?’”

What Ms. Wrists was actually doing was making 100% certain that I would commit so it would culminate into me flying to Tucson to check on her wellbeing.

This is the 3rd paragraph of the first page which shows that zapata had already made up his mind about what happened.  It states:

“The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff flew from Kentucky to Arizona to contact Jill K. Shaw, a former romantic acquaintance; and that police responded to a 9-1-1 call after Plaintiff showed up uninvited at Jill Shaw’s residence (where Ms. Shaw lived with her husband) on the evening of March 15, 2014.”

That sets the tone for the entire civil case and that is total bullshit.

The complaint itself supplies evidence that this statement regarding the judge’s order to amend complaint is not accurate.  A judge is not the fact finder; a jury is.  A jury decides if the paragraph is accurate which it is not.  This paragraph is based on assumptions and this is exactly what the PCSD and PCAO assumed until it was made clear that this was not the case.  I was invited to possibly be murdered in a premeditated malevolent plot and that is a fact.

Ms. Wrists had led me to believe that she was divorced and separated from her husband.  The following is excerpts from the criminal case.

“On January 9, 2014, Ms. Shaw reinitiated their romantic relationship via telephone and text message.  She cried out for Mr. Webb’s help, leading him to believe that she was divorcing her husband and suicidal…Ms. Shaw led him to believe she was divorcing, depressed, and suicidal when she contacted him in January 2014.”

“Based on their conversations and the text message with the photo of the motor home, Ms. Shaw gave Mr. Webb the impression that Ms. Shaw had moved out of her house, was separated from her husband, and was living in the motor home.”

“Once they were able to get their phones working again, Ms. Shaw makes clear that she was worried not because she thought Mr. Webb was stalking her, but rather she was worried that he had stopped talking to her.”

This was just part of what was in the criminal case.  The civil case would reveal much more that supports these facts and would 100% leave no doubt that this was a premeditated plot in which I could have been murdered.

For instance, during the last two weeks of February 2014 Ms. Wrists texts were going to a spam folder.  This data was unable to be captured but I did read them.  There were at least two ultimatums in which she was “out” or “done” or whatever words she was using.  At least one if not two went by with no response from me.  Ms. Wrists should have been done but instead would then question why I wouldn’t answer her texts.

The last ultimatum stated that I had until the following day to respond to her texts or she was “out.”  I had until 9am her time.  A text comes through reminding me that I had two hours.  Another text comes through reminding me I had 30 minutes.  Then I had 15 minutes.

At 9am my phone rings and it is Ms. Wrists.

Ms. Wrists could not orchestrate her plan if I wasn’t responding to her texts.  There are many peculiarities over the 20 years that I had known her reinforcing these facts.  There is no reason that any of that information or any other information I have should be in the complaint.  That would have been part of discovery but just with the little information contained here it becomes obvious.  I would have never dreamed in a million years someone would intentionally try to do something as crazy as that but that is what happened.

One cannot apply abc123 logic to every situation as things aren’t always so black and white.  This was not an abc123 criminal case as the PCSD and PCAO later learned but it was their job to figure that out before they sought an indictment.

Zapata is talking out of his ass because what is written is incorrect.  Zapata conveniently leaves out that I called 911 requesting a welfare check.  Zapata is wrongly applying logic that is not applicable as it is not an abc123 case.  Zapata had not seen any documents from the criminal case so he cannot claim that as an absolute fact.  There is no reason for any documents like that to submitted with the complaint anyway as that is discovery information.  Zapata is making conclusory assumptions which is not supported by actual facts.

Here are three examples, but there is much more that would have been revealed with one piece of evidence that is not included that would leave no doubt whatsoever that this was intentional, that significantly strengthens that this premeditated malevolent plot could have been in the works for years that would have come out in discovery that is not included in the criminal case.

I recall at some point that Ms. Wrists made an odd statement that could have been made years before 2014 but I cannot recall for sure.  She told me that whenever she went back to Elizabethtown, where her mother lived, that she and her mother would drive around the courthouse.  That makes no sense.  The courthouse was three miles from her mother’s house and there is no logical reason to do that but I sure as hell did end up in a courthouse many years later. Her mother moved from Elizabethtown in the mid-2000s which would date doing that around 10 years before I was contacted in 2014.  It’s just weird and illogical.

In April of 2012 Ms. Wrists called me crying telling me she was getting married again and it was supposed to be me etc. etc.  Ok whatever I don’t sit around wondering what the hell is going on with her.  As it turned out, the marriage was scheduled for 5/5/2012.  May 5th just happens to be my birthday but no one would know that except her.  I calculated the odds of this being a coincidence a few years ago.

5/5/12 was a Saturday and almost all weddings are on Saturday. 10% of weddings are in May.  There were four Saturdays in May 2012. 10%/4 = 2.5%.  That’s a 1:40 shot of that date being random.  Ms. Wrists can lie to people and deceive people but the math shows that the odds of that being a coincidence is very low but it is possible.

Another odd statement, which may have been said multiple times in 2014, was that my family hates her.  I told her that was not true because they had no reason.  After what transpired though it is safe to say that is more accurate even though hate may be a little strong.

The next paragraph, which is still on the first page, is also total bullshit.

“Plaintiff was then contacted by a Pima County Deputy Sheriff who requested a meeting, and — based on that in-person meeting and the 9-1-1 call — Plaintiff was arrested on a felony stalking charge.”

Wrong.  Again, these are assumptions.  Zapata never looked at the criminal case, so he has no idea what the facts are.  How would he know that I was arrested based on the in-person meeting and 911 call?  Also, the dispatcher told me a deputy would be in touch with me after the welfare check, so I was expecting a phone call.

The evidence shows that the deputy had predetermined he was going to arrest me.  Ms. Wrists played the damsel in distress card which the deputy, as well as everyone else, bought hook, line, and sinker.  The deputy did know about the June 2013 hospitalization of Ms. Wrists for attempting suicide and craving suicide.

Ms. Wrists told the deputy that she had not been suicidal or had suicidal thoughts since June 2013.  He asked me immediately if I had any evidence supporting the claim that Ms. Wrists had been suicidal.  I showed him the picture and text accompanying the picture to back my claim up as well as informing him there were love notes texted to me that were kept for 15+ years that were on my phone.  For some reason Ms. Wrists was throwing me under the bus and fabricating claims.

I proved she was lying immediately and instead of questioning the validity of Ms. Wrists claim he started attacking me.  It was obvious within five minutes that this jackass was arresting me and there was not anything that I could do.  This guy is so stupid though that the incident report reflects that he had no intentions of meeting with me and just disregarded anything in my favor.

He does acknowledge that I called for a welfare check as well as deputies responding to an incident referencing suicide by Ms. Wrists in June 2013.  Ms. Wrists then told him that she had not had suicidal thoughts since then.  Then he incorrectly writes that we dated in high school which is impossible as I was a freshman in college and she was a senior in school.  We did not date in high school but dated for many years off and on while not in high school.

He then writes that Ms. Wrists and I talk or text every 3-5 years which is a lie as the April of 2012 date proves that is less than two years.  Actually, Ms. Wrists had contacted me another time as well which made that twice in a 2.5-year period.

When he writes about the picture he states – “He showed me a text message on 02/07/20l4 from a phone number of… In the picture it is a very blurry picture which appears to potentially a wrist with some tattoos on it and a red mark with the potential of a drop that looked like blood.”  Just say what the damn thing is and quit downplaying it.

Next he does write the text message which reads “M this is not healthy. Am I just reaching out? I can’t sleep, haven’t for days and I like to watch blood drip down my wrist in the unlikely situation that someone might actually help me because I’m clearly not brave enough to accomplish the outcome I crave.”

I couldn’t pull up some other pictures etc. but I gave him the evidence that he asked for.  Then he states that “When Travis had no more relevant information to provide…”

What the fuck is he talking about regarding “relevant information?”  If that’s not relevant information then there is no such thing.  After this he confirms that this was not a meeting and that he had predetermined that he was going to arrest me and that is what happened.  I was powerless in that situation and what was happening was beyond belief.  He never contacted Ms. Wrists to ask her about the picture and the text.  She was never asked about them during the entire criminal case.

That paragraph by zapata is a total crock of shit with no factual basis just like the one that preceded it.

For the rest of that order he unnecessarily nitpicks my legal work which was not flawed.  The complaint met the standard pleading requirement and the 14th amendment allegations were clearly defined.

B.  Amended Complaint & Case Dismissed

I submitted the amended complaint with changes to the charges against the defendants.  I think the charges were a little clearer on the amended complaint but I still think the first one was fine.

“The Amended Complaint still fails to state which constitutional right was abridged by a state actor. Instead, the Amended Complaint makes conclusory allegations couched in the general terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  The case was dismissed without prejudice thereby setting a horrible example as this dismissal essentially gives the defendants a free ride allowing them to do whatever they want with no consequences.

The definition of conclusory is “consisting of or relating to a conclusion or assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered.”  Both the paragraphs from the original order are conclusory and not based on actual fact.

The 14th amendment allegation was already made and there was plenty of supporting evidence.  All I need to do is prove that this occurred.  This conclusory deal is an easy out for zapata.  All allegations will have some form of conclusion or else there would be no lawsuit in the first place.  The pleading standard implored by zapata was unfair and biased.

C.  Rule 60(b) Motion For Relief From Judgment & Rule 60(b) Motion Denied

The Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment was filed on 8/30/2018 and was 13 pages.  I make solid arguments but it was to no avail.  The following is the opening of the motion that was on the caption page.

“Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the Order to dismiss this case as Plaintiff is in compliance with the Order to amend the complaint.  The circumstances that preceded Plaintiff’s case is rare and it is of the utmost importance that the rights of citizens of the United States are not trampled upon at will by any person or any entity.  Plaintiff cannot be denied his fundamental right to hold the defendants accountable.”

I argue that discovery will uncover much more information that I did not have access to at the time.  This lawsuit is investigative as depositions and subpoenaed documents would reveal more of the practices of the county, the PCAO, and the PCSD.  Something is amiss if a criminal case like mine was botched to the point of a due process violation and it is hard to believe that this is an isolated case.

There are a couple of lawsuits that I highlighted in which the PCSD violated the constitutional rights of two households.  Of course, they denied doing anything wrong just as with my case.

These cases are similar to mine as there was no regard for the rights of any of the citizens involved but instead the actions by the PCSD were hasty and reckless.  The following is from the motion:

“It would take Plaintiff having access to dozens, if not hundreds, of case files from each entity, Pima County, PCSD, and PCAO, along with policy manuals to isolate flawed policies, customs, or practices that would lead to the claims made against each defendant and the entities.

However, in absence of a yearlong investigation or longer by Plaintiff a pattern is already in existence regarding a mentally unstable person already known to the PCSD, and subsequently Pima County and the PCAO, making claims resulting in two lawsuits that alleged constitutional rights violations by the PCSD while adhering to policies, practices, and customs instituted by Sheriff Dupnik.

According to the complaint of case # 4:14-CV-01592-TUC-DCB, in May of 2013 PCSD deputies responded to a 911 call made from William Warfe alleging that he heard a gunshot, people yelling and screaming, and a woman crying about “having to shoot him” from a nearby property.  Warfe was already in a PCSD database and known as mentally unstable as Warfe had made numerous false reports via 911 calls to the PCSD starting in December 2012 from his residence in a mobile home park.  In one incident Warfe was transported by the PCSD to a Pima County Crisis Response Center as he “heard voices in his head.”

The PCSD proceeded to respond to the call even though Warfe had given the operator his correct name and he was already in the database as unreliable and mentally unstable.  Then, on Warfe’s guidance, multiple deputies were directed to the Larson residence where they ended up awaking the Larsons by banging on the door and screaming for the Larsons to come out of their residence around 10 PM.  Robbin Larson answered the door where he was met by a deputy armed with an assault rifle pointed directly at him and telling him to come out with his hands up.  Mr. Larson was only wearing undershorts.  Mr. Larson complied and his wife Jill Larson was subjected to the same orders in which she complied.  Ms. Larson was barefoot just like her husband and only wearing a tee shirt and underwear.

The Larsons were detained, handcuffed behind their back, and then placed face forward against a patrol cruiser for 45 minutes or more while two deputies entered and searched their home.

Warfe walked into the middle of the road and when a deputy questioned him about a lack of appearance of a violent encounter Warfe pointed to another residence and suggested that may be the location of the alleged shooting as he was unsure exactly what residence it was.

The PCSD deputies then took up positions behind two patrol cruisers while armed with assault rifles and handguns following the cruisers and did the same thing with the occupants of that residence, Eva Jackson, her daughter Amber, and Amber’s fiancé Aaron Cole, as with Larsons including ordering them out of their residence at gunpoint as Warfe stood in the road watching.

The occupants of both residences were handcuffed and detained for an extended period of time and eventually released from custody.

The Larsons filed suit alleging constitutional rights violations on 2/10/2014 with Sheriff Dupnik and a supervising deputy, Jeffrey Reah, named as defendants.  In April 2016 a jury ruled in favor of the Larsons and awarded the couple $1,250,000.

The Jacksons filed suit alleging constitutional rights violations, case # 4:15-CV-00052-TUC-JAS, in February 2015 against multiple PCSD personnel and Dupnik and was settled in late 2017.

In the Larson case Dupnik and Reah were defended by Stacey Roseberry of the Pima County Attorney’s Office.  Ms. Roseberry also defended Dupnik and the other defendants in the Jackson case.

In plaintiffs case Deputy Sharp, who was already aware of Webb’s 911 welfare check call referencing suicide, noted in the incident report that on the incidence table on the call before he met with Ms. Shaw at her residence that in June 2013 deputies responded to the same address referencing suicidal threats.

Sharp was aware before requesting to meet with Plaintiff at a PCSD substation that Ms. Shaw was suicidal 9 months prior to Webb claiming she was suicidal.  Webb was asked by Deputy Sharp within a very short period of time if he had any proof that Ms. Shaw was suicidal as Ms. Shaw claimed that she had not been suicidal or had suicidal thoughts since June 2013 and any pictures Webb might have would have been from June 2013.  Webb did show Sharp a picture of Ms. Shaw’s left wrist bleeding which included a text message in which Ms. Shaw wrote “I like to watch blood drip down my wrists in the unlikely situation that someone might actually help me because I’m clearly not brave enough to accomplish the outcome I crave.”  The date of the picture with the text was from February 2014.

Ms. Shaw was not contacted by Deputy Sharp to inquire about what Webb showed him contradicting her claims but instead did not question Ms. Shaw’s statement and arrested Webb.

Just as with Warfe in May of 2013, Ms. Shaw was already known to the PCSD to have been suicidal but her claims were not questioned just as Warfe’s claims were not questioned which led to the Larsons and Jacksons being detained at gunpoint.

Just 10 months after the Warfe incident another PCSD deputy exhibited similar behavior regarding a known person that had been hospitalized with the PCSD even transporting the known person to a hospital/crisis center.

Sheriff Dupnik’s policies, practices, and customs regarding mentally unstable persons known to PCSD deputies had not changed even though only 10 months prior a serious event occurred in which innocent people were put in handcuffs and detained at gunpoint.

In February of 2014, one month before Webb’s encounter, a constitutional rights violation lawsuit was filed in which a known mentally unstable persons claims were not questioned by the PCSD in which a jury returned a verdict that a constitutional rights violation was committed.

Detective Castillo did question Ms. Shaw about the bloody wrist picture in which she claims it would be from June 2013 as she has not been suicidal nor had any suicidal thoughts since then but the record clearly shows he never asked Ms. Shaw about the text message included with the bloody wrist picture shown to Deputy Sharp to determine if that was from 2013.

Castillo then proceeded to testify at a grand jury hearing without ever questioning Ms. Shaw about the evidence Webb showed and the record clearly shows, per the recorded interview with Ms. Shaw after the grand jury hearing which was 10 days after Webb was arrested, gave the jury incorrect facts, with some of the incorrect facts told to the jurors multiple times, which was directly contradicted, correctly, by Ms. Shaw regarding Ms. Shaw and Plaintiffs past relationship.

Had the jurors been informed of the correct facts regarding Ms. Shaw and Plaintiffs past relationship, the jurors may have returned a no bill and Webb would not have been indicted on class 3 felony of stalking Ms. Shaw.

Sheriff Dupnik’s policies, practices, and customs are flawed to the point of a detective actually testifying at a grand jury hearing with incorrect facts and without questioning a known mentally unstable persons claims even after the Warfe incident.

DCA Kendrick Wilson and/or DCA Chamblee had to approve of the investigation of Castillo and determined it was sufficient enough to proceed to seek an indictment against Webb even though Castillo did not have a recorded interview with Ms. Shaw and Ms. Shaw had not been questioned about the evidence presented by Webb contradicting Ms. Shaw’s claims.

DCA Chamblee presided over the grand jury hearing and determined Castillo’s testimony was sufficient to allow the jurors to vote on a felony indictment.

The record clearly shows that Chamblee did not inform the jurors at all of the elements required to prove stalking and the record clearly shows that a juror asked a question to Chamblee that would require a determination based on incorrect facts testified to by Castillo that were in direct contradiction to the facts in the recorded interview with Ms. Shaw after the hearing.  Had Chamblee corrected Castillo’s testimony and/or informed the jurors of the elements required to prove stalking, the law Webb was accused of violating, the jurors may have returned a no bill and Webb would not have been indicted on a class 3 felony of stalking Ms. Shaw.

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall’s policies, practices, and customs allowed two DCAs to approve a detective’s investigation and decide to proceed with criminal charges and subsequently attempt to prosecute Webb with LaWall’s name attached to every document starting with the indictment.

The PCAO was defending Dupnik in the Larson case in which he was served on 3/26/2014, one day after Webb’s grand jury hearing, and Ms. Roseberry with the PCAO answered the complaint on 4/14/2014.

The PCAO was aware within days of Webb’s indictment that the PCSD acted on information from a person already known to have made false claims and was recently hospitalized prior to the event to the point of the Larsons claiming their constitutional rights were violated.

DCA Wilson continued to pursue the criminal charge against Webb for over two months, with Castillo even continuing his investigation 49 days after he had told Ms. Shaw he was no longer involved with the case unless he was subpoenaed to testify, when the PCAO decided to dismiss the case for unknown reasons but it was after Webb made formal accusations of his constitutional rights being violated that also involved a person that was already known to the PCSD as well.

The Pima County government has a department called Finance and Risk Management that has ten divisions.  Risk Management division has its own web page. (http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=10116)

(skipped portion)

Pima County works hand in hand with all departments in their day-to-day operations including the PCAO and LaWall and the PCSD and Dupnik, Nanos, and Napier.  Pima County assists in the development of programs, policies and best practices to reduce the County’s total cost of risk.  Pima County works with departments to identify various risks from people and strategic operations.  Pima County investigates and analyzes information which is obtained from risk identification systems, including actual and potential risks for trends or patterns.  Pima County administers all claims and protects the best interests of the Pima County Government and its insureds in all aspects of claims management, trial preparation and settlement negotiations among the many others listed.

Pima County’s policies, procedures, and customs promulgates a culture when handling liability claims of strictly avoidance of liability if it is in Pima County’s best financial interests even if trends and patterns do exist concerning constitutional rights issues regarding the PCSD and PCAO at the cost of any citizens constitutional rights as Plaintiff’s case, the Larson’s case, and the Jackson’s case illustrate in the smallest of sample sizes.

Although some facts may be more conclusory it is not the case with the vast majority of facts presented in Plaintiff’s amended complaint.  The allegations are clearly set forth throughout the complaint and Plaintiff does not agree that the claims are not legitimate or are generally couched in the terms of 14th Amendment.”

The following is the conclusion.

“Plaintiff has suffered tremendously as a result of the financial and emotional toll of the criminal case brought him.  He had to start his life over again which he already did 5 years previously so he lost 5 years of his life that he cannot ever recover.  Plaintiff has been in counseling since July of 2014 to the present day solely due to the criminal case brought against him and its repercussions on his life.  He was not in counseling before meeting with Sharp.  A well-qualified counselor, on paper, has stated that Plaintiff was showing signs of post-traumatic stress trauma when he returned to Kentucky.  Other counselors have also assisted him in managing what they believe is also signs of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.  Plaintiff has been homeless and slept in his car numerous times while struggling through the trying times.  Plaintiff has never felt the need to sleep in his car before 3/15/14.  His family called the police on him on two separate occasions because they were worried about how he was handling his situation.  His family attempted to have Plaintiff hospitalized but the hospital would not accept him as there was nothing they could to do to assist him with the situation he was in.  Plaintiff has struggled with employment and finances among many others which Webb has proof of.

It is not Webb’s job to police the government.  It is the government’s job to ensure it is protecting the constitutional rights of all citizens so there is no need to file civil lawsuits against the government in the first place.”

The Rule 60(b) motion was denied on 9/18/2018.  Again, there are serious issues with this decision as well.

“Plaintiff claimed he was only there to check on Ms. Shaw’s health, but Ms. Shaw told the responding officer that “she had not been suicidal or had suicidal thoughts since June 2013 and any pictures [Plaintiff] would have would be from June of 2013.”  Pima County officials then contacted Plaintiff and requested he meet with them in-person to further assess the situation, and “based on that in-person meeting and the 91-1 call, Plaintiff was arrested on a felony stalking charge.””

I already covered this and it is repeated again.  This is sent to the 9th circuit and it is not accurate.

“Plaintiff complains that because Detective Castillo did not meet with Ms. Shaw in-person, the investigation was “unacceptable” and that an in-person meeting would have revealed Ms. Shaw’s “deceptive communication.”  Plaintiff also complains that Detective Castillo’s Grand Jury testimony mischaracterized the true relationship between Plaintiff and Ms. Shaw because Detective Castillo only presented Ms. Shaw’s side of the story (which Plaintiff alleges was fabricated).”

This is not “complaining.”  This is stating facts.  A multitude of events transpired leading to the allegation of the due process violation.  This is a critical part of the case as the evidence shows the investigation was not complete.  This is part of the investigation that greatly contributed to the false indictment as the evidence indicates.  The criminal case shows that this “assessment” is not accurate as these issues were already raised and not defended.  Zapata is not the fact finder and these are conclusory assumptions not backed up by any supporting evidence from the criminal case.

“In conclusion, the Court understands that Plaintiff had limited means, and that Plaintiff’s arrest and indictment required state imposed non de minims[sic] expenses, such as securing temporary housing for the 84 days from when Plaintiff was arrested until the indictment was dismissed…Plaintiff was arrested and indicted, despite claims of innocence; but Plaintiff was also exonerated according to the due process of law. Plaintiff alleges that Pima County’s justice “system is inherently flawed … and dangerous to United States citizens as they have no means of defending themselves until they are actually indicted on a felony charge.”  The Federal Courts’ co-equal role in our constitutional system of governance does not include mandating the witness interviewing procedure that local state officials must follow when conducting their criminal investigations.”

A few things in this paragraph.  First, I was not exonerated according to the due process of law.  An excerpt from the criminal case contradicts this with actual law, not vague statements like is done by zapata with no factual basis.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has described the Grand Jury as “a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused…to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice or ill will.” Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390 (1962).  In Arizona, “the grand jury system is an investigative body acting independently of either prosecutor or judge whose mission is to bring to trial those who may be guilty and clear the innocent.” Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 264 (1977) (citing United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 (1973)).  “The duties of fair play and impartiality imposed on those who attend and serve the grand jury are meant to ensure that the determinations made by that body are informed, objective and just.” Crimmons v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 39, 41 (1983).  Thus, “to do its job effectively, the grand jury must receive a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence. Maretick v. Jarrett, 204 Ariz. 194, 197 (2003).  Remand of the indictment to the Grand Jury is appropriate when the person under investigation is denied a “substantial procedural right,” including due process rights which results in prejudice to the defendant.  See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 12.9; State ex rel. Woods v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 502 (1992).”

“The prosecutor’s role in Grand Jury proceedings is not prosecutorial in nature.  Rather, it is the duty of the prosecutor, as the legal advisor to the Grand Jury, to instruct the jurors on all statutes relevant to their deliberations to ensure a fair and impartial presentation of the law and the evidence to the Grand Jury as required by due process. State v. Crimmins, 137 Ariz. 39, 42 (1983).  In Crimmins, the Court held, “the omission of significant facts, coupled with the omission of instruction on statutes which give the omitted facts their legal significance, rendered the presentation of the case against Crimmins less than fair and impartial.” Crimmins @ 43.”

“Here, the State failed to instruct the Grand Jury on the requirements of A.R.S. §13-2923(A)(2) and (B), the very statute Mr. Webb was accused of violating.  Additionally, the State withheld crucial exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury – Ms. Shaw’s history of suicidal ideation, the fact that she contacted him seeking help, the fact that Ms. Shaw did not fear that Mr. Webb was stalking her but was instead upset when she believed he stopped talking to her, the fact that Ms. Shaw encouraged Mr. Webb to quit his job, and the fact that she knew he planned to come to Tucson out of worry for her.”

Other excerpts include the following:

“Challenges to a finding of probable cause by a Grand Jury due to a deprivation of a substantial procedural right are valid under circumstances in which the presentation of evidence is misleading or otherwise flawed.  See Maretick @ 199…Evidence that is presented to a Grand Jury that is “intentionally or unintentionally false” cannot serve as the foundation of a probable cause finding. Id.  When false or misleading evidence is presented to the Grand Jury, it is “particularly incumbent” upon the prosecutor to correct the record, as a defendant has no effective means of cross examining or rebutting the testimony given before a Grand Jury. Id.”

“The state is obligated to present exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution to the Grand Jury, even absent a request by the defendant, if that evidence is “clearly exculpatory.” Trebus v. Davis In and For County of Pima, 189 Ariz. 621, 625.  Clearly exculpatory evidence is of such weight that it might deter the Grand Jury from finding the existence of probable cause. Id.”

“Like the defendants in Crimmins and Herrell, Mr. Webb was deprived of his due process right to a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence when the prosecutor failed to instruct the jury on relevant statute and when the detective failed to provide an “accurate picture” of the substantive facts.  Had the State corrected the testimony, the Grand Jury could well have determined that there was convincing evidence of lawful conduct, and returned a no bill.  By failing to instruct the Grand Jury on the law pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2923 and the salient exculpatory facts, the State violated Mr. Webb’s due process rights to an unbiased Grand Jury, and a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence.”

Obviously, this isn’t even remotely similar to being exonerated by due process of law as zapata wants to claim.  This is called a constitutional violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, it is not the federal governments job to mandate interview procedures etc. at the local levels.  However, it is the federal governments job to ensure whatever procedures are used in a criminal case do not result in constitutional violations.  That is what U.S.C. § 1983 is for.  The only way to ensure there are not violations is to allow the citizens to legally retaliate if a sliver of probable cause exists.  This case is much more than a sliver.

The conclusion states “Accordingly, IT IS DETERMINED that although the Plaintiff’s appeal may lack a realistic probability of success, the appeal is not “frivolous or taken in bad faith.”

It is up to the 9th circuit to determine the success of the appeal, not zapata.

The rest is history.  Thank you for your hospitality united states.