Lawsuit could expose SFPD-ABC collaboration

|
(43)
Attorney Mark Webb
Steven T. Jones

Imminent legal actions against San Francisco, its Police Department, and the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control could reveal whether a pair of undercover agents went rogue in harassing nightclubs and aggressively busting parties or whether they were acting at the direction of top officials.

Attorney Mark Webb – whose work on a racketeering lawsuit against the policing agencies was the subject of cover stories in the Guardian and the SF Weekly – told us that on Monday, he plans to file that racketeering claim against the city (which will then become a lawsuit if the city rejects it, as it routinely does) and a related lawsuit in Superior Court involving the rough, unnecessary arrest of bartender Javier Magallon and harassment of Mike Quan, owner of The Room, Playbar, and Mist. Narrated surveillance video associated with the case was posted on YouTube yesterday.

Central figures in the lawsuit are SFPD Officer Larry Bertrand and ABC agent Michelle Ott, plain-clothes partners in an aggressive crackdown on nightlife over the last year. Webb said he plans to immediately seek police records and communications and to depose Bertrand and Ott to try to determine who ordered the crackdown, why, and when higher-ups became aware of their aggressive tactics.

“I would like to know if Bertrand is being sent places or if he’s just a lone wolf, and the CADs will show that,” Webb said, referring to computer-assisted dispatch reports that track activities and communications involving individual officers. Those and other records that Webb can access through the court-ordered discovery process could finally shed light on what’s behind the crackdown.

Webb had sought to have Mayor Gavin Newsom mediate this dispute before the cases were filed, saying the racketeering lawsuit will be expensive and divisive, and all the nightlife community really wants is an end to the harassment and assurance that it wouldn’t restart once the media attention passes. And Webb did have conversations with top Newsom aide Mike Farrah and with Nicolas King, Newsom’s liaison to the SFPD, but neither indicated that Newsom was willing to get personally involved. Newsom spokesperson Tony Winnicker also told us Newsom preferred to let Police Chief George Gascon handle the matter.

So Webb said he now plans to move forward with litigation. “If they’re not answering the call at City Hall, let’s get into the arena,” Webb told us.

Webb is an experienced litigator who has won multi-million judgments and who started his career in New York City helping prosecute Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act cases against the mob, and now he plans to use RICO laws against what he says is a city-state enterprise to interfere with lawful nightlife activities in San Francisco.

“Webb gets it. It’s a weird mentality, the really good trial attorneys, and Webb is that,” said attorney Mark Rennie, who has spent decades working with the city’s entertainment industry and has helped advise Webb on the case.

Among the parties involved in the RICO claim are those involved in Webb’s other lawsuit against the city, as well as Club Caliente, its owner Maurice Salinas, Azul, its owner John Bauer, New York nightclub owners Phillipe Rieser and David Brinkley, Vessel, and Siobhan Hefferman, who was arrested by Bertrand and Ott at a private party. Others may be added soon.

Great American Music Hall, Slims, and DNA Lounge also claim to have been harassed by the ABC and have been involved in several meetings that led up to Webb’s lawsuit, but they’re not taking part in the lawsuit yet, partially because they fear retribution from the ABC.

“I probably would have jumped in, but I don’t want to walk into a hearing suing the ABC,” Slims and GAMH general manager Dawn Holliday told us, referring to Slims’ April 1 appeals hearing stemming from noise complaint citations triggered by one particularly cranky neighbor.

DNA Lounge, which has regularly documented the harassment campaign on its blog, decided to wait with the other two clubs before joining the suit. “We thought it was important to stand as a community and there were too many venues that were worried about retribution from the police or ABC if they joined the suit,” DNA general manager Barry Synoground told us. 

But Synoground said he’s anxious to see what Webb’s suit unearths, noting that Bertrand and Ott haven’t been visible in recent weeks as complaints against them went public, and saying he thinks Commander James Dudley and other top SFPD brass are really driving this crackdown: “We may have taken one of his tools off the street, but he’ll find another.”

Synoground said most SFPD officers are very professional and they have no problem working with them, but Bertrand and Ott have unnecessarily and aggressively interfered with their business. Holliday goes even further in praising the SFPD, saying she has a good relationship with Bertrand and everyone in Southern Station, blaming her clubs’ troubles on the ABC and the unwillingness of top city officials to stand up for them.

So the internal SFPD communications, and those between the city and the ABC, could prove revealing. “On April 17, I can send out subpoenas to the cops and I can take Bertrand’s deposition 30 days from Monday,” Webb said, citing statutory response periods.  

Webb expressed confidence in his case and said the police shakedowns and harassment fit well with the RICO statute, which has been used against a wide variety of enterprises over the years, including government agencies.

In fact, an American Bar Association book, “Civil RICO: A definitive guide,” by Gregory P. Joseph, seems to support Webb’s confidence. “Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of Section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney fees.’ This simple sentence has generated an avalanche of litigation,” the book begins.

It makes clear the intent of Congress that RICO laws “shall be liberally construed to effectuate the remedial purposes” of targeted individual seeking protection from harassment. A 1981 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (U.S. vs. Turkette) made clear even legitimate enterprises such as government agencies could be sued, and a 1994 ruling (NOW vs. Scheidler) settled a long dispute over whether the racketeering needed to be economically motivated, finding that it doesn’t.

Racketeering was defined by Congress as simply committing any of a long list of “predicate acts,” which include violence or the threat of violence, kidnapping (including false arrest), extortion, physical interference with business, malicious prosecution, and abuse of authority, all of which Webb says apply in his case. He is also reviewing the Guardian’s Death of Fun coverage from the last four years to find more examples of predicate acts involving the SFPD.

The hardest part of proving his case could be to show that it interfered with interstate commerce, although Webb said that’s met by efforts by Bertrand and Ott to prevent Rieser and Brinkley from transferring a liquor license from New York. But “Civil RICO” also said caselaw has established that “RICO requires no more than a slight effect upon interstate commerce,” citing the 1989 case U.S. vs. Doherty.

Like many who have had run-ins with Bertrand and Ott, Webb said he’s anxious to see what he finds in discovery: “What’s fascinating about this is you can uncover the whole system.”

Comments

The Gold skull cane makes Webb all that much more credible.... Webb is the type of frivilous lawsuit attorney which gives the legal profession a bad name. I read that he moved from Mexico because too many of the ambulances that he was chasing contained patients with H1N1 and he was afraid of contracting it.

Posted by BK on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

HEY YOU MUST BE A PIG JUST LIKE THE PIG CAUGHT ON YOU TUBE BEATING ON A BARTENDER. HEY HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF THESE PIGS WALKED INTO YOUR BUSINESS AND SEIZED YOUR PROPERTY AND RAN YOU INTO BANKRUPTCY.? OH WAIT YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.

Posted by Guest THE TRUTH on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 6:51 am

That sounds about right

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

Actually, Mark Webb is a fantastic attorney, he graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and fights tirelessly for peoples rights -

He took my case, which others said was worth very little and got me hundreds of thousands of dollars...

so shut the hell up

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 9:19 am

ok now we're getting somewhere.
good work, steve.

Posted by Fun on War on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

Sounds like Webb is on to something. Webb has done far too much in his career to be discredited as an ambulance chaser by the moron before me.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 5:13 pm

Mark Webb was the U.S Attorney for San Francisco and he worked for the Justice Departments Racketeering Division. He knows what he is talking about. So RICOCKULOUS you can suck on that. I'm sure you are a cop.

Posted by Guest THE TRUTH on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 8:08 am

Wow! When people start having to post someone's credentials, sounds like they're getting a little defensive! If Webb is all that he thinks he is, his work will speak for itself instead of having a bunch of peons coming to his rescue and kissing his a--! I agree with RICOckulous...Webb has no credibility and sounds like a moron...along with "Sounds like Webb is on to something" and "Mark Webb was the U.S. Attorney"...he needs to go back to teaching yoga and meditation in Mexico because he can't cut it here...and get your H1N1 vaccine...you might need it.

Posted by Guest GLNow on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 10:41 am

Where is your creditability motherfucker ? Oh yeah you just got a bigmouth and no brains and it's obvious you can't read what the facts are. Hey do you have eyes? Maybe you should go on you tube and watch these cops beating on people and dumping business owners booze down the sink. Officer Larry the pig is one of the worst cops in the city. He doesn't deserve that badge and clearly he is motivated by something that is illegal. It's called a protection bracket you fucking dumb ass. If you knew anything you could clearly see that. Most of the SF P.D are cool and I'm sure they cannot dig what is going on. The SF P.D works for us and we don't have to take a bad cops shit because he thinks he is above the law. In the U.S vs Nixon the Supreme Court declared that no one and not even the President of the United States is above the law. Larry likes to launch illegal searches and seizures and he doesn't mind beating on your ass either. So fuck him. Have a nice time in the Federal Prison Larry you earned it. Fucking Pig

Posted by Guest THE TRUTH on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 7:04 am

Wow! When random people start having to post someone's credentials, it sounds like they're getting a little defensive! If Webb's as good as he thinks he is, his work will speak for itself. I won't hold my breath...Any attorney that has peons coming to his rescue and kissing his a--, is a little sketchy, no doubt. But then again, it IS San Francisco! Webb is a moron (along with the last 2 people who commented) and needs to go back to Mexico to teach yoga and meditation because he's already proved he can't take the heat here in the US...I agree with RICOckulous...right on the money.
P.S. Webb--make sure you're up-to-date on your H1N1 vaccine...you might need it.

Posted by Guest GLNow on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 10:55 am

His credentials are on his website you dumb ass cop. Besides you don't know anything about the RICO Act and what it takes to make a claim under it. You might even work for the ABC or you might even be Ott's lover. You don't know anything about law and you should just shut your pig mouth. Everyone knows that anyone who runs to defend this corrupt cop on here is just a pig themselves. Now go get your fucking shine box.

Posted by Guest THE TRUTH on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 6:47 am

Brutality at it's best...

Posted by Guest on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

You just don't know when to shut the fuck up. I just kicked your ass in here over and over. Really spare us. Shut the fuck up.

Posted by Guest THE TRUTH on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 9:35 am

someone is being a little too defensive here, I wonder why? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Is she proud of you work?

Posted by Guest on May. 13, 2010 @ 8:30 am

This nightlife jihad is very stupid and will cost the City a lot of money, adding to a projected budget shortfall for San Francisco next year of $502,000,000.00. Fools like Mayor Newsom and RICOULOUS can discount Mark L. Webb, but they do so at their peril. Webb obtained the largest settlement ever from the City of Oakland
[ $2.75 Million] in a matter involving another rouge cop.

Webb has attempted to work this out without filling a lawsuit, but the City wouldn't respond. The only response I know about is that Bertrand and Ott, along with three police cars and a paddy wagon were all out on 11th Street-- with their lights flashing-- last Friday night. Despite the extensive media coverage we have more BS intimidation from SFPD and ABC. Unfortunately, nothing will change until a judge slaps the city with an injunction and a multi-million dollar judgment.

Thankfully, Mark Webb and Attorney Steve Sommers, who is handling the Arash Ghanadan case, are stepping up the heat on the City. The Chief and Bertrand are scheduled to be deposed in April on the Ghanadan case. Bravo.

Posted by Tommy Gunn on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 11:30 am

People who live in fear for no legitimate reason clamor for more cops to protect them. In turn, cops are generally aggressive, macho, and/or violent people. So results like the War on Fun are totally predictable in a fearful society like this one. Everyone has irrational fears, but when those fears are allowed to dictate how the society is run, you end up with a police state like the one we have.

This country is also way too uptight about "minors" drinking alcohol. A person can kill and be killed in a war, but can't legally have a drink? Gimme a break! That's so irrational it's literally insane. Other countries allow young people to drink without any associated problems. This uptight attitude is the rationale for what the ABC does. If ABC's mandate was, say, to make sure that everyone was paying the required alcohol taxes, that agency wouldn't be doing things like this, either.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

Jeff Hoffman says that liberal authoritarian laws are good and that a libertarian view of the world is bad, here he says we should ignore many laws that he isn't a fan of.

This really is an interesting world view the progressives that Jeff represents have created in SF, not to say that there isn't areas of the nation that don't have right wing numb skulls with the same thinking pathology. While telling people what to do with their garbage and hand guns, so called progressives want to annoy people with their DJ's and burning man flash mobs, if the cops crack down on this talentless DJ'd fun, they are macho jerks. Oddly the same people that the progressives had lined up to take law abiding citizens hand guns were the cops.

Putting truth to the old one liner, "when you get mugged are you going to call a hippie?" In the case of SF they wanted to call the cops out to bust their fellow citizens who owned guns, they had no plans of calling a hippie in that case.

It's just sort of odd that for decades the left was opposed to the old rules of society, now when they can set them here in SF, they are as bad as the people they complained about.

The progressive loves the cops and the state when they can use them to their utopian ends, but when they want to ignore the law, "its a war on fun."

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

There's a huge difference between people having lethal weapons and people playing music and having fun, so your analysis makes no sense. Music doesn't harm or kill anyone, and other people's drinking is none of your business.

And one more thing: If you are so uptight that you can't stand other people partying and having fun, why don't you move to the suburbs with the rest of the jerks? People move to places like San Francisco explicitly and specifically to do these things. This is a city, not the suburbs or some farm. If you don't like it, leave. Don't make it miserable for the rest of us because you're uptight. There are plenty of places for you to go where you can have your nice, quiet Stepford/Brave New World lifestyle. Stop invading places like San Francisco and trying to make them into what you want. Move to a place that's already like that.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

So this lawsuit may prove there is collaboration between the SFPD and the ABC, collaboration between two law enforcement agencies, wow I'll bet both of them are running scared.

Fuck me, do you ever read your own headlines?

Posted by Hilarious on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 10:01 pm

Where did I say I care what you do? Although your DJ's smart drug party is nothing I would go anywhere near, I don't think in general the cops should be harassing you.

Your skills around critical thinking and processing information are lacking,

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 10:37 pm

Glen Matlock criticizing other people's critical thinking skills -- that's the funniest thing I've heard in awhile. He's like a local Glenn Beck, blaming progressives for every problem the city faces in theatrically overheated style, often shamelessly torturing logic, such as equating gun ownership with visiting a nightclub while inaccurately saying we somehow expect cops to raid people's houses over guns or garbage. Priceless. Progressives may be many things, but "authoritarian" isn't among them.

As for Hilarious, the article makes clear that the lawsuit will expose the nature of that collaboration, such as why the raids are happening and who's been initiating them. Headlines are imperfect vehicles for conveying that kind of nuance, but I do believe it's accurate, although I'm open to better suggests (and no, Glen, not from you -- we already know you hate everything the Guardian does, but still strangely read and comment here everyday).

Posted by steven on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 8:56 am

I've never been able to quite get the situationalism of the extreme right and left. The situationalism of where at one time you make the argument that freedom is good and the cops and government should not intrude on your life, but at another time the cops and government should be used to enforce the situationalists agenda?

Progressive here in SF are like the far right of 40 years ago, they complain that the government is infringing on their rights in various ways, but then want to force other people's kids to pray in school. Steve wants to force people to give up their legal guns, but gets upset when the cops enforce permit law?

It's not really very tortured on my part, Steve just wants his way and his situationalism makes it OK to approach every situation with a reasoning that works to his advantage at every turn.

Here is the text of the prop H law. One wonders how the cops would be collecting the guns of your subjects if not going to people's houses?

===

SEC. 3601A. PENALTY FOR SALE, DISTRIBUTION, TRANSFER, AND MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION OR POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS WITHIN CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

(a) In enacting Proposition "H" the voters required the Board of Supervisors to enact penalties for its violation. The following sections set forth the penalties for violation of Proposition H.

(b) Any person who shall violate the provisions of Police Code Section 3600A that prohibit the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco or that prohibit the possession of any handgun within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and by imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed six months, or by both.

(c) Any firearm or ammunition sold, distributed, transferred, or manufactured or any handgun possessed within the City and County of San Francisco in violation of the provisions of Police Code Section 3600A is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and shall be surrendered to the Police Department of the City and County of San Francisco. The Chief of Police is authorized to seize such firearms, ammunition and handguns and shall destroy or cause to be destroyed such firearms, ammunition and handguns, except upon the certificate of a judge of a court of record, or of the District Attorney that the preservation thereof is necessary or proper to the ends of justice.

(d) This Section shall be enforced to the full extent of the authority of the City and County of San Francisco. If any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Section or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Section which can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this section shall be deemed severable.

(Added by Ord. 55-06, File No. 060151, App. 3/31/2006)

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 12:24 pm

"when you get mugged are you going to call a hippie?"

I think this is the lesser of 2 evils.

The cop might mug me for my laptop, put me in handcuffs and handle me roughly because I wanted to have fun with other people.
If I were mugged by a criminal, I would have to fill out an online form....so it can be filed away for all eternity never to be looked at again.

When's the last time a cop actually protected you and made your day better? I have never been helped.
When's the last time a cop has made your day worse? Potentially every day.

At least the hippie would make me smile. A hippie might be a good ally for finding the mugger and enacting some "justice".

I'd rather post some advice from my parents: "Be careful tonight, there's a lot of police out."

Posted by Guest on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

Very well put. As a long-time party promoter in San Francisco,this SFBG issue's related stories of the ridiculous Sit-Lie ordinance and War On Fun sent chills down my spine. Throwing parties in this City has never been more of a challenge.....and I would like to discuss another nail being pounded into the coffin of SF nightlife.

True,harassing parties and clubs shouldn't be the top priority for a cash-strapped city's police department.

It is shameful that the SFPD is wasting tax-payer money cracking down on parties and clubs, but were you also aware that the SF DPW is doing the same thing?

They have assigned teams to go up and down Haight St. every day, tearing down LEGALLY posted signs on street poles. When I say legally posted, I refer to guidelines set by the SF DPW itself:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfdpw_page.asp?id=111916

These posters are sometimes the only way party promoters can advertise their events, many of them not having the financial means to advertise elsewhere.

Doesn't is strike you as wasteful, both in tax-payer dollars and man hours, for a City department to assign people the daily task of ripping down posters that were put up following the legal guidelines set by that department? Isn't it also silly? Finally, isn't this a First Amendment violation?

What is going on in the Haight? Didn't Gavin Newsom just by a house up there?

Maybe contact Manuel Means, the DPW Supervisor and ask him what is going on.

Posted by Guest Heklina on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 9:10 am

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

MIKE QUAN, as an individual, and also as proprietor of PLAYBAR, INC., dba THE ROOM, and JAVIER MAGALLON,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM, OFFICER LARRY BERTRAND, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICER MICHELLE OTT, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR:

1) FRAUD (MAIL)
2) ASSAULT AND BATTERY; WRONGFUL ARREST; KIDNAPPING
3) FALSE IMPRISONMENT
4) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
5) INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
6) RICO

Posted by Guest HA HA HA HA on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 11:20 am

I'll be surprised if loser Larry Bertrand doesn't lose his job soon. Chief Gascon seems to be doing a decent job of cleaning up his department, and this is the kind of cop that makes his job so difficult. Bertrand's already been reprimanded (they are calling it a "voluntary reassignment"), so it's just a matter of time before they cut the prick loose. What asshole cops like Bertrand seem to forget is that the citizens and businesses that he harass pay the taxes that make his job possible. Also, a smart cop would "partner" with local businesses rather than make enemies out of them. But Larry is a lost cause, so he can just go retire in Couer d'Alene with the rest of the shunned officers.

Posted by BH on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

The only reason all you Losers keep complaining about Larry Bertrand and Michelle Ott is because of any or all of the following: 1) You can't follow the law and think you're entitled to break it because you are in San Francisco, 2) You acted like a jackass when you were too drunk & earned yourself 4 hours in jail, 3) you have no respect or regard for the police to begin with, so as an easy out, you talk sh-- about 2 officers that actually had the balls to take action against your sorry, pathetic beings, 4) You are a pathetic liberal scumbag, 5) You think by whining and complaining about the same thing over and over, you'll actually get somewhere, 6) You are actually talking sh-- out of your ass because you probably never even heard of Bertrand and Ott until all the hype in these stupid articles came out, 7) You got a ticket & think it's "unfair" (for whatever reason), 8) Just like people who get speeding tickets by CHP, you losers think it's the cop's fault that your day got ruined, instead of manning up & accepting that you did something wrong, 9) You think having an illegal party is your "right" because it's for some lame art benefit, for the "kids," or it's for raising $ to pay for your court costs from the last time you were arrested. Grow up and get over it. I don't see normal, productive members of society that don't get involved with the wrong side of the law, having a problem with Bertrand and Ott...oh that's right...they actually follow the rules and not make up their own.

Posted by Guest Embarrassed to be a San Franciscan... on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 7:56 am

Wow you're so full of hate that you must be a cop. If you're so embarrassed to be a San Franciscan, why don't you move to a more suitable, law abiding place where you can surround yourself with other closeminded hateful rightwingers? I hear Alabama is nice this time of year.

Maybe you'd like to lynch some blacks? Or beat up some gays? Would that make you feel better?

Posted by Proud to be Openminded on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 10:04 am

GO BACK TO TEXAS MOTHERFUCKER. OFFICER THE PIG LARRY HAS TO FOLLOW RULES JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. IF YOU CAN'T READ WHICH IT SEEMS LIKE YOU CAN'T YOU WOULD SEE THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES. SO GET FUCKED.

Posted by Guest HA HA HA HA on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 10:22 am

Proud to Be Openminded & HA HA HA HA - That's ironic! For someone who's soooo "open-minded," maybe it is YOU who is so full of hate...I am very open-minded and accepting of all sorts of people and lifestyles, that's why I live here...just not accepting of people who disregard the law and hate law enforcement. Those are the biggest bunch of idiots I DESPISE. YOU are the one who's an ignorant pig.

Posted by Guest Embarrassed to be a San Franciscan... on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 11:14 am

What are you talking about ? You need to watch the you tube video of Larry the Pig beating on the bartender, Your oblivious and know nothing about the afforded protections of the U.S Constitution which Larry the Pig doesn't care bout. Most of us in S.F are not against law and order. We are against police setting up protection brackets and illegally seizing property. We are against the police beating on people. It's no fucking illusion that Larry the Pig has pissed of thousands of people.

Posted by Guest HA HA HA HA on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

HA HA HA HA - You need a grammar lesson...go back to school...you're an embarrassment to society...oh and get a new pair of glasses...you obviously can't see what you're talking about.

Posted by Guest Embarrassed to be a San Franciscan... on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by Guest HA HA HA HA on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

HA HA HA HA-That's the kind of response I expected! HAAA!

Posted by Guest Embarrassed to be a San Franciscan on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

Are you done? Really are you done ? Seriously pig. Are you done ?

HA HA HA HA HA

Posted by Guest HA HA HA HA on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

HA HA HA HA-No I'm not...I could go on FOREVERRRRR!!! And it is YOU who is the pig...you are such a moron and don't even realize it...HAHAHAHA!!

Posted by Guest Embarrassed to be a San Franciscan on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

Are you gonna bark all day little dogie or you gonna bite ?

Posted by Guest HA HA HA HA on Apr. 02, 2010 @ 8:37 am

Another killing outside a club this morning. 4 shot. Firefighters shot at too

Posted by Guest on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

And that's terrible that those crime are happening.
I am a frequent (but peaceful) club goer. I see what happens on both sides.

Protect people from violence by taking violent people off the street.
Protect people from being robbed.
Protect against vandalism.

Some could say that this crackdown is preemptive to stop this behavior, but preemptive strikes are for the military during war time. Since civilians are not the enemy, there's no need for that. Police are to protect the innocent civilians.

Work with the bars and clubs, work with the security, get to know them not harass them.

Do NOT spend taxpayer manhours sending undercover cops into clubs to look for something to go wrong.
Do NOT intimidate the citizens by setting up roadblocks or ticketing them for "loitering" for smoking outside.
Do NOT sit with plain clothes in an unmarked car parked the wrong way with no parking lights taking notes from a distance, and when a citizen politely inquires about this suspicious activity, you act like a jerk to them.

Bust the thugs, bust the trouble makers. Don't go making situations up.

What happens if I get robbed? What happens if someone mugs me? I file a police report and nothing happens!!!! I have filed 8 reports with the SFPD. Not a single phone call. No follow up. Nothing.
Hundreds of dollars in parking fines this year alone, which I'm bothered by, but probably deserved.

In the end, the police are not superior, they need to follow the laws and not make them up and twist them to fit a situation to earn stat numbers.

Stats = "We're doing a good job, look at these numbers!" = Now Mr. Mayor, keep paying us or you'll lose these numbers. As someone who's been a manager for a LONG time, I know that game all too well and no longer play by it and remind my employees not to play that game with me either.

So, speaking from personal experience:
Clubs I go to are getting harassed, which makes me have a not so fun time because they're closed or security is looking out for the slightest infraction because it's their heads on the line.
I get fined for parking infringements.
I get robbed and nothing happens.
Being polite to or suspicious of plain clothes officers gets me barked at.

How are the police making my life better???

The police are not "superior". They get no special breaks and are not above the law. The police should not be militarized unless the situation calls for it.

The police should be respected, but respect has to be earned, and honestly
Pissing off innocent civilians such as myself earns no respect from me.

And if the police sees everyone as criminals, or bothering people because of "thought crimes", I don't think we need that.

Posted by Hippie on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 3:04 am

Thugs are thugs. There's no place for them in a civilized society. Whether they work for the police department or they work for a gang. We need to de-escalate the violence and the rhetoric and get to the facts.

1. Are there rogue cops deliberately disrupting events or is this directed by the police department

2. Who is doing all this shooting at clubs and what can be done about it? If the clubs don't figure it out and stop it soon, they will be shut down by the citizens who are not interested in being killed by crossfire.

Let's fnd the facts and solve the problems.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

OK.....you folks need to realize that San Francisco is NOT your own personal damned playground, a free fire zone to do whatever you want. We have laws here. If you don't like them, too damned bad. We have cops to enforce them. You don't like them, too damned bad. Move to Berkeley.

I am WAY tired of the bleeding hearts...'Oh my....not allowing people to sit on the sidewalks in the Haight'.....the horror. Try walking through the damned Haight sometime.

And someone tore down your signs? Boo hoo. They're an eyesore. They should not be permitted in the first place. Nobody wants to go to your idiotic shows in the first place.

Those two cops deserve medals, and I'd be the first one to pin them on em. We need 100 more like them, to turn San Francisco back into a decent place to live where we aren't subjected to the whims of the self-enfranchised, who think that those of us who actually live and work in this town owe them for living.

As I said...you don't like it here, move to damned Berkeley. Or better yet, East Oakland. I'm sure the boys there would LOVE to hear your views.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

Joseph Victor Lagana
1121 Willow St.
Alameda, CA 94501
josephvl@yahoo.com
408-510-0673

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

) CASE No: CGC-08-475803
JOSEPH VICTOR LAGANA )
Plaintiff )
) CAL. CONST. ART.1 §1, §2, §3, §7, §10, §12
) CAL. CONST. ART.1 §13, §15, §17,
) CAL. CPC 1209 (a)(7)&(8)
) CAL. CIVIL CODE § 52.1(a)
) CAL. PEN. CODE § 142(a)
KEVIN MARTIN (VICE PRESIDENT OF SPOA) ) CAL. CIVIL CODE §52.3
GARY DELAGNES (PRESIDENT OF SFPOA) ) RICO ACT
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY) ) CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.6
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION) CAL. PEN. CODE §664/187 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) CALIFORNIA BANE & UNRUH ACTS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) 1.FALSE ARREST
CHIEF OF POLICE “HEATHER FONG” ) 2.INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) DISTRESS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY “KAMALA HARRIS” ) 3.ASSAULT AND BATTERRIES
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) 4.ATTEMPTED MURDER
MAYOR “GAVIN NEWSOM” ) 5.CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) 6.OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
OFFICER “LARRY BERTRAND” ) 7.CONCEALING AND DESTRUCTION OF
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) EVIDENCE
OFFICER “PAULO MORGADO” ) 8.NEGLIGENCE and
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY), ) 9.NEGLIGENT SELECTION, TRAINING,
OFFICER “TOOMEY” ) RETENTION, SUPERVISION,
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY), ) INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINE
OFFICER “L. CUEBA” ) 10.DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY) ) 11.FALSE IMPRISONMENT
OFFICER “CADENEZZI ) 12.RAKETEERING
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY) ) 13.NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
SGT. MEEHAN ) DISTRESS
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY ) 14.DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNKNOWN OFFICERS )
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants )
)

1. PLAINTIFF hereby alleges as follows:
2.
The above-entitled action is brought under CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, Sections 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17; CAL. PEN. CODE § 182 (a)(1),(2),(3)(5), CAL. PEN. CODE § 140(a), CAL. PEN. CODE § 142(a), CAL. PEN. CODE §667/187, CAL. CPC 1209 (a)(7), CAL. CPC 1209 (a)(8), CAL. CIVIL CODE §52.3, CAL. CIVIL CODE § 52.1 (a), CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The damages sought in this matter exceed $25,000. This matter is thus properly submitted to the Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction in the Superior Court, County of San Francisco.
4. This court is proper because all of the alleged wrongful conduct occurred with the City and County of San Francisco.
5. Plaintiff has complied with all notice requirements including timely presenting a Gov’t Code 910 claim for damages against the “City and County of San Francisco” which was later denied by defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Joseph Victor Lagana hereby complains of defendants “City and County of San Francisco”, Chief of Police Heather Fong, District Attorney Kamala Harris, Mayor Gavin Newsom, OFFICER LARRY BERTRAND, OFFICER PAULO MORGADO, Officer Toomey, Officer L. Cueba, OFFICER CADENAZZI, and SGT MEEHAN, and alleges as follows.
7. Plaintiff “JOSEPH VICTOR LAGANA” is an individual and a resident of Alameda County.
8. Defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION” is a non-profit organization.
9. Defendant “GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA President)” is an individual managing a corrupt organization.
10. Defendant “JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President)” is and individual managing a corrupt organization.
11. Defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT” is a law enforcement agency.
12. Defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO” is a municipality.
13. Defendant “HEATHER FONG” was a decision maker and policy maker for Defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT” during and after the events mentioned herein this complaint.
14. Defendant “KAMALA HARRIS” is a decision maker and policy maker and is the District Attorney for defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.
15. Defendant “GAVIN NEWSOM” is a decision maker and policy maker and the Mayor for defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.
16. Defendants “LARRY BERTRAND”, “PAULO MORGADO”, “TOOMEY”, AND “L. CUEBA” are police officers for defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO” and are employed to that defendant through defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT”.
17. Some of the true or full names of the defendant’s agents are unknown at this time.
18. At all relevant time said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as officers, sergeants, captains, and / or civilian employees, police makers, and representatives of the City of San Francisco and the wrongful acts hereinafter described flow from their exercise of authority.
19. At all times relevant, defendants “HEATHER FONG”, “KAMALA HARRIS”, “GAVIN NEWSOM”, “LARRY BERTRAND”, “TOOMEY”, AND “L. CUEBA” were acting under color of law, to wit, under the color of the statues, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices, and usages of defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”, “SAN FRANCISO POLICE DEPARTMENT”, and the State of California.
20. Plaintiff has complied with all notice requirements including timely presenting a Gov’t Code 910 claim for damages against the “City and County of San Francisco” which was later denied by defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.
21. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names of the UNKNOWN OFFICER DEFENDANTS whom DOES 1 through 136 inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each defendant so named is responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages suffered by the PLAINTIFF as set forth. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities of all involved defendants DOES 1 though 136 inclusive, when they have been ascertained.

Statement of Facts & General Factual Background Common To All Cause of Action

22. Plaintiff was planning and marketing his event that was to be held at the “Blue Moon Nightclub” for June 14th 2008. Plaintiff had argued with an Officer for the City of Pleasanton about the fact he can pass out leaflets for his event on a public sidewalk. The Officer threatened to arrest him. The Plaintiff recalled being threatened at this nightclub before by other promoters and felt unsafe and left the scene. He then contacted 911 emergency because a van was circling him and the people inside were looking at him menacingly. The same Officer he had argued with took the call that the Plaintiff made for assistance and falsely arrested the Plaintiff under the guise of under the influence of a controlled substance. Plaintiff demanded a blood test and the Pleasanton Police Officer took him to a hospital to provide such a test.
23. Plaintiff was held for 2 days, then released on his own accord.
24. Plaintiff confirms that charges were never filed and his test came up negative for any drugs and controlled substances.
25. Plaintiff saw this as a minor setback on his marketing plan for his event, however continued on and on occasion would protest about Pleasanton Police Department when in San Francisco because there are a lot of people from many walks of life and local areas fused into one place.
26. Plaintiff was harassed for protesting by numerous unknown SFPD officers, so many that the Plaintiff is unaware of their names.
27. Plaintiff had to cancel his event for June 18th 2008 at the “Blue Moon Nightclub” because of marketing difficulties caused by the actions and inactions of all named defendants.
28. Plaintiff had projected a $40,000 profit from doing this event which had to be cancelled.
29. The “Blue Moon Nightclub” owner will testify to this fact if need be.
30. Plaintiff Joseph Lagana was protesting about Pleasanton Police Department, President Bush, and that we live in a “police state” in-front of “Ross Stores” location 4th & Market St. in San Francisco, CA on or around May 15th 2008. S.F.P.D. officer “L. Cueba” grabbed the plaintiff by his sweater with full force which caused it to rip along with his undershirt. Officer “L. Cueba” told the plaintiff to leave the area of 4th and Market St. and cease his protesting.
31. Plaintiff stated that he is on a public sidewalk and he has a right to protest which is protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and asked Officer “L. Cueba” to let go of him and his sweater. Officer “L. Cueba” stated, “I am a cop!” and refused to let go of the plaintiff unless he left the area. Plaintiff stated that he would defend himself regardless, and that officer “L. Cueba” had committed assault against him.
32. This harassment was a joint effort of “Ross Stores” and the S.F.P.D. and upon discovery “Ross Stores” may become an added defendant.
33. Plaintiff has been frequently harassed, threatened, and stalked by defendants “TOOMEY”, “LARRY BERTRAND” and unknown S.F.P.D. officers throughout May 2008 and July 2008.
34. Plaintiff was falsely arrested on 4 occasions from June 2008 to July 2008 by the S.F.P.D. and plaintiff alleges their action was in retaliation to the plaintiff filing a lawsuit against the S.F.P.D. because all arrests occurred after the filing of the original complaint for this case in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.
35. It should be noted that Plaintiff had not ever been arrested by S.F.P.D. before the filing of this case in this honorable court.
36. Plaintiff has reason to believe that the San Francisco Police Department through unknown officers labeled him a terrorist.
37. Plaintiff was followed and watched by an unknown plain-clothes agent.
38. Plaintiff states this agent had a lanyard type badge which the unknown agent covered with his hand. Plaintiff said he has a right to know what agency this unknown agent was with.
39. The unknown agent removed his hand and the agent’s badge read “Department of Homeland Security”.
40. Plaintiff asked if this agent had been following him. The agent replied, “Yes. I have reason to believe you could be a potential terrorist.”, and he relied on information “from S.F.P.D.”
41. The meeting of this agent prompted the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit against the S.F.P.D. the very same day.
42. This is the reason for the simple nature of the original complaint. The Plaintiff wanted to file anything naming the Defendant S.F.P.D. in order to protect himself following the meeting of the DHS agent.
43. Plaintiff noticed that in the police report for the second arrest by S.F.P.D. for assault against a private citizen in June 2008, the investigating officers contacted the “S.I.D.”
44. “S.I.D.” or “Special Investigations Division” is a special division that is responsible for investigating bomb threats, hate crimes, gang violence, and providing security detail to the Mayor.
45. Plaintiff needs to commit discovery in order to get more details however the investigating officer was Sergeant Meehan with “general work detail” (Which has been disbanded for undisclosed reasons, probably corruption) and Inspector “Lindberg” with “S.I.D.”.
46. Partners, Officers “Toomey and Reyes” were arresting officers in one occasion on or around June 5th 2008 and have been on the scene or during booking in almost every occasion of the plaintiff’s arrests.
47. During this arrest while in the holding cell an unknown Lieutenant along with Officers Frost and Toomey were debating what the Plaintiff should be charged with and looking at the Plaintiff’s photos of other officers and saying along the lines, “Isn’t that Officer such and such…”.
48. It took the Plaintiff almost 2-3 months to retrieve those photographs in question back from the S.F.P.D. which were pertinent to this case.
49. The first time the plaintiff was arrested was around the beginning of June 2008 outside of the nightclub 1015 Folsom in San Francisco, CA. The plaintiff was handing out copies of his lawsuit and flyers of his upcoming event (Which the Plaintiff later cancelled.) outside of the 1015 Folsom nightclub to inform the public of the misconduct and civil rights violations by S.F.P.D. The doorman at 1015 told the Plaintiff to leave and he said he had a right to protest anywhere he pleases. The S.F.P.D. appeared on the scene. Officers Toomey and Reyes were the arresting officers, citing the Plaintiff was drunk when he was in fact sober.
50. The defendant through its agents is involved in committing fraud and oppression against the plaintiff on multiple occasions through May 2008 to July 2008.
51. Unknown officers made representations of material fact which was intentional misrepresentation. Officers Toomey and Reyes have made false police reports stating that plaintiff was intoxicated on 2 occasions in 2008.
52. Unknown officers made a false report stating that the plaintiff committed violations of California Penal Codes 245 (Assault with a deadly weapon), 242 (Battery), and terrorist threats (unk. Penal code a felony), two felonies and a misdemeanor on or around June 3rd 2008.
53. In the above named arrest in line 24, the Plaintiff alleges that the investigation was botched, biased, without merit, and the investigating officers failed to question reasonable witnesses, simply relying on the testimony of two African American pre-teens.
54. In California Evidence Rules, the testimony of a child is highly questionable and rarely stands (Citation omitted.)
55. While in the holding cell for the above named arrest in line 16, the Plaintiff witnessed multiple Officers, some appearing to be superiors because of their stripes, were passing out his photographs (Which were in an envelope from Wal-Greens clearly marked “Evidence! Do not steal or destroy! Federal Crime!) of officers that were following and harassing him, and stating, “Isn’t that “. . .”?” and later conspired to hide and / or destroy the photographs because the Plaintiff has gone to the station multiple times and asked for these photographs and they were either refused to be given or denied of being existent although the Plaintiff has a property receipt signed by Officer Toomey stating, “Refused”.
56. Plaintiff states he would not refuse property that is evidence in this case, he refused to accept placing that property in the hands of the S.F.P.D.
57. The Plaintiff had contacted Sgt. Meehan for roughly 2-3 months asking for the return of the photos and Meehan refused to hand them over almost every time because allegedly the case against the Plaintiff was still under investigation and active.
58. When released for the second arrest that carried the charges CPC 245, 242, and terrorist threats, the Plaintiff was returning home around 1am in June 2008 (Plaintiff needs to further investigate to recall the date) and was stopped by Officer Toomey. Officer Toomey stated, “What are you doing out?” Plaintiff replied, “They dropped the charges because they knew your case was bullshit.” and Officer Toomey replied back, “I’ll be right back.”
59. Toomey returned with two other police cars and stopped the Plaintiff at 6th and Mission, took his Gatorade drink out of his hand, threw it, and took his cigarette from his hand (His first beverage and cigarette after being jailed for 3 days.), and ordered him to get up against the wall, and proceeded to search him along with the other officers. Plaintiff informed him he had a right not to be searched before this action, yet the officers proceeded anyway.
60. These representations were in fact false, the truth was as follows: Plaintiff was never intoxicated every time the unknown officers charged him with public intoxication.
61. The plaintiff was the victim when the unknown officers arrested him in June 2008 for the Assault with a deadly weapon, battery, and terrorist threats charges and they have not pursued arresting the plaintiff’s assailant nor write a report against/not in favor of the assailant.
62. The district attorney of San Francisco or the commanding officer of Southern Station has dismissed every charge against the plaintiff due to “”lack of evidence” and the “interest of justice”.
63. Defendant has concealed and suppressed material facts by not providing or assisting the plaintiff to obtain access to a sobriety test, blood test, or Breathalyzer test in either of the two public intoxication arrests that occurred from June 2008 to July 2008.
64. Unknown and known S.F.P.D. officers have made promises about a material matter without any intention of performing as follows : Unknown and known S.F.P.D. officers including defendant “Toomey” have threatened to arrest the plaintiff or stated, “Do you want to go to jail?” multiple times in retaliation to him protesting them directly or the S.F.P.D. from May 2008 to July 2008.
65. They never followed through and this is a scare tactic to silence the plaintiff and chill his expressive speech. The Plaintiff silenced himself and gave up his right to protest in order to gain safety and keep his freedom. Defendant’s agents’ promise without any intention to perform was made to defraud the plaintiff of his 1st Amendment right to petition the government of its grievances, his 14th Amendment right to due process, and induce the Plaintiff to rely upon it and silence himself from protesting or commenting back to the officers.
66. Plaintiff suffered embarrassment, lack of confidence, depression, and emotional distress from this deprival of rights.
67. S.F.P.D. has neglected to investigate a “Ross Stores” employee with boisterous and wanton behavior, confident that he would not be arrested, and that had flicked a cigarette butt at the Plaintiff which scalded and burned him, therefore committing assault against the plaintiff, and this was all seen directly in-front of/by an S.F.P.D. officer around June 5th 2008. The plaintiff has suffered paranoia, emotional distress, and excruciating pain from a direct burn committed by this employee (responsible for the physical damages and emotional damages) and the officer (responsible for emotional damages from officers’ failure to prosecute, detain or investigate the employee inducing the Plaintiff’s fear of a return attack of the employee and failure to provide medical attention to the Plaintiff.)
68. On the third arrest of the Plaintiff which was on June 13th 2008, the plaintiff asked for assistance from unknown police officers because his property had fallen out of his luggage bag and asked for their assistance to retrieve it. This property (Which included books and records totaling value of around $350.) was left in the streets and not retrieved by the S.F.P.D. whom neglected his property to be looted by the locals.
69. Plaintiff states that he informed Officer Bertrand, “I am just a DJ and producer, I am not a criminal!”
70. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Bertrand is prejudice against DJs.
71. There is an ongoing lawsuit, the Plaintiff is Arash Ghanadan and names Officer Bertrand as a Defendant.
72. There are numerous articles and blogs stating Bertrand has made multiple contact with DJs and taking their equipment and/or assaulting them.
73. Plaintiff alleges that Officer “Larry Bertrand” Star number 414, falsely arrested, assaulted, battered, and attempted murder on the Plaintiff on June 13th 2008 (3rd arrest), by means of asphyxiation while acting as an agent/officer of “San Francisco Police Department” and “City and County of San Francisco”.
74. Plaintiff states at all times following the slamming on the ground, he was in handcuffs and did not resist arrest at any times other than verbally.
75. Plaintiff did not refuse to be arrested, however demanded to know what he was being arrested for and the he had the right to know pursuant to the Due Process clause of the California and U.S. Constitution.
76. Plaintiff demanded what he was being arrested for to Officer Bertrand, and Bertrand stated the plaintiff does not need to know, does not have a right to know, and if he would not stop spitting all over the interior of the cop car he would, “come back there!”.
77. It should be noted that the Officers were safe from being spat on because the backseat was barricaded by a plastic barrier and was merely offended and not touched by the Plaintiff’s spit.
78. The Plaintiff stated he would not stop spitting unless he was told what he was being arrested for.
79. Officer Bertrand then took it upon himself to stop the vehicle while en-route to 850 Bryant St. (S.F.P.D. HQ) opened the passenger door, grabbed the Plaintiff by the throat, squeezed his throat excessively, and demanded that the Plaintiff stop spitting or he would not stop choking him.
80. Plaintiff would not give in and Officer L. Bertrand continued to choke the Plaintiff for roughly a minute and a half.
81. The plaintiff, with the last bit of his breath warned, “The lawsuit is already filed.”
82. Plaintiff believes this is what caused Officer Bertrand to stop his chokehold.
83. Plaintiff is fully aware of the compliance procedure which is similar to a chokehold. This action was in fact not the compliance procedure because Officer L. Bertrand was not applying pressure in that area required, but instead was choking him by the throat/larynx and “Adam’s apple” area.
84. The partner of Officer Bertrand, named “Cadenazzi” failed to do anything and that is negligence and failure to intervene, thereby being a co-conspirator.
85. Plaintiff was slammed to the ground and choked by Officer Bertrand during the third arrest, twist and flung the Plaintiff up, down, and side to side by his handcuffs leaving red cuff marks, and kneed the Plaintiff in the holding cell to his mouth while handcuffed to a bench in front of unknown senior Officers (More than likely Sergeants, they had 3 Stripes) and Officer Frost.
86. Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, a facial contusion, a swollen-shut eye for almost a month, back pain, a scrape to the shoulder, immobility, inability to use his eye for almost a month, and became a paranoid schizophrenic for two months.
87. Plaintiff was taken to be booked into County Jail. Two unknown Sheriff’s Dept Officers stated, “He is beaten to badly, you need to take him to the hospital.”
88. The transporting Officers asked if the Plaintiff had a particular hospital he would like to be taken to. He requested to be taken to St. Francis Medical Center.
89. Plaintiff arrived into the E.R. in handcuffs and was uncuffed within roughly 30 minutes of arrival.
90. When the Plaintiff awoken in his hospital bed, the Officers were no longer in the hospital and he was released within 4 hours of arrival.
91. Plaintiff returned to Los Angeles about 2 days after the June 13th 2008 incident, and was institutionalized in a mental health facility a week later for about 3 weeks. The Plaintiff entered voluntarily and was held against his will because he was allegedly a danger to himself, others, and gravely disabled. He in fact wasn’t, but was suffering emotional distress, paranoia, and his sister feared for his safety because he was snapping at Los Angeles Police officers and general authority figures so she suggested he be taken to the hospital.
92. The diagnosis of Dr. Hendriks (Psy D and PhD).of Olive View Medical Center in Sylmar (California) was that the Plaintiff has suffered from post-traumatic disorder as a direct result of the actions of the San Francisco Police Department and The City and County of San Francisco’s failure to intervene.
93. On or around July 14th 2008, the Plaintiff was falsely arrested for allegedly public drunkenness but was in fact arrested for yelling, “Fuck the police!”
94. Officer Morgado from Southern Station in San Francisco, along with his partner stated, “If you yell, “Fuck the police!” you go to jail!” Plaintiff did not give the arresting officers consent to search his property and was never read his Miranda rights. The officers searched his property anyway. Upon discovery of the Plaintiff’s digital camera, Officer Morgado’s unknown partner deleted all photos and videos of the Plaintiff’s contact, harassment, and stalking by S.F.P.D. officers occurring in June 2008.
95. The Plaintiff has some of these pictures backed up (Some showing the same car at different areas backing up the Plaintiff’s claim of stalking.) before this occurrence, which shows the officers had a motive to delete these photographs.
96. The Plaintiff was returning home from court after filing and serving documents through the Sheriff’s office and the defendant is thereby guilty of contempt of court for detaining a party to an action while the action is pending and returning home.
97. Plaintiff was detained for 16 hours for allegedly being drunk in public. Sheriffs of County Jail #9 let out stumbling drunks hours before the Plaintiff whom asked for a breathalyzer test, blood test, or even a sobriety test which costs nothing from both the arresting officers and the Sheriffs of San Francisco. They refused to provide any of these tests.
98. From the Plaintiff’s experience, in order to hold or detain someone, doesn’t there have to be some type of evidence? An officer’s claim without evidence or witnesses is clearly heresy and not proper means to hold a person and deprive them of their liberty. This is denial of due process to the plaintiff.
99. These actions by Officer Morgado and his unknown partner are a alleged to commit Obstruction of Justice by Destruction of Evidence; Obstruction of Investigations by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1519) and in contempt of court pursuant to Cal CPC 1209 (a)(7) and (a)(8)
100. On or around July 17th 2008, Plaintiff was protesting outside the City Hall of San Francisco and Mayor Gavin Newsom stepped out onto his balcony and briefly listened to the plaintiff’s protest about S.F.P.D. and that you have no constitutional rights if you are in San Francisco.
101. This same day of July 17th 2008, Officer L. Bertrand along with multiple unknown officers detained the Plaintiff for almost 30 minutes for protesting about the S.F.P.D. in Union Square on 4th and Market Streets of San Francisco, CA and searched and seized his property without the Plaintiff’s consent. Tourist and employees of Forever 21 at Union Square snapped pictures of the Plaintiff while on his knees in cuffs and the plaintiff suffered public embarrassment, deprivation of rights, and denial of due process.
102. Officer L. Bertrand’s supposed reason for detaining the Plaintiff was to do a wellness check because he was protesting loudly. This does not require the detainee to be cuffed if he is not resisting. Plaintiff only asked why he was being stopped and did not argue or refuse to speak to the officers.
103. Plaintiff at first did not notice Officer L. Bertrand and then told Officer Larry Bertrand upon noticing who he was, “You bastard! You are the jerk that beat me and choked me!” Officer Larry Bertrand’s response to the Plaintiff’s comment was laughing at him along with his partners.
104. Plaintiff had an orange back pack on his persons and it was snatched from him along with his digital camera that was pried out of his hand.
105. The Plaintiff yelled out, “I did not give them permission to search my bag!” and the officers along with L. Bertrand continued to search the bag.
106. A USC Section 1983 claim can be brought against the city’s police department when a person’s exercising of his free speech right is the driving force behind the arrest. It is now clear that 'Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state [315 U.S. 568, 571]   action'. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450 , 58 S.Ct. 666, 668.1
107. The Supreme Court has also struck down a law in New Jersey citing the cursing of police officers is protected by the U.S. Constitution (Citation omitted).
108. In “Cohen vs. California” it was also stated that as long as the obscenities are not of sexual manner, the speech is also protected by the U.S. Constitution.\
109. Plaintiff believes this stop by Officer Bertrand was performed in retaliation to his protesting and may have been ordered by the Mayor himself.
110. The Plaintiff had informed the San Francisco “Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Affairs” 3 times about the actions of the S.F.P.D., the first time being when he filed his lawsuit on May 29th 2008 and he has not gotten any type of response or action by the Mayor’s Office. This is more negligence and disregard on behalf of the city.
111. The Plaintiff filed and served a Pitchess motion to the S.F.P.D. Legal Dept, defendant City and County of San Francisco, and San Francisco District Attorney’s Office c/o Kamala Harris.
112. Plaintiff has not received as much of a letter or response from the District Attorney’s Office.
113. Plaintiff explicitly stated the District Attorney’s Office has a duty to investigate the Officers named in the Pitchess Motion and are to respond to such a motion.
114. Defendant “City and County of San Francisco” received proper notice in the form of an interrogatory, and refused to give any information regarding police personnel files.
115. The Plaintiff then filed his Pitchess/Brady motion following the Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s response to that interrogatory claiming the files were privileged.
116. The Defendant City and County of San Francisco denies this fact, although the Plaintiff has the Interrogatory and their answer to that interrogatory, therefore the Plaintiff followed proper procedure for requesting Pitchess and Brady material.
117. This incorporates further corruption, negligence, obstruction of justice, and concealing of evidence on behalf of defendants “City and County of San Francisco” and “Kamala Harris”.
118. The Plaintiff alleges that the City and County of San Francisco is intentionally blind to the fact that its officers abuse their use-of-force ability and arrest the public in a wanton fashion. There is a lengthy track record of these abuses and the city’s failure to reform their policy and officers makes the city liable under the “Respondeat Superior” doctrine.
119. The Defendant is also guilty of racketeering, punishable under the Federal RICO Act because of their tampering of evidence, obstruction of justice, and working with Ross Stores to harass the Plaintiff, impede his protesting efforts, and deprive him of his rights.
120. According to an article in the S.F. Weekly (Citation omitted sometime in 2008) the City and the S.F.P.D. have been in a battle over retail outlet patrols with the S.F.P.D. Special Patrols division and this further shows that they are involved in racketeering activity.
121. Plaintiff has suffered emotion distress, post-traumatic disorder, a mass amount of medical bills, deprivation of liberty, denial of due process, deprivation of constitutional rights, general damages, property damages, loss of earning capacity, incompetence, wage loss, and incompetence in the work force caused by the defendants.
122. The plaintiff also includes his loss of being able to work with a nightclub owner because of cancelling a party, which he also claims as losses of $40,000 potential projected profit. This also devalued his reputation as a club promoter and a business professional.
123. The relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court because this was a simple matter and it gained Federal court jurisdiction because the defendant has acted in a malicious and oppressive manner after filing in the Superior Court for a simple battery, has caused serious injury to the plaintiff to cause him to make errors in his subsequent filings, to induce the Plaintiff to give up on his lawsuit and leave the Bay Area.
124. Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages, punitive damages1, exemplary damages, treble damages in the amount of $308,000,000 and injunctive relief in the form of forcing the defendant “City and County of San Francisco” to install cameras and audio recording devices in all law enforcement vehicles in the “City and County of San Francisco” in order to deter future abuse of detainees while in custody.
125. 1"Punitive damages are recoverable in sec. 1983 suit where defendant's conduct is motivated by an evil motive or intent, or where it involves reckless or callous indifference to plaintiff's federally protected rights). Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 50-51 ((1983); Clark v. Taylor, 710 F.2d 4, 14 (1st Cir. 1983). Miga, supra at 355.
126. On August 17th 2010, PLAINTIFF contacted SFPD Internal Affairs and informed OFFICER TOMIOKA that he was in on-going litigation with the City and he was interested in raising funding to get police vehicles fitted with security camera and microphones hidden in the rear of the vehicles.
127. Defendant SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION (SFPOA) has been part of the conspiracy to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his civil rights guaranteed by the California and United States Constitution.
128. Defendant GARY DELANGIS (Last name may be erroneous) holds the title of President of the corrupt organization “SFPOA” and therefore has been a part of the conspiracy to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his civil rights guaranteed by the California and United State Constitution.
129. The PLAINTIFF on August 17th 2010, had contacted the SFPOA to ask for support to get signatures so that he (PLAINTIFF) can submit the signatures to get federal funding for the much needed camera and microphone systems for SFPD police vehicles.
130. JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President) DEFENDANT stated, “If those officers are liars, let's see you prove it.” then hung up on the PLAINTIFF.
131. PLAINTIFF called once more to the SFPOA asking the receptionist what time the President of SFPOA, DEFENDANT GARY DELANGIS would be available and then the PLAINTIFF heard a raucous.
132. JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President) DEFENDANT stated, “Do not ever call back here again. This call is being terminated.”
133. According to SFPD internal affairs, OFFICER TOMIOKA stated that the department has been trying to get those cameras in place for years, much longer than the commencement of this action in this honorable court, but have not been able to get the funding.
134. The PLAINTIFF has reason to believe that the SFPOA lobbies to keep this funding out of the City of San Francisco's hands and the SFPD in order to protect miscreant officers so they can continue their criminal activities and enterprises.
135. The SFPD has a pattern of criminal activity and this stems from the authority of the SFPOA.
136. OFFICER TOMIOKA when informed the same day of the actions of the SFPOA Vice President, said he was disappointed and that I should not give up.

II. Causes of Action

137. COUNT ONE: False Arrest and Imprisonment Cal Consitution, Art. I Sections 1 and 13; U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983: arrest, detention, confinement, warrantless search; racial profiling, conspiracy; Cal Civil Code Section 1708 and 3333; Cal. Cal. Gov’t Code Section 815.2 and 815.6; Cal Penal Code Section 853.6 and California Common Law

138. In order for the defendant to prevail on it’s claim of immunity, the Defendant must show that the officers had probable cause to make the arrests, which is futile because all arrests occurred after the filing in the Superior Court, where made maliciously, the arrests lacked evidential merit, the arrest were made in retaliation to the filing in the Superior Court, and the District Attorney’s office decided not to pursue the charge due to the lack of evidence and the interest of justice. Count one is applicable to all arrests claimed in the general factual background at one.
139. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
140. All defendants with the title “Officer” are to be charged with “Count One”.
141. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C. secs. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
142. Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial of Plaintiff’s rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law,2 to wit,
143. 2 Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056, 1061 (1st Cir. 1997); McNamara v. Honeyman, 406 Mass. 43, 52 (1989).
144. by depriving Plaintiff of his liberty without due process of law, by taking him into custody and holding him there against his will,3
145. 3 County of Sacramento v. Lewis. 523 U.S. 833 (1998); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982); Williams v. Hartman, 413 Mass, 398, 403 (1992).
146. (b) by making an unreasonable search and seizure of his property without due process of law,
147. (c) by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny Smith equal protection of laws,
148. (d) by refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to plaintiff, thereby depriving plaintiff of his rights, privileges, and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.4
149. 4 Miga v. Holyoke, 398 Mass. 343, 349, 350 (1986) (deprivation of pretrial detainee's substantive due process rights where state seeks to impose punishment without a constitutional adjudication of guilt). Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, n. 16 (1979).
150. A warrantless arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment and forms the basis for a ' 1983 claim. Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503, 1505 (11th Cir. 1990)
151. "For probable cause to exist, ... an arrest must be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances." Lee, supra at 1195. "This standard is met when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information, would cause a prudent person to believe, under the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense." Dahl v. Holley, 312 F.3d 1228, at 1233 (11th Cir. 2002); Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1435 (11th Cir.1998)
152. An unlawful arrest and detention by a police officer effected under color of state law gives rise to an action under section 1983 for deprivation of a federally protected right. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961);Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213 (1967).
153. A false imprisonment claim under ' 1983 is based on the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment against deprivations of liberty without due process of law as well as the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142, 99 Sup.Ct. 2689, 2693-94 (1979). Where a police officer lacks probable cause to make an arrest, the arrestee has a claim under ' 1983 for false imprisonment based upon a detention pursuant to that arrest. Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1996).
154. An action for false imprisonment will lie where a person is unlawfully detained under void process or under no process at all. Miller v. Grand Union Company, 250 Ga. App. 751, 552 S.E.2d 491 (2001)

155. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

156. COUNT TWO: Malicious Abuse of Process; Denial of Due Process; Filing False Police Reports; Conspiracy of Deprivation of Rights; Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights; Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law ; Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice Act - 42 USC Section 1985 – “Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights” Sections 2 and 3; California Penal Code Sec. 140(a); Retaliation against witness; U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment

157. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
158. All Defendants with the title “Officer”, “City and County of San Francisco”, and “San Francisco Police Department are to be charged with “Count Two”.
159. Defendants maliciously used a "legal process `to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not the legitimate purpose of the particular process employed.'"5
160. 5 Carroll v. Gillespie. 14 Mass.App.Ct. 12, 26 (1982), quoting Jones v. Brockton Pub. Mkts., Inc., 369 Mass. 387, 389 (1975), quoting from Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. [423,] 426 (1963).
161. Throughout all arrests that occurred there was no probable cause, evidential merit, and an ulterior motive to all the arrests. Plaintiff further alleges that the arrests were made to intimidate the Plaintiff, make him stop protesting (Which some Officers stated, “If you stop protesting you’d stop getting arrested.”), and to pry his property for evidence and notes that are related to the main action to deprive him of that evidence or for personal curiosity or gain for the city.
162. Plaintiff further alleges that it is very possible that both the Chief of Police Heather Fong and Mayor Gavin Newsom co-conspired with the Police Department, and possibly gave orders to follow him and stalk him, because the stalking became more frequent and widespread when the plaintiff served Heather Fong and Gavin Newsom to attend hearings as witnesses to the main action.
163. A person may be liable for false imprisonment not only when the person's own 
164. acts directly impose a restraint upon the liberty of another but also when that person, by providing false information, causes such restraint to be imposed. Karjavainen v. Buswell, 289 Mass. 419, 427 (1935) (questioned on other grounds by Mezullo v. Maletz, 331 Mass. 233, 239-240 [1954]). Restatement (Second) of Torts s 37 (1965) ("If an act is done with the intent to confine another, and such act is the legal cause of confinement to another, it is immaterial whether the act directly or indirectly causes the confinement").
165. Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 47 Mass.App.Ct. 86, 97-98 (1999).The officers knew or should have known that the police reports were groundless and they sought to use the process for an ulterior purpose, including, but not limited to, the purpose of aiding the city in prevailing in the main action, find evidence and notes to remain a step ahead, destroy evidence, scare the Plaintiff out of the city, and induce the Plaintiff to refrain from protesting the police department.
166. Defendants knew or should have known that the police calls and police reports initiated were groundless.
167. Defendants used the legal process with the ulterior purpose, to wit, for personal and financial benefit.
168. Defendants San Francisco Police Department and City and County of San Francisco are liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.
169. Plaintiff constantly lives in fear of police and authorities, and will not travel to San Francisco alone.
170. The fear of going to San Francisco for other than court filings, has caused an impedance of the plaintiff’s ability to return to school (His school is Art Institute of California-San Francisco) and to get booked as a DJ or event organizer.

171. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

172. COUNT THREE: Assault and Batteries; Attempted Murder; Invasion of Privacy; Public Embarrassment; Cal Constitution, Art I, Sections 1, 7, and 13; Cal Civil Code sections 1708 and 3333; Cal Gov’t Code Sections 815.2 and 815.6; Unruh Civil Rights Act; Cal Penal Code 182; Conspiracy; Cal Penal Code 236; False Imprisonment; Cal Penal Code 649; Stalking; Cal Penal Code 422.6; Unlawful use of force; 18 U.S.C. § 1512 : US Code - Section 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant; 18 U.S.C. § 1513 : US Code - Section 1513: Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant; and Common Law

173. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
174. ALL Claims in and illegal activities mentioned in COUNT THREE are to be charged against DEFENDANTS “SFPOA”, “GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA PRESIDENT), and “JOHN DOE (SFPOA VICE PRESIDENT) due to action (or inaction) stemming from their authority exercised by them to use their agents to commit crimes and violations of FEDERAL and STATE law pursuant to RICO ACT.
175. Count Three applies to Defendants “OFFICER L. CUEBA”, and “OFFICER TOOMEY” (with the exemption of Attempted Murder)
176. All codes listed in Count Three apply to defendant “OFFICER BERTRAND”, “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT” and “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”
177. Officer L. Cueba assaulted the Plaintiff outside of a Ross Store on 4th and Market St. on or around May 15th 2008.
178. S.F.P.D. unknown Officers and Officer Toomey have repeatedly invaded the rights of the plaintiff to not be searched or be harassed and have stalked him.
179. Officer Bertrand slammed the plaintiff to the ground, chocked him to the point that he thought he was going to die, and busted his lip on June 13th 2008.
180. Officer Bertrand along with his partners invaded his privacy and embarrassed him publicly on or around July 17th 2008.
181. Officer Bertrand committed his crimes because of his dislike for Disc Jockeys and is therefore a violation of the California Unruh Act and a hate crime.

182. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

183. COUNT FOUR: Interference With and Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition The Government for Redress of Grievances; Abuse of Process; and Violation of Due Process; 42 U.S.C. 1983; U.S. Constitution 1st Amendment; Cal Constitution, Art I, Sections 2 and 13, Cal. Civil Code Sections 1708 and 3333, and Common Law

184. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
185. All defendants with the title “OFFICER”, unknown officers, “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”, and “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT”, “SFPOA”, “GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA PRESIDENT), and “JOHN DOE” (SFPOA VICE PRESIDENT), are to be charged with “Count Four”.
186. The defendants with the title “OFFICER” and unknown officers on multiple occasions from May 2008 to June 2008 have attempted to impeded the protesting efforts of the Plaintiff thereby proximately and foreseeable causing him damage, injury, and loss. That is, they inflicted bodily injury, and caused him to be falsely arrested, detained, and charged with the substantial moving purpose of interfering with and retaliating against him for engaging in expressive conduct, punishing him extra-judicially, deterring and chilling his future free expression and assembly.
187. For the same conduct defendants are further liable to Plaintiff Lagana for committing an abuse of process (I.E. misusing their authority to use force, arrest, and detaining him for an ulterior purpose, as well as violating his right to due process, all under Federal and California Law.)

188. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

189. Count Five: Violation of California and U.S. Civil Rights, “Bane Act” Cal. Civil Code Sections 52.1 and 52; Cal Civil Code Sections 1708 and 3333; Cal Civil Code Section 52.1; U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment

190. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
191. All defendants are to be charged with “Count Five”.
192. Based on the conduct alleged in the complaint and all the foregoing paragraphs, all defendants are liable to Plaintiff Lagana for violating his California and U.S. civil rights enshrined in the Bane Act in that they interfered by threats, intimidation, and coercion with his rights to due process and to be free from false arrest, imprisonment, assault and battery, attempted murder, interference with and retaliation for exercise of free speech, assembly, and petition, and abuse of process as guaranteed by Article I, Sections 1, 2, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution, Cal Civil Code Section 1708, the U.S. Constitution 1st and 14th Amendments, and Common Law, thereby proximately and foreseeable causing him damage, injury, and loss.
193. Plaintiff Lagana further alleges that defendants discriminated and hated him based on his filing of a civil lawsuit against the S.F.P.D. which was reviled by the officers of the S.F.P.D.
194. Pursuant to Cal. Civil Code Section 52 (a), (b), Plaintiff Lagana is entitled to up to three times his actual damages, exemplary and treble damages; to a civil penalty of $25,000 for each violation of his rights; and to attorney’s fees in an amount determined by the court.

195. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

196. COUNT SIX: Failure to intervene, California Common Law; Cal. Civil Code 1708 and 3333

197. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
198. Defendants “CADENAZZI”, “HEATHER FONG”, “KAMALA HARRIS”, and “GAVIN NEWSOM”, SFPOA, GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA PRESIDENT), and JOHN DOE (SFPOA VICE PRESIDENT) are to be charged with COUNT SIX.
199. Plaintiff alleges that the Mayor’s office and the Office of Citizen Complaints failed to intervene after thoroughly being informed before and after the conduct by the involved unknown and named officers in the complaint.
200. Based on the conduct alleged in all the foregoing paragraphs, all defendants, both S.F.P.D. and C.C.S.F. are liable for failing to intervene to stop or mitigate the assaults and batteries, the stalking and harassment of the plaintiff, false arrest and imprisonment, deprivation of rights and due process of Plaintiff Lagana, thereby proximately and foreseeable causing him damage, injury, and loss.

201. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

202. COUNT SEVEN: Conspiracy to Interfere With Civil Rights USC 42 Section 1985 Sections 2 and 3; California Common Law; Cal Civil Code Sections 1708 and 3333

203. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
204. All defendants are to be charged with “Count Seven”
205. The defendants are liable to Plaintiff Lagana for distorting and covering up the truth about the wrongs they committed, both individually and by conspiring. Overt acts include, without limitation; intentionally concealing and destroying photographs of evidential merit, recounting the events falsely through false and misleading statements, omissions in their reports and other documents; failing to seek certain statements or make certain reports in the first place; concealing and destroying evidence and permitting its spoliation; failing to take proper investigative steps; failing to intervene to prevent or mitigate the wrongs committed by one and other; failing to comply with agency orders and policies of the S.F.P.D., California, and the United States designed to mitigate or prevent wrongs committed, and to ensure proper review of official misconduct; and failing to properly supervise, train, or discipline miscreant officers and retaining violent and malicious employees regardless of prior complaints and reports.

206. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

207. COUNT EIGHT: Negligence; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; California Common Law; 42 U.S.C. 1983; Cal Civil Code Sections 1708 and 3333

208. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
209. Defendants “CADENAZZI”, unknown officers, “HEATHER FONG”, “KAMALA HARRIS”, “GAVIN NEWSOM”, and “SGT. MEEHAN” are to be charged with “Count Eight”.
210. Based on the conduct alleged in the foregoing paragraphs, all defendants, both S.F.P.D. and C.C.S.F. are liable for breaching their duties to Plaintiff Lagana to exercise reasonable and due care in the performance of their official duties, including without limitation their record-keeping duties and their duties to comply with agency orders, state and federal orders, policies, regulations, and trainings, thereby proximately and foreseeably caused damages to Plaintiff Lagana, injuries and losses.
211. In addition, the City and County of San Francisco is liable to Plaintiff Lagana for negligently and possibly knowingly hiring, training, supervising, retaining, and improperly disciplining miscreant employees.

212. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

213. COUNT NINE: Respondeat Superior; 42 U.S.C., Section 14141 - Pattern and Practice; Cal Gov’t Code Section 815.2; Cal Civil Code Sections 1708 and 3333

214. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
215. Defendants “HEATHER FONG”, “SGT MEEHAN”, “GAVIN NEWSOM”, “KAMALA HARRIS”, “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”, “SFPOA”, GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA PRESIDENT) AND “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT” are to be charged with “Count Nine”.
216. 42 U.S.C., Section 14141 – Pattern and Practice: This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
1. Excessive Force 2. Discriminatory Harassment 3. False Arrest 4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
217. 5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
218. The City is responsible under a 42 USC, Section 1983 claim when it is proven that the City’s agents commit a pattern and practice of violating the civil rights of others.
219. Plaintiff alleges that is a matter of custom for the City and County of San Francisco to look past misconduct and abuse by its officers because they are desperate for officers because their ranks are low and available applicants are low.
220. Plaintiff further alleges it is a matter of custom of the S.F.P.D. to use excessive force and racial profile.
221. Plaintiff further alleges it is a matter of custom of the S.F.P.D. to unlawfully search citizens because most of the citizens are not aware of their rights.
222. Plaintiff witnessed three arrests in June 2008 that involved S.F.P.D. officers unlawfully searching citizens.
223. The Plaintiff in June 2008 asked one arrestee if he was on parole or probation and he stated he was not. Plaintiff asked the officers why they were unlawfully searching him. They stated, “Leave or we will cite you for disrupting an investigation!” Plaintiff stated he is in litigation with the S.F.P.D. and he refuses to leave because he has a right to investigate and petition the government for redress of grievances. They left him alone after these statements. Plaintiff witnessed the officers release the arrestee, more than likely because they had no reason to stop him to begin with.
224. The City and County of San Francisco is liable in respondeat superior for the intentional torts of its employees as described in the foregoing paragraphs.
225. To determine whether a particular set of facts falls into one of those "few exceptions," it is necessary to examine the employees' conduct as a whole, not simply the tortious act itself. (See, e.g., Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 652 [171 P.2d 5] [employee who threw a hammer at another employee after a dispute held to have acted within the scope of employment].) "'The fact that an employee is not engaged in the ultimate object of his employment at the time of his wrongful act does not preclude attribution of liability to an employer.'" ( John R., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 447, quoting Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 139.) As we said in Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., supra, 41 Cal.3d at page 970: "[T]he proper inquiry is not '"whether the wrongful act itself was authorized but whether it was committed in the course of a series of acts of the agent which were authorized by the principal."
226. As the lead opinion in John R. said: "We doubt that police departments would deprive their officers of weapons or preclude them from enforcing the laws . . . ." ( John R., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 452.)
227. The Legislature has recognized that the imposition of vicarious liability on a public employer is an appropriate method to ensure that victims of police misconduct are compensated. It has done so by declining to grant immunity to public entities when their police officers engage in violent conduct. Since the enactment of the California Tort Claims Act in 1963 (§ 810 et seq.), a governmental entity can be held vicariously liable when a police officer acting in the course and scope of employment uses excessive force or engages in assaultive conduct. (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 778, 782 [109 Cal.Rptr. 365]; Larson v. City of Oakland (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 91, 98 [94 Cal.Rptr. 466]; Scruggs v. Haynes (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 256, 268 [60 Cal.Rptr. 355]; Griffith v. City of Monrovia (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6 [184 Cal.Rptr. 709]; see also Jones v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 155 [30 Cal.Rptr. 124].) The decisions cited have recognized, at least implicitly, that vicarious liability is an appropriate method to ensure that victims of police misconduct are compensated.
228. Ordinarily, the determination whether an employee has acted within the scope of employment presents a question of fact; it becomes a question of law, however, when "the facts are undisputed and no conflicting inferences are possible." ( Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 968.) In some cases, the relationship between an employee's work and wrongful conduct is so attenuated that a jury could not reasonably conclude that the act was within the scope of employment. (See, e.g., John R., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1452; Rita M. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1453, 1461 [232 Cal.Rptr. 685]; Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 133, 139-140 [176 Cal.Rptr. 287].)
229. The term "custom" includes "persistent and wide-spread. . .practices," "permanent and well settled" practices, and "deeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out policy." Adickes, supra at 167-68. A government need not formally adopt a custom for the custom to take on the force of law. It may take on such force by virtue of being sufficiently settled and permanent. Fundiller v. City of Cooper City, supra at 1442 (11th Cir.1985). "To have this effect, the custom must be 'created' by those whose 'edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.' " Id. (quoting Monell, supra at 694).

230. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

231. COUNT TEN: 18 U.S.C. § 241; Conspiracy To Deprive Civil Rights; California Penal Code § 182 (a)(1),(2),(3)(5); Cal Penal Code Sec. 140(a); Retaliation against witness; Obstruction of Justice & Conspiracy to Commit a Crime; Cal Penal Code § 142(a); Concealment and Destruction of Evidence; Negligence; Attempted Destruction of Evidence; Cal Penal Code §667/187; Attempted Murder; Brady v. Maryland; Cal CPC 1209 (a)(7); Cal CPC 1209 (a)(8); Contempt of Court; CAL. CIVIL CODE §52.3; Deprivation of Civil Rights; Racketeering

232. All Defendants are alleged to had conspired to violate CPC 1209 (a)(7) & (8).
233. California Civil Procedure Code 1209 (a)
234. 7. Unlawfully detaining a witness, or party to an action while
235. going to, remaining at, or returning from the court where the action
236. is on the calendar for trial;
237. 8. Any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings
238. of a court;

239. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
240. Defendants “BERTRAND”, “CADENAZZI”, “SGT. MEEHAN”, “PAULO MORGADO”, “HEATHER FONG”, “KAMALA HARRIS”, “GAVIN NEWSOM”, “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”, AND “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT” “SFPOA”, JOHN DOE (SFPOA VICE PRESIDENT), and GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA PRESIDENT) are to be charged with “Count Ten”
241. Defendants SFPOA, GARY DELANGIS, and JOHN DOE are part of the conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of his civil rights and the chilling of the PLAINTIFF's FREEDOM OF SPEECH rights guaranteed by the U.S. Const. 1st Amendment.
242. Defendants Officers Bertrand and Cadenazzi are part of the conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of his civil rights.
243. Cadenazzi is responsible for his negligence to restrain and arresting Bertrand for his crimes and not intervening, therefore condoning Officer Bertrand’s conduct and being an accomplice.
244. Bertrand is alleged to have committed all codes listed in “Count Ten”.
245. Defendants Heather Fong, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris failed to intervene, may have assisted in covering-up the incidents in this complaint, and are alleged to have violated Cal Penal Code 142(a), and all other codes listed in this “Count Ten”.
246. Plaintiff informed in person and informally served defendant “Heather Fong” with a copy of his Third Amended Complaint.
247. Plaintiff formally served a copy of his Pitchess & Brady Motion to the defendant “Kamala Harris” and explicitly stated in that Motion that the District Attorney’s Office had a duty to investigate and turn over reports of the officers named.
248. Neither the District Attorney’s Office or Kamala Harris filed a response or opposition to the motion, nor did they as much as write a letter to Plaintiff Lagana.
249. Plaintiff filed a Pitchess motion which was denied because Defendant’s counsel Andrew Gschwind stated the Plaintiff did not follow proper discovery procedures when in actually, the Plaintiff did so in the form of an interrogatory that defense counsel “Andrew Gschwind” had answered.
250. Plaintiff informed the Mayors Office/Gavin Newsom of the harassment and threats by the S.F.P.D. and later the false arrests, and did not receive any correspondence back.
251. Plaintiff witnessed Gavin Newsom step out onto his balcony at City Hall in San Francisco and listened to the Plaintiff’s protest for a nominal length of time.
252. Plaintiff believes Bertand may have possibly been sent to Union Square where the Plaintiff regulars when protesting in order to harass him and deter him from protesting by Gavin Newsom.
253. Defendant Meehan may have partaken in the conspiracy by withholding Plaintiff’s photos.
254. Defendant Paulo Morgado is alleged to have partaken with his unknown partner in deleting the Plaintiff’s photographs from the Plaintiff’s digital camera of S.F.P.D. officers harassing and threatening him in July 2008.
255. Plaintiff witnessed this fact, and when he received his camera back, all his photographs were deleted from his digital camera.
256. No persons shall have the right to deprive or even conspire to deprive another person of his/her rights.  18 U.S.C. § 241 prohibits all kinds of interferences with the rights of an individual that has been secured by the individual through the United States Constitution or through any other laws of the United States.
257. “By virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 241, it is a federal crime for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
258. “18 U.S.C. § 241 are subjected to fine or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.  However, if the act results in death, kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, then the offenders are subjected to fine or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, or may also be sentenced to death.  Section 241 applies to instances of conspiracy on the part of both private individuals as well as public officials.  It has to be noted that conspiracy of two or more persons to deprive alone is sufficient to invite punishment.  There is no requirement that an actual deprivation should have taken place.”
259. Cal Penal Code 142(a)Any peace officer who has the authority to receive or arrest a person charged with a criminal offense and willfully refuses to receive or arrest that person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
260. "Of course, the agreement between conspirators need not be proved by direct evidence, but may be shown by circumstantial evidence that tends to show a common intent. In fact, in the absence of a confession by one of the conspirators, it is usually very difficult to secure direct evidence of a conspiracy, so that in the usual case the ultimate fact of a conspiracy must be determined from those inferences naturally and properly to be drawn from those matters directly proved." (Peterson v. Cruickshank (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 148, 163 [300 P.2d 915], internal citations omitted.)
261. "We agree . . . that the general rule is that a party who is not personally bound by the duty violated may not be held liable for civil conspiracy even though it may have participated in the agreement underlying the injury. However, an exception to this rule exists when the participant acts in furtherance of its own financial gain." (Mosier, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048, internal citations omitted.)
262. "As long as two or more persons agree to perform a wrongful act, the law places civil liability for the resulting damages on all of them, regardless of whether they actually commit the tort themselves. 'The effect of charging . . . conspiratorial conduct is to implicate all . . . who agree to the plan to commit the wrong as well as those who actually carry it out.' " (Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 784 [157 Cal.Rptr. 392, 598 P.2d 45], internal citations omitted.)

263. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

264. COUNT ELEVEN: Defamation; Slander; Libel; Profiling

265. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
266. Unknown individual defendants and “SGT MEEHAN” are to be charged with “COUNT 11”
267. Plaintiff has reason to believe that the San Francisco Police Department through unknown officers labeled him a terrorist.
268. Plaintiff noticed that in the police report for the second arrest by S.F.P.D. for assault against a private citizen in June 2008, the investigating officers contacted the “S.I.D.”
269. “S.I.D.” or “Special Investigations Division” is a special division that is responsible for investigating bomb threats, hate crimes, gang violence, and providing security detail to the Mayor.

270. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

271. COUNT TWELVE: RACKETERRING AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO ACT); EXTORTION OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; 837 F.2d 1509 Key West Police RICO Court of Appeals 1988; Evans v. City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2006); Racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1962(c), (d), 1963; Retaliation against a witness and victim of Racketeering activities

272. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
273. ALL DEFENDANTS ARE TO BE CHARGED WITH COUNT TWELVE, AND ARE PRESUMED TO BE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COUNT TWELVE.
274. DEFENDANT JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President) says majority of lawsuits against police are frivolous and shows little remorse to the PLAINTIFF for the wrongs committed by the SFPD officers towards the plaintiff.
275. Plaintiff has reason to believe the corrupt organization named, “SFPOA” which is managed by DEFENDANTS GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA PRESIDENT) AND JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President) has been lobbying to keep funding for cameras and recording devices in SFPD vehicles in order to continue it's criminal enterprise that is ran by miscreant SFPD officers.
276. These SFPD officers, while on duty, are wasting tax payer money and police officer contributions to run this criminal enterprise and protect criminal and miscreant SFPD employees and officers.

277. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

III. Conclusion:

JURY DEMAND

278. PLAINTIFF hereby demands a jury trial in this action under CAL. CONST. ART.1 §16. and US CONSTITUTION

279. PRAYER

a. 1. General damages according to proof;
b. 2. Special damages according to proof;
c. 3. Punitive damages against all defendants according to proof;
d. 4. For injunctive relief enjoying Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and BERTRAND for falsely detaining, arresting, or harassing PLAINTIFF, and forcing Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and S.F.P.D. to place cameras inside all vehicles in order to monitor detainees safety;
e. 5. Reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to applicable laws;
f. 6. Costs of suit incurred herein; and
g. 7. Such other and further relief as the Court and The People of The State of California may deem just and proper.

280. “Our society has entrusted police officers with enforcing its laws and ensuring the safety of the lives and property of its members. In carrying out these important responsibilities, the police act with the authority of the state. When police officers on duty misuse that formidable power to commit sexual assaults, the public employer must be held accountable for their actions. 'It is, after all, the state which puts the officer in a position to employ force and which benefits from its use.'" (Thomas v. Johnson (D.D.C. 1968) 295 F.Supp. 1025, 1032, quoting Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Damage Actions (1963) 77 Harv.L.Rev. 209, 229.)”

281. Respectfully signed and submitted, under penalty of perjury of the State of California,
282. Dated:

283. ____________________________________
284. Joseph Victor Lagana

Posted by DJTsunami on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 2:09 am

Joseph Victor Lagana
1121 Willow St.
Alameda, CA 94501
josephvl@yahoo.com
408-510-0673

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

) CASE No: CGC-08-475803
JOSEPH VICTOR LAGANA )
Plaintiff )
) CAL. CONST. ART.1 §1, §2, §3, §7, §10, §12
) CAL. CONST. ART.1 §13, §15, §17,
) CAL. CPC 1209 (a)(7)&(8)
) CAL. CIVIL CODE § 52.1(a)
) CAL. PEN. CODE § 142(a)
KEVIN MARTIN (VICE PRESIDENT OF SPOA) ) CAL. CIVIL CODE §52.3
GARY DELAGNES (PRESIDENT OF SFPOA) ) RICO ACT
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY) ) CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.6
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION) CAL. PEN. CODE §664/187 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) CALIFORNIA BANE & UNRUH ACTS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) 1.FALSE ARREST
CHIEF OF POLICE “HEATHER FONG” ) 2.INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) DISTRESS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY “KAMALA HARRIS” ) 3.ASSAULT AND BATTERRIES
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) 4.ATTEMPTED MURDER
MAYOR “GAVIN NEWSOM” ) 5.CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) 6.OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
OFFICER “LARRY BERTRAND” ) 7.CONCEALING AND DESTRUCTION OF
(OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY), ) EVIDENCE
OFFICER “PAULO MORGADO” ) 8.NEGLIGENCE and
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY), ) 9.NEGLIGENT SELECTION, TRAINING,
OFFICER “TOOMEY” ) RETENTION, SUPERVISION,
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY), ) INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINE
OFFICER “L. CUEBA” ) 10.DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY) ) 11.FALSE IMPRISONMENT
OFFICER “CADENEZZI ) 12.RAKETEERING
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY) ) 13.NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
SGT. MEEHAN ) DISTRESS
(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY ) 14.DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNKNOWN OFFICERS )
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants )
)

1. PLAINTIFF hereby alleges as follows:
2.
The above-entitled action is brought under CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, Sections 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17; CAL. PEN. CODE § 182 (a)(1),(2),(3)(5), CAL. PEN. CODE § 140(a), CAL. PEN. CODE § 142(a), CAL. PEN. CODE §667/187, CAL. CPC 1209 (a)(7), CAL. CPC 1209 (a)(8), CAL. CIVIL CODE §52.3, CAL. CIVIL CODE § 52.1 (a), CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The damages sought in this matter exceed $25,000. This matter is thus properly submitted to the Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction in the Superior Court, County of San Francisco.
4. This court is proper because all of the alleged wrongful conduct occurred with the City and County of San Francisco.
5. Plaintiff has complied with all notice requirements including timely presenting a Gov’t Code 910 claim for damages against the “City and County of San Francisco” which was later denied by defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Joseph Victor Lagana hereby complains of defendants “City and County of San Francisco”, Chief of Police Heather Fong, District Attorney Kamala Harris, Mayor Gavin Newsom, OFFICER LARRY BERTRAND, OFFICER PAULO MORGADO, Officer Toomey, Officer L. Cueba, OFFICER CADENAZZI, and SGT MEEHAN, and alleges as follows.
7. Plaintiff “JOSEPH VICTOR LAGANA” is an individual and a resident of Alameda County.
8. Defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION” is a non-profit organization.
9. Defendant “GARY DELANGIS (SFPOA President)” is an individual managing a corrupt organization.
10. Defendant “JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President)” is and individual managing a corrupt organization.
11. Defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT” is a law enforcement agency.
12. Defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO” is a municipality.
13. Defendant “HEATHER FONG” was a decision maker and policy maker for Defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT” during and after the events mentioned herein this complaint.
14. Defendant “KAMALA HARRIS” is a decision maker and policy maker and is the District Attorney for defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.
15. Defendant “GAVIN NEWSOM” is a decision maker and policy maker and the Mayor for defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.
16. Defendants “LARRY BERTRAND”, “PAULO MORGADO”, “TOOMEY”, AND “L. CUEBA” are police officers for defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO” and are employed to that defendant through defendant “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT”.
17. Some of the true or full names of the defendant’s agents are unknown at this time.
18. At all relevant time said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as officers, sergeants, captains, and / or civilian employees, police makers, and representatives of the City of San Francisco and the wrongful acts hereinafter described flow from their exercise of authority.
19. At all times relevant, defendants “HEATHER FONG”, “KAMALA HARRIS”, “GAVIN NEWSOM”, “LARRY BERTRAND”, “TOOMEY”, AND “L. CUEBA” were acting under color of law, to wit, under the color of the statues, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices, and usages of defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”, “SAN FRANCISO POLICE DEPARTMENT”, and the State of California.
20. Plaintiff has complied with all notice requirements including timely presenting a Gov’t Code 910 claim for damages against the “City and County of San Francisco” which was later denied by defendant “CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”.
21. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names of the UNKNOWN OFFICER DEFENDANTS whom DOES 1 through 136 inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each defendant so named is responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages suffered by the PLAINTIFF as set forth. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities of all involved defendants DOES 1 though 136 inclusive, when they have been ascertained.

Statement of Facts & General Factual Background Common To All Cause of Action

22. Plaintiff was planning and marketing his event that was to be held at the “Blue Moon Nightclub” for June 14th 2008. Plaintiff had argued with an Officer for the City of Pleasanton about the fact he can pass out leaflets for his event on a public sidewalk. The Officer threatened to arrest him. The Plaintiff recalled being threatened at this nightclub before by other promoters and felt unsafe and left the scene. He then contacted 911 emergency because a van was circling him and the people inside were looking at him menacingly. The same Officer he had argued with took the call that the Plaintiff made for assistance and falsely arrested the Plaintiff under the guise of under the influence of a controlled substance. Plaintiff demanded a blood test and the Pleasanton Police Officer took him to a hospital to provide such a test.
23. Plaintiff was held for 2 days, then released on his own accord.
24. Plaintiff confirms that charges were never filed and his test came up negative for any drugs and controlled substances.
25. Plaintiff saw this as a minor setback on his marketing plan for his event, however continued on and on occasion would protest about Pleasanton Police Department when in San Francisco because there are a lot of people from many walks of life and local areas fused into one place.
26. Plaintiff was harassed for protesting by numerous unknown SFPD officers, so many that the Plaintiff is unaware of their names.
27. Plaintiff had to cancel his event for June 18th 2008 at the “Blue Moon Nightclub” because of marketing difficulties caused by the actions and inactions of all named defendants.
28. Plaintiff had projected a $40,000 profit from doing this event which had to be cancelled.
29. The “Blue Moon Nightclub” owner will testify to this fact if need be.
30. Plaintiff Joseph Lagana was protesting about Pleasanton Police Department, President Bush, and that we live in a “police state” in-front of “Ross Stores” location 4th & Market St. in San Francisco, CA on or around May 15th 2008. S.F.P.D. officer “L. Cueba” grabbed the plaintiff by his sweater with full force which caused it to rip along with his undershirt. Officer “L. Cueba” told the plaintiff to leave the area of 4th and Market St. and cease his protesting.
31. Plaintiff stated that he is on a public sidewalk and he has a right to protest which is protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and asked Officer “L. Cueba” to let go of him and his sweater. Officer “L. Cueba” stated, “I am a cop!” and refused to let go of the plaintiff unless he left the area. Plaintiff stated that he would defend himself regardless, and that officer “L. Cueba” had committed assault against him.
32. This harassment was a joint effort of “Ross Stores” and the S.F.P.D. and upon discovery “Ross Stores” may become an added defendant.
33. Plaintiff has been frequently harassed, threatened, and stalked by defendants “TOOMEY”, “LARRY BERTRAND” and unknown S.F.P.D. officers throughout May 2008 and July 2008.
34. Plaintiff was falsely arrested on 4 occasions from June 2008 to July 2008 by the S.F.P.D. and plaintiff alleges their action was in retaliation to the plaintiff filing a lawsuit against the S.F.P.D. because all arrests occurred after the filing of the original complaint for this case in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.
35. It should be noted that Plaintiff had not ever been arrested by S.F.P.D. before the filing of this case in this honorable court.
36. Plaintiff has reason to believe that the San Francisco Police Department through unknown officers labeled him a terrorist.
37. Plaintiff was followed and watched by an unknown plain-clothes agent.
38. Plaintiff states this agent had a lanyard type badge which the unknown agent covered with his hand. Plaintiff said he has a right to know what agency this unknown agent was with.
39. The unknown agent removed his hand and the agent’s badge read “Department of Homeland Security”.
40. Plaintiff asked if this agent had been following him. The agent replied, “Yes. I have reason to believe you could be a potential terrorist.”, and he relied on information “from S.F.P.D.”
41. The meeting of this agent prompted the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit against the S.F.P.D. the very same day.
42. This is the reason for the simple nature of the original complaint. The Plaintiff wanted to file anything naming the Defendant S.F.P.D. in order to protect himself following the meeting of the DHS agent.
43. Plaintiff noticed that in the police report for the second arrest by S.F.P.D. for assault against a private citizen in June 2008, the investigating officers contacted the “S.I.D.”
44. “S.I.D.” or “Special Investigations Division” is a special division that is responsible for investigating bomb threats, hate crimes, gang violence, and providing security detail to the Mayor.
45. Plaintiff needs to commit discovery in order to get more details however the investigating officer was Sergeant Meehan with “general work detail” (Which has been disbanded for undisclosed reasons, probably corruption) and Inspector “Lindberg” with “S.I.D.”.
46. Partners, Officers “Toomey and Reyes” were arresting officers in one occasion on or around June 5th 2008 and have been on the scene or during booking in almost every occasion of the plaintiff’s arrests.
47. During this arrest while in the holding cell an unknown Lieutenant along with Officers Frost and Toomey were debating what the Plaintiff should be charged with and looking at the Plaintiff’s photos of other officers and saying along the lines, “Isn’t that Officer such and such…”.
48. It took the Plaintiff almost 2-3 months to retrieve those photographs in question back from the S.F.P.D. which were pertinent to this case.
49. The first time the plaintiff was arrested was around the beginning of June 2008 outside of the nightclub 1015 Folsom in San Francisco, CA. The plaintiff was handing out copies of his lawsuit and flyers of his upcoming event (Which the Plaintiff later cancelled.) outside of the 1015 Folsom nightclub to inform the public of the misconduct and civil rights violations by S.F.P.D. The doorman at 1015 told the Plaintiff to leave and he said he had a right to protest anywhere he pleases. The S.F.P.D. appeared on the scene. Officers Toomey and Reyes were the arresting officers, citing the Plaintiff was drunk when he was in fact sober.
50. The defendant through its agents is involved in committing fraud and oppression against the plaintiff on multiple occasions through May 2008 to July 2008.
51. Unknown officers made representations of material fact which was intentional misrepresentation. Officers Toomey and Reyes have made false police reports stating that plaintiff was intoxicated on 2 occasions in 2008.
52. Unknown officers made a false report stating that the plaintiff committed violations of California Penal Codes 245 (Assault with a deadly weapon), 242 (Battery), and terrorist threats (unk. Penal code a felony), two felonies and a misdemeanor on or around June 3rd 2008.
53. In the above named arrest in line 24, the Plaintiff alleges that the investigation was botched, biased, without merit, and the investigating officers failed to question reasonable witnesses, simply relying on the testimony of two African American pre-teens.
54. In California Evidence Rules, the testimony of a child is highly questionable and rarely stands (Citation omitted.)
55. While in the holding cell for the above named arrest in line 16, the Plaintiff witnessed multiple Officers, some appearing to be superiors because of their stripes, were passing out his photographs (Which were in an envelope from Wal-Greens clearly marked “Evidence! Do not steal or destroy! Federal Crime!) of officers that were following and harassing him, and stating, “Isn’t that “. . .”?” and later conspired to hide and / or destroy the photographs because the Plaintiff has gone to the station multiple times and asked for these photographs and they were either refused to be given or denied of being existent although the Plaintiff has a property receipt signed by Officer Toomey stating, “Refused”.
56. Plaintiff states he would not refuse property that is evidence in this case, he refused to accept placing that property in the hands of the S.F.P.D.
57. The Plaintiff had contacted Sgt. Meehan for roughly 2-3 months asking for the return of the photos and Meehan refused to hand them over almost every time because allegedly the case against the Plaintiff was still under investigation and active.
58. When released for the second arrest that carried the charges CPC 245, 242, and terrorist threats, the Plaintiff was returning home around 1am in June 2008 (Plaintiff needs to further investigate to recall the date) and was stopped by Officer Toomey. Officer Toomey stated, “What are you doing out?” Plaintiff replied, “They dropped the charges because they knew your case was bullshit.” and Officer Toomey replied back, “I’ll be right back.”
59. Toomey returned with two other police cars and stopped the Plaintiff at 6th and Mission, took his Gatorade drink out of his hand, threw it, and took his cigarette from his hand (His first beverage and cigarette after being jailed for 3 days.), and ordered him to get up against the wall, and proceeded to search him along with the other officers. Plaintiff informed him he had a right not to be searched before this action, yet the officers proceeded anyway.
60. These representations were in fact false, the truth was as follows: Plaintiff was never intoxicated every time the unknown officers charged him with public intoxication.
61. The plaintiff was the victim when the unknown officers arrested him in June 2008 for the Assault with a deadly weapon, battery, and terrorist threats charges and they have not pursued arresting the plaintiff’s assailant nor write a report against/not in favor of the assailant.
62. The district attorney of San Francisco or the commanding officer of Southern Station has dismissed every charge against the plaintiff due to “”lack of evidence” and the “interest of justice”.
63. Defendant has concealed and suppressed material facts by not providing or assisting the plaintiff to obtain access to a sobriety test, blood test, or Breathalyzer test in either of the two public intoxication arrests that occurred from June 2008 to July 2008.
64. Unknown and known S.F.P.D. officers have made promises about a material matter without any intention of performing as follows : Unknown and known S.F.P.D. officers including defendant “Toomey” have threatened to arrest the plaintiff or stated, “Do you want to go to jail?” multiple times in retaliation to him protesting them directly or the S.F.P.D. from May 2008 to July 2008.
65. They never followed through and this is a scare tactic to silence the plaintiff and chill his expressive speech. The Plaintiff silenced himself and gave up his right to protest in order to gain safety and keep his freedom. Defendant’s agents’ promise without any intention to perform was made to defraud the plaintiff of his 1st Amendment right to petition the government of its grievances, his 14th Amendment right to due process, and induce the Plaintiff to rely upon it and silence himself from protesting or commenting back to the officers.
66. Plaintiff suffered embarrassment, lack of confidence, depression, and emotional distress from this deprival of rights.
67. S.F.P.D. has neglected to investigate a “Ross Stores” employee with boisterous and wanton behavior, confident that he would not be arrested, and that had flicked a cigarette butt at the Plaintiff which scalded and burned him, therefore committing assault against the plaintiff, and this was all seen directly in-front of/by an S.F.P.D. officer around June 5th 2008. The plaintiff has suffered paranoia, emotional distress, and excruciating pain from a direct burn committed by this employee (responsible for the physical damages and emotional damages) and the officer (responsible for emotional damages from officers’ failure to prosecute, detain or investigate the employee inducing the Plaintiff’s fear of a return attack of the employee and failure to provide medical attention to the Plaintiff.)
68. On the third arrest of the Plaintiff which was on June 13th 2008, the plaintiff asked for assistance from unknown police officers because his property had fallen out of his luggage bag and asked for their assistance to retrieve it. This property (Which included books and records totaling value of around $350.) was left in the streets and not retrieved by the S.F.P.D. whom neglected his property to be looted by the locals.
69. Plaintiff states that he informed Officer Bertrand, “I am just a DJ and producer, I am not a criminal!”
70. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Bertrand is prejudice against DJs.
71. There is an ongoing lawsuit, the Plaintiff is Arash Ghanadan and names Officer Bertrand as a Defendant.
72. There are numerous articles and blogs stating Bertrand has made multiple contact with DJs and taking their equipment and/or assaulting them.
73. Plaintiff alleges that Officer “Larry Bertrand” Star number 414, falsely arrested, assaulted, battered, and attempted murder on the Plaintiff on June 13th 2008 (3rd arrest), by means of asphyxiation while acting as an agent/officer of “San Francisco Police Department” and “City and County of San Francisco”.
74. Plaintiff states at all times following the slamming on the ground, he was in handcuffs and did not resist arrest at any times other than verbally.
75. Plaintiff did not refuse to be arrested, however demanded to know what he was being arrested for and the he had the right to know pursuant to the Due Process clause of the California and U.S. Constitution.
76. Plaintiff demanded what he was being arrested for to Officer Bertrand, and Bertrand stated the plaintiff does not need to know, does not have a right to know, and if he would not stop spitting all over the interior of the cop car he would, “come back there!”.
77. It should be noted that the Officers were safe from being spat on because the backseat was barricaded by a plastic barrier and was merely offended and not touched by the Plaintiff’s spit.
78. The Plaintiff stated he would not stop spitting unless he was told what he was being arrested for.
79. Officer Bertrand then took it upon himself to stop the vehicle while en-route to 850 Bryant St. (S.F.P.D. HQ) opened the passenger door, grabbed the Plaintiff by the throat, squeezed his throat excessively, and demanded that the Plaintiff stop spitting or he would not stop choking him.
80. Plaintiff would not give in and Officer L. Bertrand continued to choke the Plaintiff for roughly a minute and a half.
81. The plaintiff, with the last bit of his breath warned, “The lawsuit is already filed.”
82. Plaintiff believes this is what caused Officer Bertrand to stop his chokehold.
83. Plaintiff is fully aware of the compliance procedure which is similar to a chokehold. This action was in fact not the compliance procedure because Officer L. Bertrand was not applying pressure in that area required, but instead was choking him by the throat/larynx and “Adam’s apple” area.
84. The partner of Officer Bertrand, named “Cadenazzi” failed to do anything and that is negligence and failure to intervene, thereby being a co-conspirator.
85. Plaintiff was slammed to the ground and choked by Officer Bertrand during the third arrest, twist and flung the Plaintiff up, down, and side to side by his handcuffs leaving red cuff marks, and kneed the Plaintiff in the holding cell to his mouth while handcuffed to a bench in front of unknown senior Officers (More than likely Sergeants, they had 3 Stripes) and Officer Frost.
86. Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, a facial contusion, a swollen-shut eye for almost a month, back pain, a scrape to the shoulder, immobility, inability to use his eye for almost a month, and became a paranoid schizophrenic for two months.
87. Plaintiff was taken to be booked into County Jail. Two unknown Sheriff’s Dept Officers stated, “He is beaten to badly, you need to take him to the hospital.”
88. The transporting Officers asked if the Plaintiff had a particular hospital he would like to be taken to. He requested to be taken to St. Francis Medical Center.
89. Plaintiff arrived into the E.R. in handcuffs and was uncuffed within roughly 30 minutes of arrival.
90. When the Plaintiff awoken in his hospital bed, the Officers were no longer in the hospital and he was released within 4 hours of arrival.
91. Plaintiff returned to Los Angeles about 2 days after the June 13th 2008 incident, and was institutionalized in a mental health facility a week later for about 3 weeks. The Plaintiff entered voluntarily and was held against his will because he was allegedly a danger to himself, others, and gravely disabled. He in fact wasn’t, but was suffering emotional distress, paranoia, and his sister feared for his safety because he was snapping at Los Angeles Police officers and general authority figures so she suggested he be taken to the hospital.
92. The diagnosis of Dr. Hendriks (Psy D and PhD).of Olive View Medical Center in Sylmar (California) was that the Plaintiff has suffered from post-traumatic disorder as a direct result of the actions of the San Francisco Police Department and The City and County of San Francisco’s failure to intervene.
93. On or around July 14th 2008, the Plaintiff was falsely arrested for allegedly public drunkenness but was in fact arrested for yelling, “Fuck the police!”
94. Officer Morgado from Southern Station in San Francisco, along with his partner stated, “If you yell, “Fuck the police!” you go to jail!” Plaintiff did not give the arresting officers consent to search his property and was never read his Miranda rights. The officers searched his property anyway. Upon discovery of the Plaintiff’s digital camera, Officer Morgado’s unknown partner deleted all photos and videos of the Plaintiff’s contact, harassment, and stalking by S.F.P.D. officers occurring in June 2008.
95. The Plaintiff has some of these pictures backed up (Some showing the same car at different areas backing up the Plaintiff’s claim of stalking.) before this occurrence, which shows the officers had a motive to delete these photographs.
96. The Plaintiff was returning home from court after filing and serving documents through the Sheriff’s office and the defendant is thereby guilty of contempt of court for detaining a party to an action while the action is pending and returning home.
97. Plaintiff was detained for 16 hours for allegedly being drunk in public. Sheriffs of County Jail #9 let out stumbling drunks hours before the Plaintiff whom asked for a breathalyzer test, blood test, or even a sobriety test which costs nothing from both the arresting officers and the Sheriffs of San Francisco. They refused to provide any of these tests.
98. From the Plaintiff’s experience, in order to hold or detain someone, doesn’t there have to be some type of evidence? An officer’s claim without evidence or witnesses is clearly heresy and not proper means to hold a person and deprive them of their liberty. This is denial of due process to the plaintiff.
99. These actions by Officer Morgado and his unknown partner are a alleged to commit Obstruction of Justice by Destruction of Evidence; Obstruction of Investigations by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1519) and in contempt of court pursuant to Cal CPC 1209 (a)(7) and (a)(8)
100. On or around July 17th 2008, Plaintiff was protesting outside the City Hall of San Francisco and Mayor Gavin Newsom stepped out onto his balcony and briefly listened to the plaintiff’s protest about S.F.P.D. and that you have no constitutional rights if you are in San Francisco.
101. This same day of July 17th 2008, Officer L. Bertrand along with multiple unknown officers detained the Plaintiff for almost 30 minutes for protesting about the S.F.P.D. in Union Square on 4th and Market Streets of San Francisco, CA and searched and seized his property without the Plaintiff’s consent. Tourist and employees of Forever 21 at Union Square snapped pictures of the Plaintiff while on his knees in cuffs and the plaintiff suffered public embarrassment, deprivation of rights, and denial of due process.
102. Officer L. Bertrand’s supposed reason for detaining the Plaintiff was to do a wellness check because he was protesting loudly. This does not require the detainee to be cuffed if he is not resisting. Plaintiff only asked why he was being stopped and did not argue or refuse to speak to the officers.
103. Plaintiff at first did not notice Officer L. Bertrand and then told Officer Larry Bertrand upon noticing who he was, “You bastard! You are the jerk that beat me and choked me!” Officer Larry Bertrand’s response to the Plaintiff’s comment was laughing at him along with his partners.
104. Plaintiff had an orange back pack on his persons and it was snatched from him along with his digital camera that was pried out of his hand.
105. The Plaintiff yelled out, “I did not give them permission to search my bag!” and the officers along with L. Bertrand continued to search the bag.
106. A USC Section 1983 claim can be brought against the city’s police department when a person’s exercising of his free speech right is the driving force behind the arrest. It is now clear that 'Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state [315 U.S. 568, 571]   action'. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450 , 58 S.Ct. 666, 668.1
107. The Supreme Court has also struck down a law in New Jersey citing the cursing of police officers is protected by the U.S. Constitution (Citation omitted).
108. In “Cohen vs. California” it was also stated that as long as the obscenities are not of sexual manner, the speech is also protected by the U.S. Constitution.\
109. Plaintiff believes this stop by Officer Bertrand was performed in retaliation to his protesting and may have been ordered by the Mayor himself.
110. The Plaintiff had informed the San Francisco “Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Affairs” 3 times about the actions of the S.F.P.D., the first time being when he filed his lawsuit on May 29th 2008 and he has not gotten any type of response or action by the Mayor’s Office. This is more negligence and disregard on behalf of the city.
111. The Plaintiff filed and served a Pitchess motion to the S.F.P.D. Legal Dept, defendant City and County of San Francisco, and San Francisco District Attorney’s Office c/o Kamala Harris.
112. Plaintiff has not received as much of a letter or response from the District Attorney’s Office.
113. Plaintiff explicitly stated the District Attorney’s Office has a duty to investigate the Officers named in the Pitchess Motion and are to respond to such a motion.
114. Defendant “City and County of San Francisco” received proper notice in the form of an interrogatory, and refused to give any information regarding police personnel files.
115. The Plaintiff then filed his Pitchess/Brady motion following the Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s response to that interrogatory claiming the files were privileged.
116. The Defendant City and County of San Francisco denies this fact, although the Plaintiff has the Interrogatory and their answer to that interrogatory, therefore the Plaintiff followed proper procedure for requesting Pitchess and Brady material.
117. This incorporates further corruption, negligence, obstruction of justice, and concealing of evidence on behalf of defendants “City and County of San Francisco” and “Kamala Harris”.
118. The Plaintiff alleges that the City and County of San Francisco is intentionally blind to the fact that its officers abuse their use-of-force ability and arrest the public in a wanton fashion. There is a lengthy track record of these abuses and the city’s failure to reform their policy and officers makes the city liable under the “Respondeat Superior” doctrine.
119. The Defendant is also guilty of racketeering, punishable under the Federal RICO Act because of their tampering of evidence, obstruction of justice, and working with Ross Stores to harass the Plaintiff, impede his protesting efforts, and deprive him of his rights.
120. According to an article in the S.F. Weekly (Citation omitted sometime in 2008) the City and the S.F.P.D. have been in a battle over retail outlet patrols with the S.F.P.D. Special Patrols division and this further shows that they are involved in racketeering activity.
121. Plaintiff has suffered emotion distress, post-traumatic disorder, a mass amount of medical bills, deprivation of liberty, denial of due process, deprivation of constitutional rights, general damages, property damages, loss of earning capacity, incompetence, wage loss, and incompetence in the work force caused by the defendants.
122. The plaintiff also includes his loss of being able to work with a nightclub owner because of cancelling a party, which he also claims as losses of $40,000 potential projected profit. This also devalued his reputation as a club promoter and a business professional.
123. The relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court because this was a simple matter and it gained Federal court jurisdiction because the defendant has acted in a malicious and oppressive manner after filing in the Superior Court for a simple battery, has caused serious injury to the plaintiff to cause him to make errors in his subsequent filings, to induce the Plaintiff to give up on his lawsuit and leave the Bay Area.
124. Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages, punitive damages1, exemplary damages, treble damages in the amount of $308,000,000 and injunctive relief in the form of forcing the defendant “City and County of San Francisco” to install cameras and audio recording devices in all law enforcement vehicles in the “City and County of San Francisco” in order to deter future abuse of detainees while in custody.
125. 1"Punitive damages are recoverable in sec. 1983 suit where defendant's conduct is motivated by an evil motive or intent, or where it involves reckless or callous indifference to plaintiff's federally protected rights). Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 50-51 ((1983); Clark v. Taylor, 710 F.2d 4, 14 (1st Cir. 1983). Miga, supra at 355.
126. On August 17th 2010, PLAINTIFF contacted SFPD Internal Affairs and informed OFFICER TOMIOKA that he was in on-going litigation with the City and he was interested in raising funding to get police vehicles fitted with security camera and microphones hidden in the rear of the vehicles.
127. Defendant SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION (SFPOA) has been part of the conspiracy to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his civil rights guaranteed by the California and United States Constitution.
128. Defendant GARY DELANGIS (Last name may be erroneous) holds the title of President of the corrupt organization “SFPOA” and therefore has been a part of the conspiracy to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his civil rights guaranteed by the California and United State Constitution.
129. The PLAINTIFF on August 17th 2010, had contacted the SFPOA to ask for support to get signatures so that he (PLAINTIFF) can submit the signatures to get federal funding for the much needed camera and microphone systems for SFPD police vehicles.
130. JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President) DEFENDANT stated, “If those officers are liars, let's see you prove it.” then hung up on the PLAINTIFF.
131. PLAINTIFF called once more to the SFPOA asking the receptionist what time the President of SFPOA, DEFENDANT GARY DELANGIS would be available and then the PLAINTIFF heard a raucous.
132. JOHN DOE (SFPOA Vice President) DEFENDANT stated, “Do not ever call back here again. This call is being terminated.”
133. According to SFPD internal affairs, OFFICER TOMIOKA stated that the department has been trying to get those cameras in place for years, much longer than the commencement of this action in this honorable court, but have not been able to get the funding.
134. The PLAINTIFF has reason to believe that the SFPOA lobbies to keep this funding out of the City of San Francisco's hands and the SFPD in order to protect miscreant officers so they can continue their criminal activities and enterprises.
135. The SFPD has a pattern of criminal activity and this stems from the authority of the SFPOA.
136. OFFICER TOMIOKA when informed the same day of the actions of the SFPOA Vice President, said he was disappointed and that I should not give up.

II. Causes of Action

137. COUNT ONE: False Arrest and Imprisonment Cal Consitution, Art. I Sections 1 and 13; U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983: arrest, detention, confinement, warrantless search; racial profiling, conspiracy; Cal Civil Code Section 1708 and 3333; Cal. Cal. Gov’t Code Section 815.2 and 815.6; Cal Penal Code Section 853.6 and California Common Law

138. In order for the defendant to prevail on it’s claim of immunity, the Defendant must show that the officers had probable cause to make the arrests, which is futile because all arrests occurred after the filing in the Superior Court, where made maliciously, the arrests lacked evidential merit, the arrest were made in retaliation to the filing in the Superior Court, and the District Attorney’s office decided not to pursue the charge due to the lack of evidence and the interest of justice. Count one is applicable to all arrests claimed in the general factual background at one.
139. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 136 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
140. All defendants with the title “Officer” are to be charged with “Count One”.
141. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C. secs. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
142. Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial of Plaintiff’s rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law,2 to wit,
143. 2 Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056, 1061 (1st Cir. 1997); McNamara v. Honeyman, 406 Mass. 43, 52 (1989).
144. by depriving Plaintiff of his liberty without due process of law, by taking him into custody and holding him there against his will,3
145. 3 County of Sacramento v. Lewis. 523 U.S. 833 (1998); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982); Williams v. Hartman, 413 Mass, 398, 403 (1992).
146. (b) by making an unreasonable search and seizure of his property without due process of law,
147. (c) by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny Smith equal protection of laws,
148. (d) by refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to plaintiff, thereby depriving plaintiff of his rights, privileges, and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.4
149. 4 Miga v. Holyoke, 398 Mass. 343, 349, 350 (1986) (deprivation of pretrial detainee's substantive due process rights where state seeks to impose punishment without a constitutional adjudication of guilt). Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, n. 16 (1979).
150. A warrantless arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment and forms the basis for a ' 1983 claim. Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503, 1505 (11th Cir. 1990)
151. "For probable cause to exist, ... an arrest must be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances." Lee, supra at 1195. "This standard is met when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information, would cause a prudent person to believe, under the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense." Dahl v. Holley, 312 F.3d 1228, at 1233 (11th Cir. 2002); Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1435 (11th Cir.1998)
152. An unlawful arrest and detention by a police officer effected under color of state law gives rise to an action under section 1983 for deprivation of a federally protected right. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473 (1961);Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213 (1967).
153. A false imprisonment claim under ' 1983 is based on the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment against deprivations of liberty without due process of law as well as the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142, 99 Sup.Ct. 2689, 2693-94 (1979). Where a police officer lacks probable cause to make an arrest, the arrestee has a claim under ' 1983 for false imprisonment based upon a detention pursuant to that arrest. Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1996).
154. An action for false imprisonment will lie where a person is unlawfully detained under void process or under no process at all. Miller v. Grand Union Company, 250 Ga. App. 751, 552 S.E.2d 491 (2001)

155. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lagana demands and prays for judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

Posted by DJTsunami on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 2:10 am