Mike Andrus's Section 1983 complaint against angry local judge Carr in Hurricane Utah.

b. Bivens v Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bivens.html 29 L Ed 2^nd d 403 US 388, 91 S Ct 1999; and

c. This court has pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the breaches of duty and other common law offenses asserted herein.

2. Venue is proper here because all the parties work here and because the location of the civil rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is here.

Venue based on Location of Parties and Events

3. All parties are residents of this judicial district.

4. All events herein transpired in this judicial district.

List of Parties and their Nexus to the complaint - as specifically requested in this case.

5. I also list the specific defendants in the paragraphs listing the causes of action.

6. All human parties are over the age of 21.

7. I, Mike Andrus, am the aggrieved party.

8. I am a Private Attorney General as the term is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Newman v Piggie Park (1968) 390 U.S. 400: http://www.tompeace.s5.com/piggie.html

9. I am not the only person aggrieved by traffic courts and angry out-of-control judges but I am the one who stands up today to say “Hey, this will not stand !”

10. When I do this for my own case I also do it as a public service to all other similarly situated persons.

11. This status of “Private Attorney General” entitles me to an award of attorney and expert fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988 et seq.

12. I am also entitled to fees pursuant to RICO 18 USC 1961 et seq.

13. I am entitled to triple damages pursuant to RICO.

14. I am entitled to punitive damages.

Definition of Class:

15. The class consists of all persons who have been assessed traffic fines by Defendant Judge Carr without disclosure that he is not a lawyer and that he is a long-time former highway patrol trooper.

Nexus: Defendant Angry Judge Carr: Section 1983,RICO, false arrest and imprisonment .

16. The actions of Judge Carr are described in the complaint at “All about Judge Carr”: Click here to go there.

17. Here are descriptions of the action of Defendant Carr in order to establish a nexus to the causes of action.

18. As more fully described below (at “All about Judge Carr”: Click here to go there ) Defendant Judge Carr obstructed justice in violation of 18 USC 1513 by obstructing the flow of my court paper to the court of appeal and then retaliating against me when I caught him red-handed.

19. Defendant Judge Carr compounded his crime by threatening to have me arrested if I did not immediately desist in questioning his clerk regarding her obstruction of the flow of my court paper to the next higher court.

20. Defendant Carr then failed to issue a warrant but made a false oral police call.

21. He ordered the police to bring me from out of the jurisdiction into his court.

22. He then ordered me to serve 5 days in jail without bail, or appeal, or any accouterments of due process.

23. He then conspired to have me tried again for the same event.

24. All of this is more fully set forth in the Chronology of operative events at “All about Judge Carr”: Click here to go there.

Nexus: Defendant Virginia Pectol, Clerk for Judge Carr.

25. Defendant Virginia Pectol is the clerk for Defendant Judge Carr.

26. Her actions are described in the chronology herein at “All about Clerk Virginia Pectol” Click here to go there.

27. She is also listed in those causes of action for which she is liable.

28. She is also listed in the Index of Defendants for your convenience.

29. Her nexus is that she conspired with Defendant Judge Carr to keep my court paper from going to the next higher court in the nature of appeal.

30. In doing so she committed a predicate crime to RICO, namely 19 USC 1512, obstruction of justice, as set forth more fully elsewhere herein.

31. She violated my rights under color of law.

32. She should have done her ministerial duty and delivered the appeal paper to the next higher court.

Nexus: Defendant Police Officers Thad Feltner and Brandon Beull.

33. Defendants Thad Feltner and Brandon Buell are employed as a peace officer by Hurricane City.

34. Their actions are described in the chronology herein.

35. They are also listed in those causes of action for which they are liable.

36. They are also listed in the Index of Defendants.

37. Their nexus is that they conspired with Defendant Judge Carr to obstruct justice thereby conspiring to deny my rights in violation of section 1983 and 1985.

38. More specifically they retaliated against me for my having attempted to bring to light the obstruction of justice previously committed by Defendant Carr in his obstruction of the flow of my court paper to a higher court.

39. They made a police stop without probable cause and without an arrest warrant.

40. They violated my rights; they are liable for that and conspiracy.

41. They are liable for common law false arrest and false imprisonment.

42. Defendant Officer Brandon Buell was the ride along officer in the car that pursued me at the request of Defendant Judge Carr despite Carr’s failure to have issued a warrant.

Nexus: City Prosecutor Christopher Edwards

43. Defendant City Prosecutor Christopher Edwards filed a false complaint against me as set forth more fully in “All about Defendant City Prosecutor Christopher Edwards”. Click here to go there.

44. The actions of Edwards that constitute the causes of action are more fully set forth in the chronology.

45. Edward is also listed in those causes of action for which he is liable.

46. He is also listed in the Index of Defendants for your convenience.

47. Christopher Edwards is the city prosecutor in the traffic case against my wife.

48. His nexus is that he breached his ethical duty as prosecutor and officer of the court to do the right thing.

49. He knew of the official corruption; my wife explained it to him.

50. He conspired by his failure to act.

51. He let me sit in jail for 5 days with neither a bail amount nor other niceties of due process. He was a party to the faux contempt hearing. He owes me a duty as officer of the court and as a witness to official corruption.

Nexus: Defendant Mayor Tom Hirschi

52. Defendant Tom Hirschi is the mayor by Hurricane City.

53. His address is 146 West 1070 South, Hurricane, Utah 84737.

54. The actions of Hirschi that constitute the causes of action are described in the chronology.

55. He is also listed in those causes of action for which he is liable.

56. He is also listed in the Index of Defendants.

57. Hirschi was aware that Judge Carr was a problem and that Carr had already violated the constitutional rights of those appearing in his court.

58. Hirschi should have replaced Carr years ago.

59. Hirschi’s inaction was indeed part of a specific policy of the city and county.

60. That policy was “let Judge Carr and the police have unbridled discretion”.

61. To that end he refrained from creating any written policy.

62. A policy of hands-off is a policy; this was the police of Hirschi and the city and county defendants herein.

63. What happened to me is the foreseeable result of the malfeasance of the mayor. He is out to get me and my wife.

64. A city acts only through its employees.

65. The city profited from the RICO acts of his employee, Defendant Judge Carr.

66. The mayor must be held accountable under RICO and the civil rights statutes for the foreseeable result of his continued employment of Carr after repeated complaints of Carr’s corruption, lack of training and incompetence.

Nexus: Unknown Bailiff of Carr’s court

67. The unknown bailiff’s actions are described in the chronology herein.

68. He is also listed in those causes of action for which he is liable.

69. He is also listed in the Index of Defendants.

70. He conspired to deny me my civil rights.

71. He falsely imprisoned me.

72. Defendant Unknown Bailiff of Carr’s court and Defendant Police Officer Raleigh Morris transported me to jail.

Nexus: Defendant Police Officer Raleigh Morris

73. Defendant Morris’s actions are described in the chronology herein.

74. He is also listed in those causes of action for which he is liable.

75. Defendant Morris transported me to jail and booked me.

76. He denied me my civil rights and also conspired with the other defendants and therefore is liable under section 1983 and 1985.

77. He is liable for false imprisonment.

Nexus: Defendant Police Chief Lynn Excell.

78. Defendant Excell is employed by Hurricane City as police chief.

79. He improperly trained, supervised, and hired defendant officers Beull and Feltner.

80. A corporation acts only by the acts and omissions of humans.

81. Defendant Excell should have trained his police to require a warrant or to look for probable cause.

Nexus: Sheriff Kirk and Washington County: Operators of an unconstitutional jail.

82. Sheriff Kirk Smith failed to release me from the illegal imprisonment.

83. His errors and omissions are and actual proximate cause of my having suffered false imprisonment and other injuries at his jail.

84. Washington county had a duty to establish policies for the jail. They failed.

85. The absence of a law library and medical procedures makes their jail per se violative of the standards for jails.

86. The facts pertaining to the nexus are set forth in more detail in the chronology.

Nexus regarding Municipal Defendants emphasizing policy and custom.

87. The actionable actions and policies of the cities and their officials are set forth in detail in the chronology herein at the section entitled “municipal court should have disclosed bias and educational deficiencies to traffic litigants”. Click here to go there.

88. The culpable municipalities and managers are also listed in those causes of action for which they is liable.

89. The official policy of hiring an ex highway patrol officer to hear traffic tickets is bad and actionable policy.

90. Failure to disclose to 12 years worth of traffic ticket litigants that their “Judge” Carr is NOT even a lawyer and IS an ex highway patrol officer constitutes actionable bad policy and a basis for retroactively dismissing all traffic tickets handled by Carr - and that is what I demand.

91. The court/ municipality should have handed each litigant a written notice that the “judge” in their case is merely a high school graduate and knows nothing more about the law than they do.

92. The court should have handed out a written notice to all traffic litigants that the “judge” is not really a judge - and furthermore he is biased in favor of traffic police having served most of his adult life as a traffic cop!

93. I demand herein that all the tickets from the past 12 years be dismissed.

94. As to written policy, it is unrealistic to expect me to know their written policy jot and tittle prior to discovery.

95. At any rate, the “policy” requirement pertains only to section 1983 complaints.

96. The policy applies neither to RICO nor to failure to properly hire/ supervise

97. All of the following deprivations of federal and state constitutional rights were perpetrated by defendants under the color of state law.

Plain Statement of Facts per rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Chronology of Operative Events

Defendant Judge Carr obstructed justice by intercepting my judicial appeal to a higher court; this constituted 18 USC 1512 a predicate crime under the RICO statute.

98. On about June 13, 2003, in Hurricane City, Utah the local police gave a traffic ticket to my wife.

99. My wife is Ruth Andrus.

100. She is not a party to this case.

101. The ticket told her to appear in the Hurricane City Justice Court for arraignment on the offense, a class C misdemeanor criminal offense.

102. Ruth Andrus first appeared in the Justice Court on July 16, 2003, for arraignment on the criminal offense.

103. Defendant Carr was acting as the justice of the peace in the Justice Court presiding in justice court over Ruth's arraignment.

104. Defendant Christopher Edwards was the City Prosecutor who represented Hurricane City in the actions against Ruth and, later, me.

All about Defendant Judge Carr:

105. On at least five occasions closely following the beginning of court proceedings against my wife, I complained in person to Defendant Major Hirschi about the unlawful habits and practices of Defendant Judge Carr and Defendant Prosecutor Edwards.

106. Defendant Carr is the main defendant.

107. His address is 726 South 180 West, Hurricane, Utah 84737.

108. At all pertinent times herein, he was employed as a justice court judge by Hurricane City, 147 North 870 West, Hurricane, Utah 84737.

109. The unconstitutional and criminal actions of Carr that constitute the causes of action are described in the chronology.

110. Carr is also listed in those causes of action for which he is liable.

111. Carr is also listed in the Index of Defendants.

Municipal court should have disclosed bias and educational deficiencies to traffic litigants.

112. This municipal court and the municipalities and city managers should have disclosed the bias and educational deficiencies of this “judge” to the traffic litigants.

The practice of hiring non-lawyers to be judges is bad and actionable policy.

113. Carr is not educated as a lawyer.

114. On information and belief I think that he is a high school graduate.

115. The unconstitutional policy of hiring high school graduates and retired police as judges is one of the issues of this case.

116. Although some frontier states continue to set the standard as “age of at least 18; able to read English” the municipalities are entitled to set higher standards where, as in Utah, this justice court judge is appointed and not elected.

117. In Utah municipalities are negligent if they do not hire a qualified lawyer to do the job especially where, as here, they have been informed that the seat holder is not of suitable judicial temperament and not adequately educated to do his job.

118. Although Carr is employed by Hurricane City, the other municipal defendants employ him to judge the cases in their court which uses the Hurricane City court for their court.

119. Carr is not elected; he is hired by each of the defendant municipalities and each of their mayors and city managers in exercise of actionable bad policy antagonistic to their constituents.

The policy of hiring an ex highway patrol officer to hear traffic tickets is bad and actionable policy.

120. Defendant Carr is an ex highway patrol officer.

121. He sits in judgment of people accused of offenses by his former employer.

122. This is bad policy.

123. Carr has been judge for at least 12 years.

124. For all this time he and the municipal defendants have perpetrated a fraud on the litigants in traffic court.

125. The court should have handed each litigant a written notice that the “judge” in their case is merely a high school graduate and knows nothing more about the law than they do.

126. The court should have handed out a written notice to all traffic litigants that the “judge” is not really a judge - and furthermore he is biased in favor of traffic police having served most of his adult life as a traffic cop!

127. I demand that all the tickets from the past 12 years be dismissed.

128. The municipalities and their managing executives are liable under RICO; they profit from the abuse caused by hiring this bias and incompetent judge for their collectively owned court.

129. They are out to get me and others like me.

130. A policy of hands-off is a nonetheless a policy. No policy is a policy of hands off.

131. The Magna Charta says: “We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.”

132. Defendant Hurricane City has its office at 147 North 870 West, Hurricane, Utah 84737.

133. Despite having been previously warned by me and others that Defendant Judge Carr was out of control, Hurricane City did nothing.

134. A policy of “hands-off” is nonetheless a policy.

135. Their custom is a undue blind respect for judges and police - in this case even after reports and complaints regarding Defendant Judge Carr.

136. This policy and custom caused my injury.

137. Defendant LaVerkin City is at 111 South Main, LaVerkin, Utah 84745.

138. Defendant Town of Virgin is at 101 South Mill Street, Virgin, Utah 84779.

139. Defendant Rockville is at188 West Main Street, Rockville, Utah 84763.

140. Defendant Springdale Town at 118 Lion Blvd., Springdale, Utah 84767.

My incident began not in court but in the clerk’s office.

141. I was in the clerk’s office - not in court - on 5 November 2003 when Defendant Angry Judge Carr confronted me for exposing his obstruction of justice in a traffic case.

142. He had previously obstructed justice in my wife’s traffic ticket. He was now angry that I persisted in exposing him.

143. Judge Carr and Virginia committed the requisite 2 predicate crimes under RICO.

144. Judge Carr and Virginia violated 18 USC 1512 a2 when they obstructed my petition/ appeal in my wife’s case.

145. Section 1512 a 2 inculpates Judge Carr when he:

146. 18 USC 1512 read in pertinent part:

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or . .

147. The complete text of section 1512 is at: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/1983.html

148. Carr and Virginia conspired and concealed my appeal document in my wife’s traffic case with the intent to impair the availability of the document to the higher court.

149. The pertinent RICO statutes and predicate crimes are defined at:

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/1983.html

150. Judge Carr committed 18 USC 1513 b when he retaliated against me for investigating his violation of 18 USC 1512. He did so by filing a false police report and sending police to get me.

151. 18 USC 1513(b) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for - (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record . . .

152. The complete text of section 1513 is at: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/1983.html

153. Carr filed a false police report by phone.

154. His phone call to the police constitutes wire fraud - a predicate RICO crime.

155. His intent was to interfere with commerce which he did by unlawful threat of force and use of force to prohibit me from vindicating my wife’s right to engage in commerce - or not.

156. His interference with commerce is the 5^th predicate RICO crime.

157. He falsely imprisoned me. He covered up his actions by intercepting and discarding my appeal from his decision as more fully set forth below in the chronology. He did this in retaliation for my having attempted to use his court. His actions are a cause of action under 1983 et seq and the common law.

158. Defendant Judge Carr and his clerks obstructed justice and thereby invited prosecution under RICO. The section 1983 and RICO laws are set forth at:

159. www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/1983.html

160. Ruth made a request in her Motion for Discovery that she be provided with a copy of Defendant Carr's Oath of Office as a justice court judge and her request was denied.

161. I did not know if the oath was required by law.

162. I did not know if the oath was on file with the city clerk.

163. On August 12, 2003, I went to the 5th District Court in St. George on behalf of my wife Ruth to deliver to the District Court for filing, a Petition for Permission to Appeal from an Interlocutory Order.

164. I have appended hereto a copy of that Petition as Exhibit 1.

165. The clerk at the District Court told me that she would not file the "appeal" and that "all appeals are filed with the Justice Court and must “come up from Justice Court."

166. The clerk informed me that he was the "head clerk" at the District Court.

167. He told me to take the Petition to the Justice Court and file it there, and that the Justice Court would forward it to the District Court.

All about Defendant Clerk Virginia Pectol.

168. I did as I was told; I delivered the petition to Defendant Virginia Pectol.

169. Defendant Virginia Pectol received my Petition that same day.

170. Defendant Virginia Pectol is the clerk of Judge Carr’s court.

171. Defendant Judge Richard Carr took possession of a copy of the Petition at the time that I filed it. I observed him reading it to himself.

172. It is apparent from later facts that Virginia violated her ministerial duty to forward my paper to the next higher court.

173. The actions of Judge Carr did not interfere with her.

174. As stated further below, she had custody and control of the paper when I visited her later to inquire.

175. Now we jump in our story from August 12 to September 9 - almost a month.

176. During this time Defendants Carr and his Defendant Clerk Pectol have obstructed justice by obstructing the flow of my paper to the higher court.

177. On September 9, 2003, my wife appeared for a pre-trial hearing on her case before defendant Judge Carr.

178. There defendant prosecutor Christopher Edwards told Judge Carr that an Interlocutory Appeal had been filed and that the pretrial should be stayed until the District Court ruled on the Petition.

179. In response, Judge Carr stated, "I didn't know that it had been forwarded. Who forwarded that?"

180. Judge Carr was expressing concern that someone had thwarted his attempt to obstruct justice in this case.

181. Defendant Judge Carr and Defendant Clerk Pectol had already obstructed justice.

182. Defendant Judge Carr and his clerk Defendant Virginia Pectol had already committed the predicate RICO crime of 18 USC 1512 which inculpates anybody who

183. (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record,

document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent

to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an

official proceeding; or. . .

184. Carr then entered an order staying the Justice Court proceedings until the District Court ruled on the Petition.

185. As of the date of this Complaint that stay order has not been lifted.

186. The actions of Defendant Judge Carr constitute a violation of 18 USC 1951 a predicate RICO crime.

187. 18 USC 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence

Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

188. It was his intent to obtain the monetary benefit of a traffic fine in violation of due process and other accouterments of the criminal justice system.