Cas Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 1 of 82? Page ID #:16 I on R. Schlueter 1063 0.2 Peter B. Schlueter 155880 SCI-ILUETER SCI-ILUETER Meserve/ Sanborn Building, 2??1 Floor 108 Orange Street, Suite 8 Redlands, CA 92373 Voice: (909 381-4888 aol.corr1 peterinla@aol.com 1 :31: 053 . . .- . :32; . Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Davrs, Cilley 33,, g; 7 22,; 3233's? 7'3 :Ecrm r" 1:1 4- . if"? In UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT :1?ng .21. ?3 ?9 NO 0031 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I cv ?13 ~?04831'tiintitsn Joann Davis, an individual, and Paul Case No.: Cilley, an individual Complaint for Damages Plaintiffs, . v. Federal Tort Claim Act Claim . Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 41(g) The United States of America, Norman Bivens Conley, Thomas Re nolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Sc idt, Patricia JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Searle, Ga Lofgren, and'Does lthrough 1 Defendants. COMPLAINT The plaintiffs by and through their counsel, sue the United States of America, and for his complaint state: Introductory and Jurisdictional Allegations 1. Plaintiffs seek damages arising from the United States of America, for claims cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 2. Plaintiff Davis seeks return of her property in a claim cognizable under Fed.R.CiV.Proc. 41 ?1 3. Plaintiffs seek damages arising from Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia Scarle, Gary Lofgren, and Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 (Beige 2 of 8? Page ID #:17 1 Does 1through 10, for claims arising under Bivens 12. Six Unknown Named 2 Agents of Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 US. 388 (1971) (IX-XII) 3 4. Under US. Const. Art 2, this Court has jurisdiction because 4 the rights sought to be protected herein are secured by the US. Const. Amends 4 5 5. Jurisdiction is prOper piirsuant to 28 U.S.C. 1381, and federal common 6 law, and 28 U.S.C. 1346. 7 5. The unlawful acts alleged herein were committed within the 8 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of 9 California. i 10 6. Venue of the Court is apprOpriate under 28 U.S.C. 1391. A 11 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise'to the claim occurred in the 12 City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, State of California. 13 7. A claim for damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim Act was 14 submitted to the United States of America in a timely fashion. The claim is 15 attached hereto. The United States did not respond to the claim. 16 Parties 17 . 8. The United States of America is the federal government, of which 18 NASA is an agency. 19 9. Joann Davis and Paul Cilley are natural persons residing in 20 Riverside County, California. 21 10. Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert 22 Schmidt, Patricia Searle, Gary Lofgren, and Does 1through .9 are natural persons, 23 employees of the United States of America and NASA, and at all times were 24 acting within scope of their employment by the United States of America and 25 NASA. Each of these actively participated in the wrongful acts of the others. 26 11. Does lthrough 10 are sued as fictitious persons. Does 1-9 are 27 employees of the United States of America. Doe 10 is an informant, and agent of COMPLAYNT Page 2? Ca [0 U) U: Ix) LJJ es= 5:13ecv-00483-CQtiKK Document 1' Filed 03/14/13 1:8.th 3 of 82- Page ID #:18 the United States of America. Their names and identities are unknown to Plaintiffs. When their identities are discovered by Plaintiffs, this pleading will be amended to allege their true names. General Allegations 12. These initial facts provide background for the incident on May 19, 2011, described below. . a. Joann Davis and her deceased husband: Who they are. 13. Joann Davis was, at the time ofthis incident (May 19, 2011), a 4' 11", 74-year?old retiree. She had retired from North American Rockwell in 1992. She has not been employed by any aerospace contractor or any government agency since that time. Her husband Robert Davis had also been an employee at North American Rockwell until his death on February 5, 1986. These facts were known and were verifiable by NASA and the United States of America and the individual defendants. 14. Robert Davis was a engineer who had worked on various space programs, including the Apollo missions, for North American Rockwell. At no time did he nor Joann Davis work directly for NASA. That is, they were not NASA employees. Neither had access to the NASA Lunar Receiving Lab where moon rocks and lunar samples were kept. These facts were known and were verifiable by NASA and the United States of America and the individual defendants. b. Robert Davis is given awardsfor service. 15. In the early 19703, Robert Davis received two awards, both fashioned as paper weights, that were meant to recognize his contributions in the Apollo 11 moon landing program. One of these Lucite (or like plastic/polymer) paperweights contained a small portion of the Apollo 11 heat shield. The other was said to have contained small fragments (the size of pieces of rice) of lunar COMPLAINT - Page 3? Ca. [0 U1 L4.) re Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Kresge 4 of 82? Page ID #:19 material (aka. moon rocks) brought back by the Apollo ll mission. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that NASA and its administrators authorized the practice of giving out these awards and that this practice was widespread. These moon rocks given out were not part of the ?Goodwill? moon rocks provided by the United States to Other nations and our various states. These facts were known and were veri?able by NASA and the United States of America and the individual defendants. 16. The Lucite (or like polymer) enCased heat shields and moon rocks were community property under California family law as they were acquired during the course of Robert and Joann Davis? legal marriage and stayed with the estate/ community when Robert Davis passed. . 0. NASA ?5 practice Qfgz'ving such awards. 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in the late 1960s or early 1970s, NASA approved the practice that allowed small chips of moon rocks and/ or pieces of spacecraft heat shields to be embedded in Lucite or other like polymer to be provide as souvenir awards to deserving individual employees of aerospace contractors. These facts were known and were verifiable by NASA and the United States of America and the individual defendants. d. Joann Davis tries to sell her souvenirs. 18. In and around the spring of 201 l, JoAnn Davis sought to sell or otherwise find a buyer for the Apollo 11 heat shield and moon rock paperweights given to her husband for his service. She did so mainly because she was living - on a fixed income, and was having trouble making ends meet, and moreover she sought to care for her ailing adult son. This was known to NASA and the United States of America and the individual defendants. COMPLAINT Page 4? U1 U.) 00?] f-n?a "i Caste Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {Rage 5 of 82" Page ID #:20 e. he United States and NASA have made private sale Qfs?pace souvenirs ram. 19. After several failed attempts to find buyers and/ or auction houses who would accept the souvenirs, Davis-discovered that the auction houses believed that NASA. and the United States of America had made it nearly impossible for private persons to acquire, sell, or possess Apollo?program moon rocks. The reasons for this interference were murky. The United States of America has made, through various media outlets, vague claims that Apollo moonrocks are ?national treasures? that cannot be sold, or cannot be sold legally, or cannot be lawfully possessed by individuals. Notwithstanding their knowledge to the contrary, and contrary practice, NASA spokespersons and personnel have stated to media outlets that no lunar sample, not even chips (as was in the paperwei'ghts at issue here), have ever been given to individuals. These acts have been ongoing for at least a decade and continue to date. These facts (including dissemination of false statements) were known by NASA and the United States of America and the individual defendants. 20. Furthermore, contrary to NASA and its agents? and its personnel?s statements, no law forbids the private ownership of Apollo moon rocks lawfully acquired. Nor is there a law that states that a "national treasure" can not be possessed or sold. i 21. Nevertheless, the United States of America and NASA repeatedly stated that the permanent possession of any Apollo lunar sample by an individual no matter when and how acquired is a criminal act. They do so without the benefit of fact or law. 22. By providing this false information about the state of the law and the propriety of legal ownership of moon rocks (or chips therefrom), and denying that NASA authorized and practiced giveaways of lunar material as described COMPLAINT Page 5~ Ca U.) 000% se Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 6 of 82? Page? ID #:21 above, NASA and the United States of America knowingly. injure. property and . the possessory rights-of individuals. 23. NASA and the United States of America intentionally releases and disseminates this misinformation through its personnel to individuals and the media with the aim of ruining the market value of such items, clouding the title or provenance of such objects, or silencing persons who may have moon rocks from coming forward. Davis is informed and believes that NASA and its personnel, individual defendants, have continued to knowingly disseminate this false information through media outlets. The fact that this misinformation is intentionally disseminated for public consumption is known by the NASA and the United States of America and the individual defendants. e. Joann Davis is innocent of any beliaf?tar she was doing wrong. 24. During her attempts to find a buyer for the heat shield or moon rock paperweights, Davis was not told that it violated criminal law, or was in any way illegal, to own, possess, or attempt to. sell (or buy) such paperweights. Neither was she told that she did not have title and possessory rights to the paperweights at issue. Thus, Davis did not believe or suspect that it violated criminal law to own, possess, or attempt to sell (or buy) such paperweights. Nor did she believe or suspect that she did not have title and possessory rights to the paperweights at issue. Further, she did not tell anyone it was illegal to own those items. Rather she knew, and divulged to the defendants in this matter, that the paperweights containing the heat 'shield and the moon rocks had come into her possession legitimately, as described above, and thus were not stolen. NASA and the the United States of America and the individual defendants, by and through their ?confidential? informant/ agent did not inform her that it was a crime to own or attempt to sell such items. Page 6? . Cale Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {CB-age 7 of 82? Page ID #:22 1 f. here was no probable cause to believe that Joann Davis was doing 2 m. 25. No facts that rose to the level of probable cause existed to suggest U.) 4 that Davis had committed any crime, let alone theft or receipt of stolen United U1 States preperty (aka. the paperweights at issue). No facts that rose to the level of probable cause existed to suggest that Davis knew, believed, or suspected that her husband had committed any crime, let alone theft or receipt of stolen of United States property (aka. the paperweights at issue). This was known to 9 NASA and the United States of America and Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, 10 Mike Harrison, and NASA?employee Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10. 11 26. In additiOn, neither NASA nor the United States of America nor 12 Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, nor NASA-employee 13 Lofgren, nor Does 1through 10 had information that rises to the level of probable 14 cause that the Apollo 11 heat shield or moon rock paperweight that Davis 15 possessed was stolen or otherwise obtained through theft or any other criminal 16 act. 17 g. Joann Davis contacts NASA. 18 27. Nevertheless, having no luck finding a buyer in the private sector, 19 Davis contacted NASA in the hope that it might be able to aid her in the sale of 20 the paperweights and other memorabilia her family had Collected over the years. 21 She was informed by NASA that a representative of NASA might aid her. On 22 May 10, 2011, Davis wrote that representative, Ms. Renee Allen, an email 23 stating: 24 Ms Allen, My name is Joann DAVIS and I live in California. 25 I've been searching the internet for months attempting to find I 26 someone that could help me find a buyer for 2 rare Apollo 11 space 27 artifacts. 1. An Apollo 11 Moon Rock and 2. A piece of the Apollo 28 COMPLAINT - Page 7- Ca LL) [0 U1 U) 27 Documentl Filed gage 8 of 82" Page? ID #:23 11 Heat Shield. Bothof these items were given to my husband by Neil My husband was very instrumental in all of the space programs right up until his death in February of 1986. He died one week after the Challenger Tragedy. If you have any thoughts as to how I can proceed with the sale of these two items, please call or email me. Joann L. DAVIS [redacted] email address: [redacted] Any help or information would be greatly appreciated Thank you? h. NASA takes action. against Davis. 28. This email was provided to the defendants before the wrongful actions in this matter. That is, Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the affidavit to a written by defendant Conley) that Renee Allen forwarded this information, including the Davis email [cited above] to Kennedy Space Center Protective Security Officer Robert Schmidt and Resident Agent?in- Charge Patricia Searle of the Kennedy Space Center Office. They are employees. of the United States of America, and were acting in the course and scope of their employment. 29. Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the af?davit to a search warrant written by agent Conley) that Norman D. Conley began or participated in an investigation of Joann Davis. He is a Special Agent and Criminal Investigator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of the Inspector General assigned at relevant times at the Kennedy Space Center. His is an employee "of the United States of America, and at all times was acting in the course and scope of his employment. 30. Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the affidavit to a search warrant written by agent Conley) that Conley had reason to believe that the paperweight Davis sought to sell was indeed a real Apollo 11 moon rock artifact. COMPLAINT - Page 8? Case Documentl Filed 03/14/1343m- 1- \Bage 9 of 82* Page ID #:24 That is, he neither believed nor suspected that Davis was engaged in attempting to sell a counterfeit. He has stated that he came to this conclusion because he recognized Davis? reference to a "heat shield" (souvenir paperweight) which he thought lent legitimacy to the email because he knew that heat shields (Souvenir paperweights) did in fact exist and were distributed to key individuals. 31. Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the affidavit to a search warrant authored by agent Conley) that Conley said he used a non-law enforcement source to contact Davis in California by phone, Doe 1. On or about May 10, 2011, this alleged CI did contact Davis by phone. Unknown to Davis, these calls were recorded except, allegedly, for the first call. The calls were alleged to have originated from Florida. 32. During these conversations, Davis recounted how she came to possess the heat shield and moon rock paperweights as well as other facts as stated above. See also the attached af?davit for search warrant That information was provided to Conley before he sought a search warrant. i. NASA employees obtain afraudnlerzt search warrant. 33. On or about May 19, 2012 Defendants sought and obtained a search warrant to seize: a. The purported Apollo 11 lunar material offered for sale by DAVIS as shown on the right side of Exhibit 1 attached to this affidavit; [Davis Moon rock] b. Any documents, records, and photographs showing how DAVIS came to possess the purported lunar rock and/or showing her knowledge about the purported lunar rock.? 34. In that affidavit, Conley stated that they were investigating the crime of possession of stolen property. To support that statement, and allege probable cause for the search of Davis? person and seizure of the moon rock paperweight, COMPLAINT Page Q- Case: Ix) LL) U1 \10\ U3 Ix) 4s. Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {edge 10 of 82 Page ID #:25 Conley quoted Gary-Lofgren, a NASA employee, acting in the course and scope of his employment, who had informed him that it was against NASA policy to permanently release-lunar samples to any individual. The affidavit went on to identify that policy as NASA Policy Directive 13 87.2f. 35. Both Lofgren and Conley knew, but neither divulged to the magistrate, that NASA policy in question came into being three decades after Joann Davis? family had acquired the moon rock paperweight. Lofgren and Conley knew but did not inform the court that no law criminalized the practice of merely owning a moon rock (a moon rock not obtained by actual theft), nor did they instruct the court that NASA policies do not extend to the general public. Rather, Conley?s statement in his affidavit suggests the opposite. He called moon rocks ??natural resources? and thus, the property of the US Government.? 36. Based on this deceptive and false information as well as material omissions, as described above and below, Federal Magistrate Judge Sheri signed a search warrant to search Davis?s person and immediate personal possessions for the S?Apollo ll lunar and ?Any documents, records and photographs showing how DAVIS came to possess the purported lunar rock and/ or showing her knowledge about the purported lunar rock.? This search warrant was thus procured by fraud and knowing omission of material information and for the improper purpose of obtaining/seizing the moonrock paperweight and documentation. I 37. In part, that affidavit l?O 168M) misstates or wrongly characterizes conversations with Ms. Davis. The af?davit suggests that Ms. Davis knew it 'was illegal to posses the moon rock she had or that she knew the moon rock had been stolen. Both inferences are false. And while Davis understood that it was difficult to sell moon rocks and proving what amounts to provenance, authenticity and ownership of the moon rocks, she never admitted or - Page: 10? . Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 ?ange 11 of 82 Page .ID #226 1 implied that what she had was illegal to possess. .The affidavit suggests 2 otherwise. 3 j. Plainti?fs are molested. detained. and arrested. 4 38. Joann Davis was seized, arrested and/ or forcibly detained by Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison and numerous Riverside County U1 6 Sheriff Deputies on May 19, 2011, and at such time property a paper weight with Apollo 11 moon rock ?akes that was said to be valued at 1.7 million dollars was forcibly taken from her by these persons. They either personally grabbed Davis, the paper weight she held, or aided and supported such efforts. 10 Paul Herman Cilley:(DOB: 11/27/40) was also present with his wife at the time, 11 and he was forcibly detained and threatened. Cilley also watched his wife, Joann 12 Davis, being subjected to wrongful conduct as described herein as well as being 13 subjected to wrongful conduct himself. 14 39. These acts occurred at the Denny?s on Grape Street, Lake Elsinore, in 15 Riverside County at approximately 12:30 pm on May 19, 2011. 16 k. Defendats conduct was unreasonable. 17 40. In this case there were no facts that would lead a reasonable officer or 18 deputy or other government employee to believe that the paperweight containing 19 moon rock chips from the Apollo space program was in fact stolen. The 20 paperweight was given to Davis?s husband with the authorization of NASA and 21 its officials as a memento and award for his service to the United States as part of 22 a team for North American Rookwell. Mr. Davis and plaintiff Davis were 23 married at the time that the souvenirs were awarded. Mr. Davis has subsequently is passed. At the time of the instant event, as well as at the time a search warrant 25 for the object was written and presented, it was known to the government 26 employees involved in this matter, as well as NASA officials and investigators, 27 that such moon rock chips incorporated in paperweight-like merit awards were COMPLAINT - Page Case? Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 (Edge 12 of 82- Page ID #:27 1 routinely awarded to private persons during and shortly after the Apollo program 2 with the permission and authorization of NASA and its Supervisors and managers within NASA. (Obviously these items were not stolen, and no one D.) 4 claimed that they were at the time of their disbursement) . 41. The United States did not return that moon rock paperweight and 6 have not offered to return it. 7 Count I 8 Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 9 Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(bl.) 10 42. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate the allegations of all prior 11 paragraphs as if set forth herein. 12 43. This isian action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs? rights to be 13 free from physical abuse and excessive force, a right secured to them by the 14 Fourth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. Ms. Davis was badly 15 bruised and her tailbone was injured. Cilley was roughly handled, threatened, 16 and manhandled. 17 44. The actions United States of America?s employees, as set forth 18 above, acting in the course and scope of their employment, were a violation of 19 Plaintiffs? rights secured under the United States Constitution and of the laws of 20 the State of California. 21 45. The acts ofthese employees were intentional and not privileged. 22 46. The plaintiffs were harmed by these actions. 23 VVHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment against The 24 United States of America for compensatory damages, interest, and costs of this 25 action. COMPLAINT Page 12? Cas? U1 U.) \10\ Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {Edge 13 of 82 Page" ID #228 Count II Violation of the Fourth. Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 47. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate the allegations of all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein; 48. This is an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiff Davis?s and 'Cilley?s rights to be free from wrongful search. This right is secured to them by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States. 49. The employees of the United States of America, as described above, acting in the course and scope of their employment, searched the plaintiffs? persons, residence, and vehicle; in conducting the search, these employees acted intentionally. The search was unreasonable and not privileged. 50., As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful search of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered damages in the past and will continue to suffer damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment against The United States of America for compensat01y damages, interest, and costs of this action. Count Violation of the Fourth Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 51. Plaintiffs Davis alleges and incorporates the allegations of all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 52. This is an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiff Davis?s right to be free from wrongful taking. This right is secured to her by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States. 53. The employees of the United States of America, as described above, acting within the Course and scope of their employment, seized Mrs. Davis?s - Page 13? Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {Page 14 of 82? Page ID #229 1 property; in seizing the plaintiff?s property, these employees acted intentionally. The seizure was unreasonable and unprivileged. U.) 54. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful taking of Plaintiff 4 property, Plaintiff suffered damages in the past and will continue to suffer 5 damages. 6 WIIEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis demands judgment against The United 7 States of America for compensatory damages, interest, and costs of this action. Count IV 9 . Violation of the Fourth Fifth Amendment to the US. Constitution 10 Federal Tort Claims Act (28 134603).) 11 55. Plaintiff Davis and Cilley allege and incorporate the allegations of 12 all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 13 56. This is an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs? right to be 14 free ?om wrongful detention and arrest. This right is secured to them by the 15 Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States. 16 57. The employees of the United States of America, as described above, 17 acing in the course and scope of their employment, wrongfully and without 18 sufficient cause detained and arrested Plaintiffs, and the detention and arrest was 19 unduly prolonged and excessive in nature; in wrongfully detaining and arresting 2O Plaintiffs, and detaining and arresting them excessively and for an unduly 21 prolonged amount of time, these employees violated the constitutional rights of 22 . Plaintiffs. 23 58. These employees of The United States of America acted 45 intentionally. The the detentions and arrests were unreasonable.- 25 59. As a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiffs? detentions and 26 arrests, Plaintiffs suffered damages in the past and will continue to suffer 27 damages. COMPLAINT - Page: 14- Cas? U.) U1 - Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 r\Ea?ge 15 of 82" Page" ID #230 WI-IEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment against The United States of Arnerica for compensatory damages, interest, costs of this action and attorney's fees as provided in 42 USC 1988. Federal Common Law: conversion Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 60. Plaintiff Joann Davis alleges and incorporates the allegations of all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 61. Joann Davis had'lawful possession and ownership of the moon rock and the Apollo heat?shield fragments, taken by the United States of America and its employees, in the course and scope of their employment, as described above. 62. The United States of America and its employees wrongfully seized and retained said moon rocks and heat?shield fragments. - 63. As a direct and proximate result of this seizure and retention of lawfully owned and possessed property, Joanne Davis has been harmed in the amount of 1.7 million dollars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Davis demands judgment against the United States of America in the amount of 1.7 million dollars, plus costs of suit. Count VI Federal Common Law: defamation on title Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 64. Plaintiff Joann Davis alleges and incorporates the allegations of all prior paragraphs as: if fully set forth herein. 65. Employees of the United States of America and NASA, acting in the course and scope of their employment, communicated to media outlets and authors and through them, to the wider American public, that moon rocks could - Page: 15? Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 l\Ekiige 16 0f821?" Page ID #:31 not be lawfully sold, bought, or possessed by private citizens. 66. This claim has showed up in various internet outlets, as well as mainstream media publications. Representative samples of this claim appear in the Book Sex on the. Moon: The Amazing Story Behind the Most Audacious Heist in History, by Ben Mezrich (Doubleday 2011); Finding lost moon rocks is his mission, Molly Hen?nessy?Fiske (Los Angeles Times (online) February 07, 2012); Astronauts, Cronkite to get moon rock plagues, James Oberg (NBCNewscom, July 16, 2004) Cronkite on space: inspiration, not information, James Oberg 1; March 6, 2006). 67. No law prohibits possession or sale or purchase of moon rocks. 68. This publication played a material and substantial part in inducing others not to negotiate with Joann Davis over the moon rockconsequence, Joann Davis has been damaged in the amount of 1.7 million dollars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Davis demands judgment against the United States of America in the amount of 1.7 million dollars, plus costs of suit. I Count VII . Federal Common Law: battery Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(b? 70. Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley allege and incorporate the allegations of all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 71. Employees of the United States of America and NASA, acting within the course and scope of their employment, wrongfully and without privilege offensively touched the plaintiffs. 1 72. As a consequence, plaintiffs Davis and Cilley have been harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment of compensatory damages against the United States of America, plus costs of suit. COMPLAINT - Page: 2.5? V. Case? Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 1Ridge 17 of 82 Page ID #232 1 Count 2 . Petition for Return of Property (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(9) U.) 4 73. Plaintiff Davis alleges and incorporates the allegations of all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 74. The search and seizure that resulted in the taking of Joann Davis?s moon rock and heat?shield fragment was unlawful, and she was wrongfully 8 deprived of her property. 9 Joann Davis demands return of her property from the 10 United States of America. 1 12 Count IX 13 (B ?8115? 06;} flzteo 1312:3133 14 75. Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley allege and incorporate the allegations of 15 all prior paragraphs. as if fully set forth herein. 16 76. This is an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs? rights to be 1?7 free from physical abuse and excessive force, a right secured to them by the 18 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 19 77. The actions Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, 20 Robert Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10 were a 21 violation of Plaintiffs? rights secured under the United States Constitution and of 2? the laws of the State of California. These actions are the wrongful detention and 23 arrest of the persons of the plaintiffs. Joann Davis was badly bruised and her 2% tailbone was injured. Cilley was manhandled and threatened. The actions of the 2D defendants was unreasonable. i: 78. Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert 28 Page 17.. Cas? Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 ?Edge 18 of 82 Page ID #233 1 Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren,and Does lthrough 10 were intentional. U.) 79. The plaintiffs have no statutory remedy against these Defendants 4 Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10. U1 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment against 7 Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia 8 Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10 for compensatory damages, 9 punitive damages, interest, and costs of this action, as well as a jury trial. 10 Count 11 Violation of the Fourth Fifth Amendments to the US. Constitution 12 (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotic) 13 80. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate the allegations of all prior 14 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 15 81. This is an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiff Davis?s and 16 Cilley?s rights to be free from wrongful search and seizure. This right is secured 17 to them by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States. 18 82. Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert 19 Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10 searched the 20 plaintiffs? persons, residence, and vehicle; in conducting the search, Defendants 21 acted intentionally;'and the search was unreasonable. 22 83. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Plaintiffs, 23 Plaintiffs suffered damages in the past and will continue to suffer damages. WHEREPORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment against 25 Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia 4; 26 Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10 for compenSatory damages, 27 punitive damages, interest, and costs of this action, as well as a jury trial. COMPLAINT - Page: 18? Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {Edge 19 of 82' Page ID #234 1 Count XI Violation of the Fourth Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution U.) (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotic) 4 84. Plaintiff Davis alleges and incorporates the allegations of all prior U1 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 6 85. This is an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiff Davis?s right 7 to be ?ee from wrongful taking. This right is secured to her by the Fourth and 8 Fifth Amendments to the United States. 9 I 86. Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert 10 Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does 1through lO 11 1through 10 seized the plaintiffs property; in seizing the plaintiffs prOperty, 12 Defendants Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, and DOES 13 1through lO acted intentionally; and the seizure was unreasonable. 14 87. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful taking of Plaintiff?s 15 property, Plaintiff suffered damages in the past and-will continue to suffer 16 damages. 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment against 18 Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia 19 Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does 1through 10 for compensatory damages, 20 punitive damages, interest, and costs of this action, as well as a jury trial 21 i I Count XII 22 Violation of the Fourth Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 23 (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotic) 24 88. Plaintiff Davis and Cilley allege and incorporate the allegations of 25 all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 26 89. This is an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs? right to be 27 free from wrongful detention and arrest. This right is secured to them by the - Page. l9? r" Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 \Eeige 20 of 82 Page ID #235 1 Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States. [0 90. Defendants Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert U.) Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10 and DOES 4 lthrough 10 wrongfully and without sufficient cause detained and arrested Plaintiffs, and the detention and arrest was unduly prolonged and excessive in nature; in wrongfully detaining and arresting Plaintiffs, and detaining and arresting them excessively and for an unduly prolonged amount of time. 91. Defendants Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does lthrough 10 acted 10 intentionally; and the detentions and arrests were unreasonable. I 11 92. As a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiffs? detentions and 12 arrests, Plaintiffs suffered damages in the past and will continue to suffer 13 damages. 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Davis and Cilley demand judgment against 15 Defendants Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, 16 Patricia Searle, and: Gary Lofgren, and Does? 1through 10 for compensatory 17 damages, punitive damages, interest, costs of this action and attorney's fees as 18 provided in 42 1988. 19 2O PRAYER 21 WHEREF ORE, the Plaintiffs pray that his Court enter a judgment against 22 the United States of America and grant the following relief: 23 a. (Counts IV, VII): Compensatory damages, in an amount of no 24 less than $50,000.00; 25 b. (Counts Compensatory damages, in an amount of no less 26 than $1,700,000; 27 0. (Count Order the return of the moon rock souvenirs seized Page 20? .1, Case: Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Edge 21 of 82 Page ID #236 1 from Joann Davis; 2 Costs of suit; 3 e. Award such other and further relief that this court deems proper. 4 WTEREPORB, the Plaintiffs pray that his Court enter a judgment against 5 jointly and severally against defendants Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, 6 Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia Searle, and Gary Lofgren, and Does 7 1through 10 and grant the following relief: 8 a. (Counts IX-X, XII): CompensatOry damages, in an amount of no less 9 than $50,000.00; 10 h. (Count-XI): Compensatory damages in the amount of 1.7 million 11 dollars; 12 c. (Counts Punitive damages, in an amount of no less than 13 $50,000 from each individual defendant; 14 d. Costs of suit; 15 e. Award such other and further relief that this court deems proper. 16 Date: 2013 SCHLUET 81: SCHLUETER 19 . Attomevs for Plaintiffs Jon R. Schlueter/Peter Schlueter Ix.) Ix) \1 ON U1 U) C20 COMPLAINT Pat-?C 21? .1 A Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Edge 22 of 82 Page ID #237 U) U1 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands jury trial as provided by Rule 3 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Free. on the Bivens claims. Date: March 7 2012 SCHLUETER SCHLUETER 447/4/ Attorneys. for Plaintiffs I on Sehlueter/Peter Schlueter COMPLAINT Page 22? Cas? Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 23 of 82 Page ID #238 Case 5:13-c-v- -0-0483 CSIM KK Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Edge 24 of 82 Page ID #2 39 CLAIM FOR EJQMAGE INSTRU CTIONS: Please read carefully the instructions on the FORM APPROVED I . reverse side and supply information requested on both sides of this OMB NO- 11050008. Bin] URY: OR DEATH - - form. Use additional sheetis) if necessary. See reverse side for additional instructions. 1. Submit to Appropriate Federal Agency: 2. Name. address of claimant. and oiaimant?s personal representative if any. . (See instructions on reverse). Number. Street, City, State and Zip code. NASA Joann Davis. 15271 Alavarado, Lake Elsinore, 92530 Peter Schlueter, Schlueter 8c Schlueter 108 Orange St Redlands CA 92373 3. TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT - 4. DATE OF BIRTH 5. MARITAL STATUS DATE AND DAY OF ACCIDENT 7. TIME (AM. OR PM.) El MILITARY IZI CIVILIAN 06/04/1937 married 05/19/2011 . 12:00pm 8. BASIS OF CLAIM (State in detail the known facts and circumstances attending the damage. injury, or death. identifying persons and property involved. the place of occurrence and the cause thereof. Use additionai pages if necessary). [Synopsis only] The injuries damages suffered by Joann Davis began on May 10, 201 when she contactedNASA, and led to her being forcibly detained by NASA OIS agents in the City 'of lake Eisinore. CA on May 19. During that detiarrest a papeniveight containing moonrock chips was forcibly seized. It has not been returned. NASA OIS agents used criminal process knowing that 'such process was inappropriate since they lacked sufficient information that her possession of the moonrock papeniveight came within the elements of a criminal violation. See attached for additional factsand assertions. [See attached pages] 9. PROPERTY DAMAGE NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER. IF OTHER THAN CLAIMANT (Number. Street. City. State. and Zip Code). N/a BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY, NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE AND THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE PROPERTY MAY BE INSPECTED. (See instructions on reverse side). [synopsis only] One Lucite paperweight with moonrock chips (seized on May 19. 2011 and possessed by NASA) see attached 10. PERSONAL DEATH STATE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF EACH INJURY OR CAUSE OF DEATH, VVHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM. 1F OTHER THAN CLAIMANT. STATE THE NAME OF I HF INJURED PERSON OR DECEDENT. Ms Davis suffered Injury to his arms and back. A more complete description Is contained In the medical records that are attached. 1 1. . WITNESSES NAME 5 ADDRESS (Number. Street. City. State. and Zip Code) see attached 12. (See instmotions on reverse). AMOUNT OF CLAIM Gn dollars) . 12a. PROPERTY DAMAGE 12b. PERSONAL INJURY 12c. 12d. TOTAL (Failure to specify may cause forfeiture of your rights). 1.700.000 17CERTIFY THAT THE AMOUNT OF CLAIM COVERS ONLY DAMAGES AND CAUSED BY THE INCIDENT ABOVE AND AGREE TO ACCEPT SAID AMOUNT IN FULL FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THIS CLAIM. 13a. STGNAATIJRE OF CLAIMANT (See instructions on reverse side). 13b. PHONE NUMBER OF PERSON SIGNING FORM 14. DATE OF SIGNATURE r? . . CIVIL PENALTY FOR CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PRESENTING FRAUDULENT FRAUDULENT CLAIM CLAIM OR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS The claimant' Is liable to the United States Government tor a civil penalty of not less than Fine. imprisonment, or both. (See 18 U.S.C. 287, 1001) 000 and not more than S10.DOO plus 3 times the amount of damages sustained by the Government (See 31 ..S C. 3729). Authorized for Local Reproduction NSN 7540?00?634-4045 STANDARD FORM 95 (REV. 2/2007) Previous Edition is not Usable PRESCRISED av DEPT. OF 954 09 28 CFR 14.2 Case 5:13-cV-00483-ceka Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 ledge 25 or 82 Page ID #:40 INSURANCE COVERAGE In order that subrogaiion claims may be adjudicated, it is essential that the claimant provide the following information regarding the insurance coverage of the vehicle or property. 15. Do you carry accident insurance? Yes If yes. give name and'address of insurance company (Number. Street. City, State, and Zip Code) and policy number. No We this is not an accident. Health insurance, medicare and United Health Care, 16. Have you ?led a claim with your insurance carrier in this instance. and if so. is it full coverage or deductible? United Health insurance, medicare. .Yes' 17. if deductible, state amount. 0.00 18. If a claim has been ?led with your carrier, what action has your insurer taken or proposed to take with reference to your claim? (It is necessary that you ascertain these facts). n/a 19. Do you carry public liability and property damage insurance? Yes If yes. giVe name and address of insurance carrier (Number. Street, City. State, and Zip Code). I: No We INSTRUCTIONS Claims presented under the Federal Tort Claims Act should be submitted directly to the ?appropriate Federal agency" whose employee(s) was involved' In the incident. if the incident involves more than one claimant, each claimantshould submit a separate claim form. Complete all items - insert the word NONE where applicable. A CLAIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WHEN A FEDERAL AGENCY RECEIVES FROM A CLAIMANT. HIS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT. OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, AN EXECUTED STANDARD FORM 95 OR OTHER WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF AN ACCOMPANIED BY A CLAIM FOR MONEY Failure to completely execute this form or to suppiy the requested material within two years from the date the claim accrued may render your claim invalid. A claim is deemed presented when it is received by the appropriate agency, not when it is mailed. if instruction is needed in completing this form. the agency listed in item #1 on the reverse side may be contacted. Complete regulations pertaining to claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act can be found in Title 28. Code of Federal Regulations Part 14. Many agencies have published supplementing regulations. If more than one agency is involved please state each agency. The claim may be ?lled by a duly authorized agent or other legal representative, provided evidence satisfactory to the Govemment is submitted with the claim establishing express authority to act for the claimant. A claim presented by an agent or legal representative must be presented in the name of the claimant. lfthe claim is signed by the agent or legal representative. it must show the title or legal capacity of the person signing and be accompanied by evidence of hislher authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant as agent. executor. administrator. parent. guardian or other representative. If claimant intends to tile for both personal injury and property damage. the amountfor each must be shown in item number 12 of this form. DAMAGES IN A SUM CERTAIN FOR INJURY TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY, PERSONAL INJURY. OR DEATH ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED BY REASONOF THE INCIDENT. THE CLAIM MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUES. The amount claimed should be substantiated by competent evidence as follows: In support of the claim for personal injury or death. the claimant should submit a written report by the attending physician. showing the nature and extent of the injury. the nature and extent of treatment. the degree of permanent disability, if any. the prognosis, and the period of hospitalization, or incapacitation, attaching itemized bills for medical. hospital. or burial expenses actually incurred. in support of claims for damage to preperty, which has been or can be economically repaired, the claimant should submit at least two itemized signed statements or estimates by reliable. disinterested concerns, or. if payment has been made. the itemized signed receipts evidencing payment. (0) In support of claims for damage to property which is not economically repairable. or if the property is lost or destroyed. the claimant should submit statements as to the original cost of the property. the date of purchase, and the value of the property. both before and after the accident. Such statements should be by disinterested competent persons, preferably reputable dealers or of?cials familiar with the type of property damaged. or by two or more competitive bidders. and should be certified as being just and correct. (at) Failure to specify a sum certain will render your claim invalid and may result In forfeiture of your rights. . PRIVACY ACT NOTICE This Notice is provided in accordance with the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3), and concerns the information requested in the letter to which this Notice is attached. A. Authority: The requested information is solicited pursuant to one or more of the following: 5 U. S. C. 301. 28 U. S. C. 501 etseq. 28 S. C. 2571 etseq.. 28 C. F. R. Part 14. B. Pn'ncipal Purpose. The information requested Is to be used' In evaluating claims C. Routine Use: See the Notices of Systems of Records ror the agency to whom you are submitting this form for this information. D. Effect of Failure to Respond: Disclosure is voluntary. Howaver, failure to supply the requested information or to execute the form may render your claim ?invalid." PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE I notice is soielv forthe purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U. S. C. 3501. Public reporting burden for this collection of information Is estimated to average 6 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed. and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. including suggestions for reducing this burden. to the Director. Torts Branch, Attention: Paperwork Reduction Staff, Civil Division. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC 20530 orto the Office of Management and Budget. Do not mail completed to these addresses. STANDARD FORM 35 REV. (2/2007) BACK Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {Page 26 of 82 Page ID #:41 DAMAGE INSTRUCTIONS: Please read carefully the instructions on the A FORM APPROVED 5 reverse side and supply information requested on both sides of this OMB NO- 1105?0008 URY: OR form. Use additional sheet(s) it necessary. See reverse side for additional instructions. 1. Submit to Appropriate Federal Agency: 2. Name, address of claimant. and claimant's personal representative if any. . (See instructions on reverse). Number, Street. City. State and Zip code. NASA PauI Herman Cilley, 15271 Alavarado, Lake Elsinore, 92530 Peter Schlueter, Schlueter 8: Schlueter 108 Orange St Rediands CA 92373 3. TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT 4. DATE OF BIRTH 5. MARITAL STATUS 6. DATE AND DAY OF ACCIDENT 7. TIME OR PM.) El MILITARY CI CIVILIAN married 05/19/2011 12: 00pm B. BASIS OF CLAIM (State In detail the known facts and circumstances attending the damage. Injury. or death, identifying persons and property involved. the place of occurrence and the cause thereof. Use additional pages ir necessary). [Synopsis only] CiIIey was forceably detained by persons unknown from NASA and the Riverside Sheriff?s Department and watched his wife as she was detained. arrested, asualted by of?cers. and as described in attached pages. 9. PROPERTY DAMAGE NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER. IF OTHER THAN CLAIMANT (Number, Street, City. State. and Zip Code). N/a BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THEPROPERTY. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE AND THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE PROPERTY MAY BE INSPECTED. (See instructions on reverse side). see attached 10. PERSONAL DEATH STATE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF EACH INJURY OR CAUSE OF DEATH WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM. IF OTHER THAN CLAIMANT. STATE THE NAME OF THE INJURED PERSON OR DECEDENT. See Attached 11. - WITNESSES NAME . ADDRESS (Number. Street. City, State, and Zip Code) see attached 12. (See instructions on reverse). - AMOUNT OF CLAIM (in dollars) 12a. PROPERTY DAMAGE 12b. PERSONAL INJURY 12c. WRONGFUL DEATH 12d. TOTAL (Failure to specify may cause - forfeiture of your rig ts). 850, 000.00 . 1 H700 000 2, 550 000 I CERTIFY THAT AMOUNT OF CLAIM COVERS ONLY DAMAGES AND INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INCIDENT ABOVE AND AGREE TO ACCEPT SAID AMOUNT IN FULL. FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THIS CLAIM. 13a. OF CLAIMANT (See instructions on reverse side). 13b. PHONE NUMBER OF PERSON SIGNING FORM 14. DATE OF SIGNATURE . . . C, 7? .r?f 404 Zf/ 54642.. PENALTY FOR PRESENTING CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PRESENTING FRAUDULENT FRAUDULENT CLAIM - CLAIM OR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS The claimant is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than Fine. imprisonment. or both. (See 18 USS. 287. 1001.) $5.000 and not more than $10000. pins 3 times the amount of damages sustained by the Govemment (See 31 U.S.C. 3729). for Local Reproduction . NSN 7540-00-634-4046 . STANDARD FORM 95 (REV. 2/2007) Previous Edition is not Usable PRESCRIBED BY DEPT. OF JUSTICE 95-1 09 28 CFR 1-1.2 Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 (Page 27 of 82 Page ID #242 INSURANCE COVERAGE In order that subrogation claims may be adjudicated. it is essential that the claimant provide the following information regarding the insurance coverage of the vehicle or property. 15. Do you carry accident Insurance? I. Yes If yes. give name and address of insurance company (Number. Street. City. State. and Zip Code) and policy number. No We A. a 16. Have you ?led a claim with your insurance carrier in this instance. and if so. is it full coverage or deductible? Yes No 17. If deductible. state amount 0.00 ?18. If a claim has been ?led with your carrier. what action has your insurer taken or proposed to take with reference to your claim? (It is necessary that you ascertain these facts). nla 19. Do you carry public liability and property damage insurance? Yes If yes. give name and address of insurance carrier (Number. Street. City. State, and Zip Code). El No We Insrnucrrorrs Claims presented under the Federal Tort Claims Act should be submitted directly to the "appropriate Federal agency" whose employee(s) was involved in the incident. If the incident involves more than one claimant. each claimant should submit a separate claim form. Complete all items - Insert the word NONE where applicable. A CLAIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN. PRESENTED WHEN A FEDERAL DAMAGES IN A FOR INJURY TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY. PERSONAL AGENCY RECEIVES FROM A CLAIMANT. HIS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT. OR LEGAL INJURY. OR DEATH ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED BY REASON OF THE INCIDENT. REPRESENTATIVE. AN EXECUTED STANDARD FORM 95 OR OTHER WRITTEN - THE CLAIM MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION OF AN INCIDENT. ACCOMPANIED BY A CLAIM FOR MONEY TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUES. Failure to completely execute this form or to supply the requested material within . The amount claimed should be substantiated by competent evidence as follows: two years from the date the claim accrued may render your. claim invalid. A claim is deemed presented when II. is received by the appropriate agency, not when it' :5 In support of the claim for personal injury or death. the claimant should submit a mailed written report by the attending physician. showing the nature and extent of the injury, the nature and extent of treatment. the degree of permanent disability. if any?. the prognosis. and the period of hospitalization. or incapacitation. attaching itemized for medical. If instruction is needed in completing this form. the agency listed in item #1 on the reverse hospital. 01- bu?ar expenses actually incurred. side may be contacted. Complete regulations pertaining to claims asserted underthe Federal Tort Claims Act can be found in Title 28. Code of Federal Regulations. Part 14. . Many agencies have published supplementing regulations. If more than one agency is hi Of cIaIms for damage 1? property. Wh'Ch has or can no economically involved. please state each agency repaIred. the claimant should submit at least two Itemized signed statements or estImates by reliable. disinterested concerns. or. if payment has been made. the itemized signed - receipts evidencing payment The claim may be ?lled by a duly authorized agent or other legal representative. provided evidence satisfactory to the Government is submitted with the claim establishing express .. authority to act for the claimant. A ciaim presented by an agent or legal representative In Support Of claims for damage to PFDPEFW which is not economically rapalrable. or must be presented in the name of the claimant. If the claim is signed by the agent or the property is or destroyed. the claimant 5h0U d submit statements as to the ongrnal legal representative. it must show the title or legal capacity of the person signing and be 0051 Of the property, the date 0f and the value 0f the property, both PETOTB and accompanied by evidence of his/her authority to present a claim on behalf of thecleimant after the accident. statements ShOUid be by persons. as agent. executor, administrator, parent. guardian or other representative. PFBfel?ahiY i'epli'lahh? dealers or O?Cials familiar With the type 0f property damaged, or by two or more competitive bidders. and should be certi?ed as being just and correct. If claimant intends to ?le for both personal injury and property damage. the amount for each must be shown in item number 12 of this form. Failure to specify a sum certain will render your claim invalid and may result in - - forfeiture of your rights. PRIVACY ACT NOTICE This Notice is provided in accordance with the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). and B. Principal Purpose: The information requested Is to be used In evaluating claims. concerns the infomiation requested in the letter to which this Notice is attached. C. Routine Use: See the Notices of Systems of Records tor the agency to whom you are A. Authodhr: The requested information is solicited pursuant to one or more of the submitting this form for this information. following: 5 U. S. C. 301. 28 U. C. 501 et seq. 28 U. S. C. 2671 et seq" 28 C. R. D. E?ect ofFaI'lure to Respond: Disclosure is voluntary. However. failure to supply the Part 14. requested information or to execute the form may render your claim "invalid." PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE This notice is ?t for the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501. Public reporting burden forthis collection of information is estimated to average 6 hours per response. inctuding the time for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. including suggestions for reducing this burden. to the Director. Torts Branch. Attention: Paperwork Reduction Staff. Civil Division. U. S. Department of Justice. Washington. DC 20530 or to the Office of Management and Budget. Do not mail completed form(s) to these addresses. STANDARD FORM 95 Rev. (2.12007) BACK Cas?e Document 1 Fil?d 03/14/13 {LP?ge 28 of 82 Page ID #243 x. Cas?e Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 29 of 82 Page ID #:44 no?. UNIFORM STATUTORY FORM POWER OE ATTORNEY (CalifOrni?a Probate Code Section 4401) NOTICE: THE POWERS-.GRANTED BY THIS DOCUMENT ARE BROAD . AND SWEEPING. THEY ARE EXPLAINED IN THE UNIFORM STATUTORY FORM POWER OF ATTORNEY AC (CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE TIONS 4400?4465). THE POWERS LISTED IN THIS DOCUMENT DO NOT INCLUDE ALL POWERS THAT ARE AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROBATE CODE. ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROBATE CODE MAY BE ADDED BY SPECIFICALLY LISTING THEM UNDER THE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT. IF YOU HAVE ANY . TIONS ABOUT THESE POWERS, OBTAIN COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE. THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO MAKE MEDICAL AND OTHER DECISIONS FOR YOU. YOU MAY REVOKE THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IF YOU LATER WISH 0 DO SO. 1 ig?vwxd A. 54/15 #5217 [Eat/it.? Eswidfbb-?zs? (your name and address) - 0 appoint??r?.?. Iarr?m' 1/ mu c+ (name and address of the person appointed, or or each person appointed if you want to desrgnate more than one). as my agent to act for me in any lawful way with . respect to the following Initialed subjects: . - To GRANT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING POWERS, INITIAL THE LINE .IN 11:13;qu SOE (N) AND IGNORE. THE LINES IN FRONT or OTHER To GRANT ONE OR EUT FEWER TRAN-ALL, OF THE FOLLOWING INITIAL THE LINE IN FRONT OF EACH POWER YOU ARE TO A POWER, DO NOT INITLAL THE LINE IN FRONT OF IT. YOU MAY, BUT NEED NOT, CROSS OUT EACH POWER INITIAL a. (A). Real property transactions. (B) Tangible personal property transactions. (C) Stock and bond transactions. (D) Commodity and option transactions. (E). Banking and. other ?nancial institution transactions; (E) Business operating transactions. an (O) Insurance and annuity transactions. - - (H) Estate, trust,_and other bene?ciary transactions. (I??laims and litigation.? .a (J) Personal and family maintenance. . it/ ?t #35? . a. (K) Bene?ts from Social security. medicare, medicaid, or other governmental programs, or CIVII or military serv1ce. ?7 (L) Retirement plan transactions. TEX-mattersTHE POWERS LISTED ABOVE. NOT INITIAL ANY OTHER LINES IEYOU INITIAL LINE (N). SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: ON THE FOLLOWING LINES YOU MAY GIVE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS LIMITING OR EXTENDING THE POWERS GRANTED TO YOUR AGENT. UNLESS YOU DIRECT OTHERWISE ABOVE, THIS POWER OP ATTORNEY - IS EFFECT IVE IMMEDIATELYAND WILL CONTINUE UNTIL IT IS REVOICED. This power of attorney will continue to be effective even though I- become incapacitated. STRIKE TI-IE PRECEDING SENTENCE IF YOU DO NOT WANT- THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY CONTINUE IF YOU BECOME INCAPACITATED. EXERCISE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY WHERE MORE THAN ONE AGENT DESIGNATED If ave designated more than one agent, the agents are (Ic'f t? . I IF YOU APPOINTED MORE TITAN ONE AGENT AND YOU WANT EACH. AGENT TO BE ABLE TO ACT ALONE WITHOUT THE OTHER AGENT JOINING, WRITE THE WORD IN THE BLANK SPACE ABOVE. IF YOU DO NOT INSERT ANY WORD IN THE BLANK SPACE, OR IF YOU INSERT THE WORD THEN ALL OF YOUR AGENTS MUST ACT OR SIGN TOGETHER. . . - . I agree that any third party who receives acopv of this act under it. A third party may seek identi?cation. Revocation or the power of attorney iS not effective as to a third partyitntil the third party has actual knowledge of the revocation. I agree to Indemnify the party ?for any claims that arise against the third party because of reliance on this power of attorney. - Signed this day Of film 2044 Case Document 1 Fiied 03/14/13 {Rage 30 Of 82 Page ID #245 NI fiasue 5.13-CYW3MWW L?wedbi ij?g?i/ffw?yPage ID #;45 our sidnature I State (gountybofej Q42) Bic-c; ?dmfma BY ACCEPTING OR ACTING UNDER THE APPOINTMENT, THE AGENT AEENTES THE FIDUCIARY AND OTHER LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN . [Include certi?cate of acknowledgment-of notary public in compliance w1tl1 Sectlon 1189 of the Owl Code or other applicable law] mgmnawdr'n a I . 09 3'46} beings"; GLQFAOI L.- (304?? ~Nlpal-3:54. a?ppemd :9 proved to me on the basis of sausfaetory 'evidenec to heme persona) senemds) nubsen the .wuhm ansuumem and uhowledged that sh cy exeemedlh: mm in h: nerl mt authorized. eapeeltyhus). and max by tus eu- signature?) on the me personts}. or the cum upon behalf of whieh 1h: person(s) aexed. executed the lament lmify under PENALTY OE PERJURY melted-I: laws ofthe Suite or Califomia that foregoing graph is true and correct Pm . - @Mmdommg?. (Seal) Signature (3me Commission 1884345 Notary Public - California San Bernardino County My Comm. Expires Apr 24. 2014 GAHDL L. CARL - Clam Ca?e MJKK Doeument 1 Filed 03/14/13 {Rage 32 of 82 Photograph of 7 - Apollo 11 heatshield paperweight and moonroek chip paperweight. Page 82 Page ID CLAIM for Damages and Relief Situs of Claim: unknown Page: ?1 NASA US Government Norman D. Conley Gary Lofgren (Lunar receiving lab administrator) Protective Security Officer Robert Schmidt Resident Agent~in~Charge Patricia Searle of the Kennedy Space Center Of?ce. Unknown NASA supervisor (who approved and supervised action) Unknown NASA administrator (who approved and supervised action) Unknown NASA OIS agent 1 Unknown NASA agent 2 Unknown NASA OIS agent 3 Unknown NASA OIS agent 4 FACTUAL INTRODUCTION Joann Davis was, at the time of this incident (May 19, 2011),a 4? 11?, 74?year?old retiree. She had retired from North American Rockwell in 1992. She has not been - employed by any aerospace contractor or any government agency since that time. - Her husband Robert Davis had also been an employee at North American Rockwell until his death on February 5,1986. These facts were known and were veri?able by the defendants in this matter Robert Davis was a engineer who had worked on various space programs, including the Apollo missions, for North American Rockwell. At no time did he or Joann Davis work directly for NASA. That is, they were not NASA employees. Neither had access to the NASA Lunar Receiving Lab where moon rocks and lunar samples were kept. These facts were known and were veri?able by the defendants in this matter. In the early 703, Robert Davis received two awards, both fashioned as paper weights, that were meant to recognize his contributions in the Apollo 11 moon landing program. One Of these Lucite (orlike plastic/polymer) paper weights contained a small portion of the Apollo 11 heat shield, the other was said to have contained small fragments (the size of pieces of rice) of lunar material (aka. gg??BQ/ii??afgbe/ of 82 Page ID #249 CLAIM for Damagesand Relief . moonrocks) brought back by the Apollo 11 mission. (Attached photos) Plaintiff is informed and believes that NASA and its administrators authorized the practice of giving out these awards and that this practice was widespread. These moonrocks given out were not part of the ?Goodwill? moonrocks provided by the United States to other nations. and our various states. These facts were known and were verifiable by the defendants in this matter. Plaintiff is informed and believes that in the late 603 or early 70s, NASA approved the practice that allowed small chips of moon rocks and/ or pieces of space craft heatshield to be embedded in Lucite or other like polymer to be provide as souvenir awards to deserving individual employees of aerospace contractors. These facts were known and were veri?able by the defendants in this matter. The Lucite (or like polymer) encased heatshield and moonrocks were community property as they were acquired during the course of Robert and Joann Davis? legal marriage and stayed with the estate/ community when Robert Davis passed. In and around the spring of 2011, JoAnn Davis sought to sell or otherwise find a buyer for the Apollo 11 heatshield and moonrock paperweights given to her husband for his service. She did so mainly because she was living on a fixed income, was having trouble making ends meet, and moreover sought to care for her ailing adult son. This was known to the defendants in this matter. After several failed attempts to ?nd buyers and/ or auction houses who would accept the souvenirs, she discovered that the auction houses believed that NASA and the federal government had made it nearly impossible for private persons to acquire, sell or possess Apollo program moonrocks. The reasons for this interference were murky. The US. government has made, through various media outlets, vague claims that Apollo moonrocks are ?national treasures? that cannot be sold, or cannot be sold legally, or cannot be law?illy possessed by individuals. Not withstanding their knowledge to the contrary, and contrary practice, NASA spokespersons and personnel have stated to media outlets that no lunar sample, not even chips (as was in the paperweights at issue here), have ever been given to individuals. These acts have been ongoing for at least a decade and continue to date. These facts (including dissemination of false statements) were known by the defendants in this matter. JQANN4 MMISO c/ EJ?e?of 82 Page ID #2 50 CLAIM for Damages and Relief Furthermore contrary to NASA and its agents and personnel?s statements no law forbids the private ownership of Apollo moonrocks lawfully acquired. Nor is there a law that states that a "national treasure" can not be possessed or sold Nevertheless, the US government and NASA repeatedly state that the permanent possession of any Apollo lunar sample by an individual no matter when and how acquired is a criminal act. They do so without the bene?t of fact or law. By providing this false information about the state of the law and the propriety of legal ownership of moonrocks (or chips therefrom), and denying that NASA authorized and practiced giveaways of lunar material as described above, NASA knowingly injures property and the possessory rights of individuals. NASA intentionally releases and disseminates this misinformation through its personnel to individuals, and the media with the aim of ruining the market value of such items, clouding the title or provenance of such objects, or silencing persons who may have moonrocks from coming forward. Davis is informed and believes that NASA and its personnel, including the defendants, have continued to disseminate this false information through media outlets. The fact that this misinformation lS intentionally disseminated for public consumption is known by the defendants in this matter. During her attempts to find a buyer for the heatshield or moonrock paperweights, Davis was not told that it violated criminal law, or was in anyway illegal, to own, possess or attempt to sell (or buy) such paperweights. Neither was she told that she did not havetitle and possessory rights to the paperweights at issue. Thus, Davis did not believe or suspect, that it violated criminal law to own, possess or attempt to sell (or buy) such paperweights,, nor did she believe or suspect that she did riot have title and possessory rights to the paperweights at issue. Further, she did not tell anyone it was illegal to own those items. Rather she knew, and divulged to the defendants in this matter, that the paperweights containing the heatshield and the moonrocks had come into her possession legitimately, as described above, and thus were not stolen. The defendants in this matter, by and through their ?con?dential? informant/ agent did not inform her that it was a crime to own or attempt to sell such items. I No facts that rose to the level of probable cause existed to suggest that Davis had . committed any crime, let alone theft or receipt of stolen US property (aka. the 82 i Page ID #:51 CLAIM for Damages and Relief . paperwei-ghts at issue). No facts that rose to the level of probable cause existed to suggest that Davis knew, believed, or suspected, that her husband had committed any crime, let alone theft or receipt of stolen. of US. property (aka. the paperweights at issue). This was known tothe defendants in this matter. In addition, no defendant in this matter had or has information that rises to the level of probable cause that the Apollo 11 heatshield or moonrock paperweight that Davis possessed was stolen or otherwise obtained through theft or any other criminal act. Nevertheless, having no luck ?nding a buyer in the private sector, Davis contacted NASA in the hope that it might be able to aid her in the sale of the paperweights and other memorabilia her family had colleCted over the years. She was informed by NASA that a representative of NASA might aid her. On May ?10, 2011, Davis wrote that representative, Ms. Renee Allen, an email stating: Ms All-en, My name is Joann DAVIS and I live in California. I?ve - been searching the internet for months attempting to ?nd someone that could help me ?nd a buyer for 2 rare Apollo 11 space artifacts. .1. An Apollo 11 Moon Rock and 2. A piece of the Apollo 11 Heat Shield. Both of these items were given to my husband by Neil My husband was very instrumental in all of the space programs right up until his death in February of 1986. He died one week after the Challenger Tragedy. If you have any thoughts as to how I can proceed with the sale of these two items,'please call or email me. Joann L. DAVIS Ph: 951 674.1320 email address: Any help or' information would be greatly appreciated Thank-you" This email was provided to the defendants before their wrongful actions in this matter. That is, Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the af?davit to a search warrant authored by defendant Conley) that Renee Allen forwarded this information, including the Davis email [cited above] to Kennedy Space Center Protective Security Of?cer Robert Schmidt and Resident Agent?in?Charge Patricia Searle of the Kennedy Space Center Of?ce. Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the affidavit to a search warrant authored . by defendant Conley) that Norman D. Conley, a Special Agent and Criminal 82 ID . CLAIM for Damages and Relief Investigator for the National Aeronautics And Space Administration, Of?ce ofthe Inspector General assigned at the time at the Kennedy Space Center, began or participated in an investigation of Joann Davis: . Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the af?davit to a search warrant authored by defendant Conley) that Conley. had reason to believe that the paperweight Davis sought to sell was indeed a real Apollo 11 moonrock artifact. That is, he neither believed or suspected that Davis as engaged in attempting to sell a counterfeit. He has stated that he came to this conclusion because he recognized Davis? reference to a "heat shield? (souvenir papemeighr) which he thought lent legitimacy to the email because he knew that heatshields (souvenir paperweighrs) did in fact exist and were distributed to key individuals. Davis is informed (as acknowledged in the affidavit to a search warrant authored by defendant Conley) that Conley said he used a non-law enforcement source NASA OIS AGENT 1] to contact Davis in California by phone. On or about May 10, 2011, this alleged Cl did contact Davis by phone. Unknown to Davis, these calls were recorded except, allegedly, for the first call. The calls were alleged to have originated from Florida. During these conversations, Davis recounted how she came to possess the heatshield and moonrock paperweights as well as other facts as stated above. See also, the attached af?davit for search warrant That information was provided to Conley before he sought a search warrant. - On or about May 19, 2012 Conley so?ught and obtained a search warrant to seize: a. The purported Apollo 11', lunar material offered - for sale by DAVIS as shown on the right side of Exhibit 1 . attached to this af?davit; [Davis Moon rock] b. Any documents, records, and photographs showing how DAVIS came to possess the purported lunar reek and/or showing her knowledge about this purported lunar rock.? In that affidavit, Conley stated that they ere' investigating the crime of possession of stolen property. To support that statement, and allege probable cause for the .D CLAIM forDarnages and Relief . I i Page: 6 search of Davis? person and seizure of the moonrock paperweight, Conley quoted Gary Lofgren, a NASA employee, who had informed him that it was against NASA policy to permanently release lunar samples to any individual. The af?davit went on to identify that policy as NASA Policy Directive 1387.215. Both Lofgren nor Conley knew, but neither divulged to the magistrate, that NASA policy in question came into three decades after Joann Davis? family had acquired the moonrock paperweight. Lofgren and Conley knew but did not so inform the court that no law criminalized the practice of merely owning a moonrock (a moonrock not obtained by actual theft), nor did instruct the court that NASA policies do not extend to the general public. Rather, Conley?s statement in his af?davit suggests the opposite. He called moonrocks ??natural resources? and thus, the property of the US Government.? Based on this deceptive and false information as well as material omissions, as described above and below, Federal Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, signed a search Warrant to search Davis" person for the ?Apollo 11 lunar and ?Any documents, records and photographs showing how DAVIS came to possess the . purported lunar rock and/ or showing her knowledge about the purported lunar I roc This search warrant was thus procured by fraud and knowing omission of material information and for the improper purpose of obtaining/ seizing the - moonrock paperweight and documentation. In part, that af?davit (ED11-0168M) misstates or wrongly characterizes conversations with Ms. Davis. The af?davit suggests that Ms. Davis knew it was illegal to posses the moonrock she had or that she knew the moon rock had been. stolen. Both inferences are false, and while Davis understood that it Was dif?cult to sell moonrocks and proving what amounts to provenance, authenticity and ownership of the moonrocks, she never admitted or inferred that what she had was illegal to possess. The af?davit suggests otherwise. On or about May 19, 2011, possibly NASA OIS AGENT 1" called Davis and told herto meet him at a Denny?s Restaurant in the City of Lake Elsinore. He had negotiated to pay Davis $1.7 million for the moonrock paperweight. Davis arrived at Denny?s with her second husband Paul Herman Cilley. Upon sitting down at the Denny?s Restaurant booth, NASA OIS AGENT da?9$l? HeJdJOBi?lgliig?dg?eig of 82 Page ID #254 CLAIM for Damages and Relief . Page: 7 or UNKNOWN NASA OIS AGENT 2" asked to look at the moonrock paperweight. Davis removed it ?om her purse and wrapping and was in the process of handing it to him when it-was forcibly taken from her and she was pulled from the booth. None of the individuals identi?ed themselves as law enforcement o?cers. She was harmed physically during this seizure and search. Davis was treated for her physical injuries at Inland Valley Medical Center (records attached). Davis, and Cilley were then removed from the restaurant and taken outside. UNKNOWN NASA OIS AGENT l. or 2 detained and interrogated Davis continuously for over two hours. Davis asked repeatedly to be free from custody. That request was denied. Members of the Riverside Sheriff Department aided in the seizure, and her removal ?om Denny?s and the detention?at the request of NASA AGENTS and the defendants. It is believed that NASA and its agents did not admit the full in?rmity of their acts to these deputies. Also present, and taking part in the acts at Denny?s herein described were Unknown NASA OIS AGENT 2, 3 and 4. The trauma and fear created by the public detention and arrest caused her to urinate on herself. This further humiliated her. Davis and her husband were held for hours. Law enforcement officers and NASA personnel searched her purse and car. While she was in custody, law enforcement of?cers and NASA personnel demanded that they be allowed to search her home. Davis and Cilley consented under duress. The home was searched. No evidence of . criminal conduct or contraband was found. NASA, Conley and Lofgren, seized the moonrock paperweight belonging to Davis, and have exercised dominion and control over it and have not returned it to her. In addition, before and after seizing the moonrock paperweight, NASA and the Government, have wrongfully failed to provide due process to Ms. Davis. This includes the failure of NASA to institute asset forfeiture procedure and/ or proceedings post seizure; and wrongfully utilizing criminal search and seizure process when it was inapplicable rather than allow Davis to contest the government?s right to seize the property pre?seizure. Thus, NASA wrongfully . eschewed. applicable due process 'to take Davis? property. Such violations continue to date. {3?s ID . CLAlM'for Damages and Relief Davis and Cilley allege wrongful ?and/ or false imprisonment and false arrest; and Page: 8 that to attempt to justify such false imprisonment and false arrest, an invalid search warrant was requested and issued that contained deliberate falsehoods and material omissions. The conduct of NASA agents, Conley and Lofgren?s, caused Davis and Cilley harm both in body, and physical pain and discomfort, and in mind, by causing humiliation, fear and anguish over the very public arrest, or in the case of Cilley, detention. The couple have also been held up to critical public examination after the detention and arrest was publicized by NASA and the defendants. In addition, said AGENTS and persons deliberately abused process by utilizing a criminal procedure (search warrant) to affect what amounted. to a civil matter (the seizure and the determination of the disposition of property). The conduct" engaged inby CONLEY and LOFGREN and UNKNOWN AGENTS 1 and 2 was so egregious to represent IISED and NTSED. Their conduct interfered, or aided in the interference, with claimants possessory rights of the moonrock chip paperweight which was lawfully owned by Davis. Such conduct also violated Davis and Cilley?s civil rights to hold property without fear that government Would take it without due process of law and to engage in lawful commerce, and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as well as excessive force. The ongoing conduct by NASA and the defendants that sought to disseminate false information about the ownership or moonrocks, whether they were ?national treasures? and therefore illegal to own, wrongfully sought to ruin the provenance and value of the moonrock paperweights and moonrock gifts. This affected Davis and others so situated. Finally, both Davis and Cilley were disturbed, shocked and severely distressed by the conduct of NASA and the defendants as described herein towards their spouse as they personally witnessed. This includes, but is not limited to, the actual physical search and seizure as described herein, as well as the accusations of criminality made against Davis, made directly by the defendants and indirectly through media outlets, as well as holding the couple-up to public ridicule. ienwimnvisoiraunonitnnxof82- CLAIM for Damages and Relief Supervisory liability Unknown NASA OIS supervisor (who approved and supervised action) Unknown NASA administrator (who approved and supervised action) are liable to Davis and Cilley because they allowed, or authorized, or even participated in the acts as referenced herein to occur; and/ or knowingly concealed material facts, that would have ended this investigation and allegation of criminal conduct by Davis, or at least ultimately stepped the harm caused to both Davis and Cilley. Page: DEMAND AND COMPENSATION AND RELIEF SOUGHT Joann Davis Ms. Davis seeks compensation because of the wrongful acts by US - Government, CONLEY, LOFGREN, UNKNOWN NASA AGENTS 1?4, Protective Security Officer Robert Schmidt, Resident Agent?in?Charge Patricia .Searle of the NASA-01G, Kennedy Space Center Of?ce; Unknown NASA supervisor (who approved and supervised action); Unknown NASA OIS administrator (who approved and supervised action) who she alleges violated her 4th and 5th Amendment constitutional rights by-wrongfully seizing her property (Moonrock paperweight), seizing her, including using excessive force, excessively detaining and/ or arresting her, and then continuing this violation by. wrongfully searching her home and personal property, as well as seeking to interfere with or devalue her property rights in the moonrock paperweight. This, in part, is commonly called a BIVENS action, as well as an action for conversion, replevin, and injunctive relief, as well other causes of action reasonably inferred by the facts above. INJURIES: As a direct results of the wrongful acts of the above named individuals Davis claims that she was injured in her personal dignity, emotional well being, finances, and physical well being. Part of the money she expected to receive ?om the sale of the objects was to care for her son who was both medical and mentally infirmed. The loss of this care and the security that these funds would have provided contributed to his death in 2012. His loss weighs heavily on Davis. In addition, the acts of these individuals and NASA have harmed her ability to openly possess and sell her lawfully acquired property and has held her up to public ridicule and embarrassment. Amount of compensation sought: This claim is for an amount of 10 times the promised purchase amount for the moonrock Lucite paperweight that NASA coveted above Ms. Davis? constitutional rights, $17,000,000 plus the value of the of 82 Page ID #:57 CLAIM for Damages and Relief . moonrock itself if it is not returned million). (Total 18,700,000.) This includes the value for emotional distress, loss of consortium, as well as special . damages by way of medical costs equaling: Return of her property to Joann Davis: One paperweight containing moonrock chips as acquired by Apollo ll astronauts. Inj unctive or other relief: Cease and desist from the disinformation and correct through all appropriate means that disinformation, including providing true information to media outlets about the private ownership of Apollo ll moonrocks. This should include divulging the history of how those moonrock awards were given away, and Where possible, identify to whom such items were given. NASA should not seek to interfere with the provenance of this or other moonrocks that have been given out through the auspices of NASA personnel, and aid in proving the provenance Where possible. Paul Cilley . Mr. Cilley was injured and seeks compensation because of the wrongful acts by US Government, CONLEY, LOFGREN, UNKNOWN NASA AGENTS 1?4, Protective Security Officer Robert Schmidt, Resident Agent?in?Charge Patricia Searle of the Kennedy Space Center Of?ce; Unknown NASA DIS-supervisor (who approved and supervised action); Unknown NASA administrator (who approved and supervised action), who violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Constitutional rights by wrongfully seizing him, including by using excessive force and impermissible threat of force, and then continuing this violation by wrongfully searching his home and personal property. This, in part, is commonly called a BIVENS action. INIURIES: As a direct results of the wrongful acts of the above named individuals Mr. Cilley claims that he was injured in his personal dignity, emotional well being, was held to ridicule and embarrassment Amount of compensation sought: This claim is for an amount of $1,000,000 for Mr. Cilley. CEQ 82. Page ID #258 CLAJM for Damages. and Relief Page: 11 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION Search warrant af?davit and return: ED 11 US of America Joann Davis. DOB XX- XX 1937, Riverside County, CA, af?ant Norman Conley, Signed Hon Sheri May 19, 2011. Medical records, Joann Davis. Photographs of rnoonrock and heatshield paperweight. Date: Signed for the claimants by Peter Schlueter, Attorney Documents attached: Standard Form 95 Joann Davis Standard Form 95 Paul Cilley Power of Attorney Photograph of Objects at issue Search Warrant Medical records/billing oann Davis ?20 . FL Ca?e t" Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 ke?ge 44 of 82 Page ID #:59 37?" 1 4 L?f =14 Cii yv-(ii i; (ii; 1t" 53:25; '3 533 98,83 8%?ng 0:qu Egg; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL OF CALFORNTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKET NO. MAGISTRATE-s CASE NO. V. ts? sweat? THE PERSON KNOWN AS: . . TO: ANY SPECIAL AGENT WITH NATIONAL JOANN L. DAVIS, DOB . AERONAUTICS AND SPACE RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA ADMINISTRATION OR ANY OTHER AUTHORIZED OFFICER Af?dari?s) having been made before me by the below?named af?ant that he/she has reason to believe that on the items known as: SEE ATTACHMENT A in the Central District of California there is ?now being concealed certain property, namely: SEE ATTACHRIENT a and as I am satis?ed that there is probable cause to believe that the property so described is being concealed on the person or premises above?described and the grounds for application for issuance of the search warrant exist as stated in the supporting af?davi?s). YOU ARE HEREBY CGWANDED to search on or before Fourteen (14} does (not to exceed 14 days) the person or place named above for the property speci?ed, serving this warrant and making the search (in the daytime?6:99 A.M. to 10:00 RM.) and if the property be found there to seize it, leaving a copy of this warrant and receipt for the property taken, and prepare a Written inventory of the property seized and return thiswarrant to the dutv U.S. Magistrate dege as required by law. .r'x NB OF AFFTANT . SIGNATURE U.S.MAGISTRATB mos emanate ISSUED . HON. SHERI PYM NORMAN CONLEY (NASA-01G) MAY L61 .2011 *If a search is to be authorized "at any time in the day or night" pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 41(6), show reasonable cause therefore. ?United States Judge or Judge of a State Court of Record. - ea Egg{94' fag/1 .q . PM . . . - Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 \Rage 46 of 82 Page ID #261 AFFIDAVIT I, Norman D. Conley, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows: 1. I am currently-employed as a Special Agent/Criminal Investigator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Inspector General Kennedy Space Center Florida. I have been a Special Agent with the NASA OIG for approximately 1 year and 3 months. I have been a law enforcement officer since August 1994. Previously, I worked for the U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Bernice, the Orange County Sheriffis Office in Florida and the Titusville Police Department in Florida; 21 I hate attended training classes accredited by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Florida Criminal - Justice Standards and Training Commission. I graduated from the. University of Central Florida with a Bachelors Degree in 'Criminal Justice in 2002. I have completed the 12-week Federal Basic Criminal Investigator Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. I completed the four week Inspector General Academy training program in Georgia. I have also completed specialized training by attending clasSes sponsored by the Federal Lam Enforcement Center, including Product Substitution Investigators . Ca?e Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 <-,,Bage 47 of 82 Page ID #262 Training Program and Procurement Fraud Investigators Training Program? 3. As a Special Agent with the have conducted several white collar fraud investigations including product substitution, false claims made to the government, and theft of government property. I have also received extensive and specialized training in the iivestigation of fraud and financial crises including embezslement, kickbacks, and money laundering. 4. This affidavit is submitted in support of a warrant to search L. person and the personal effects carried on or about DAVIS, for evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities concerning violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641- I intend to execute the search during a meeting with DAVIS on May 19, 2011 in Riverside County, California. 5. This affidavit is intended to show that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested search warrant and does not purport to set forth all of my knowledge of, or investigation into this matter. The statements set forth in this.affidavit are based upon my personal participation in this investigation; training, education, and experience as with the conversations with other law enforcement officers and agents who are knowledgeable about the case; and 2 V4 SS . . .Kw . Ca??e Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 48 of 82? Page ID #263 consultation with other reliable sources of information relative to this investigation. PERSON TO BE SEARCHED 6. The person to be searched is L. DAVIS the individual-Who has been negotiating the sale of the purported Apollo 11 lunar material. The person includes any personal effects such as a purse or a bag that she may be carrying onther. DAVIS is described as a white female, horn on with social security number ITEMS TO BE SEIZED 7. The items to be seized from JOANNE L. DAVIS and her personal effects are as follows:_ a. The purported Apollo 11 lunar material offered for sale by DAVIS as shown on the right side of Exhibit 1 attached to this affidavit; . Any documents, records, and photographs shoning how DAVES came to possess the purported lunar rock and/or showing her knowledge about the purported lunar rock.. PROBABLE CAUSE On May 10, 2011, Resident Agentnin?Charge Patricia Searle (?Agent Searle?) of the KSC Resident Office received-information from KSC Protective Security Officer Robert -Schmidt (?Officer Schmidt?) that an individual nay be in possession of an Apollo Lunar Rock. Specifically, Officer 3 (V3 5/ 1 ?Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 (Page 49 of 82 Page ID #264 Schmidt received information from Space Gateway Support contract investigator_Renee Allen (?Intestigator Allen?) that -DAVIS emailed Investigator Allen and wrote the following in the email: Ms.Allen, My name is Joann DAVIS and I live in California. I've been searching the internet for months attempting to find someone that could help me find a buyer .for 2 rare Apollo 11 space artifacts. 1. An Apollo 11 Moon Rock and A.piece of the Apollo 11 Heat Shield; Both of these items were given to my husband by Neil My husband was very instrumental in all of the space programs right up until his death in February of 1986. He died one week after the Challenger Tragedy. If you have any.thoughts as to how I can proceed with the sale of these two items, please call or email me. Joann L. DAVIS 4 Ph: 951 574.1320 email address: - DAVISjlc?verizon.net Any help or information would be greatly appreciated Thank you? 9. Based on my training and experience, the ?Apollo 11?, description of the moon rock indicates that if the item is indeed a moon or lunar rockr it belongs to the U-S- government. Specifically, ?Apollo 11? indicates that the rock was obtained during a space mission during the Apollo program when Neil was one of the astronauts. 'In addition, the reference to a ?heat shield? lends legitimacy to the email because heat shields did exist and were distributed to hey individuals as souvenirs (and were not to be sold). .A heat shield is a material used on the bottom portion oi a space craft to protect 'Casfe Bejc'ument 1 Filed 03/14/13 (Page 50 of 82 Page ID #265 the capsule from extreme heat during reentry into the earth?s atmosphere. 1 furth?t inhestlgatlonf ?esh?Old'enployed the ase:, Li of_a confidential sourde to Contact DAVES- fhe CS is a Well?documented, reliable, and dependable source who has conducted.nnmerous successful operations with The CS has one 1987 California conviction for a misdemeanor solicitation of a prostitute.in which s/he served two days in jail. ll. Between.May 10?! 2011 and May 13, 2011, under the NASA- -OIG direction, the ES-erchanged several phone calls with.DA?IS in which they discussed the ApOllo ll lunar rock. The CS played? role.of a broker for a buyer who was interested in the lunar rock. 'These conversations occurred while the CS was located in Florida.and'DAYIS was located in California. The iirst call was- not monitored or recorded as.I was waiting for approval for consensual'monrtoring. ?The rest of the calls were consensnally~- monitored and recorded a?ter approval was received. The calls _nere'placed.from and.Cape Canaveral, Florida to phone.number at 951?674~1320 as indicated in email. "The calls are summarized?as follows: I .. . KAN, Cas?e Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 \Ba?ge 51 of 82 Page ID #266 - On May 10, 2011;-the CS called DAVIS and a woman' .After this phone call, claiming to be DAVIS answered the phone. the'CS relayed to me the substance of the nonVersationg gins .folloving is a summary of that conversation: 5? is i. IDAVIS is in possession of several items, but the items are of real value; one is an Apollo ll 8 rt 2 ?heat shield? and the other is a moon rock given to her husband by DAVIS claimed that Richard Branson (President and CEO oi Virgin Atlantic) had contacted.her 11?? ?through hiS'Qeople" to make an offer on the rock. DAVIS does- LL. not want ?Fed? knocking on her door and will not give .benk to she had been:informed by Paul Wass (unknown individual) that there are problems with selling Apollo ll items at auctions-and that it has to be ?outside?that.? . V1. DAVIS stated that.she was willing to sell' the item for ?big'money underground.? exnlained that her husband was ?big" in the space program, but that he had_passed away. DAVIS is now on a fixed income and indicated that.she was having financial issues due to her daughter?s death and her son?s health condition. At the conclusion of the call, the CS asked AVIS to send photos of the items She wanted-to sell. That 3 evening, the CS received an-email from DAVIS containing-several 6 - . LN . _Case Document 1 Flled 03/14/13 sage 52 of 82 page #267. 1 . . . photographs.' One of the photos dated ?06.23.2010? de_icted two circular items on a black cloth with a part of a human hand next items, apparently to item H.gx' iti?i A - ?an: Haunt - had an eagle'and'the other was'yellow1sh in ehmewhe .. . i - -- 1 Lids ,translucent, With a small grey or black object centered cs {13. i it. 0 color copy of the photograph is attached to this fiidarit as ?Exhibit There were also several photographs depicting space memorabilia, letters from KSC from- to her children, and service pinsu? The service pins appeared to memorialize the ditferent lehgth of service at the Ecrth American Rockwell,.a NASA contractor during the.hpollo 'program. b. On May 11, 2011, at approximately 3:44 p.m. (eastern), the cs called DAVIS at 951-674-2201 A woman answering to the name of ?Joann? ahswered the phone, =The following is a summary of the conversation: i. the. cs confirmed with DAVIS that the spec ?inside the item on the right side of the photograph (Exhibrt l; the Apollo lunar rock. She also confirmed that the black circular material embedded inside the item on the lEfL is a piece of a heat shield. DAVIS explained that she does not keep he items i? the house, but in a safe deposit box. ii} DAVIS stated that she understands the.lunar rock cannot be sold through normal processes and that'?big 7 uucument 1 I?Iled 03/14/13 lHILE?age 53 of 82 Page -ID #2 68 brother" is out there. apparently, DAVIS had attempted'to engage two individuals_she did not identity to sell the items .Iagr -the two_and1 eal,'turno1MQ down t?0dee ew3 ?xa71 ?it is ?not sellable.?x does not.have- a ?black market? contact, according to DAVIS: the ini viduals replied, ?that why it is a touchy subject.? DAVIS also .appeared'to express some concern that the items would he taken fron.her he government; she stated that one of her children advised'that ?the?? could come knocking at.her door and demand _that she prove_that the items were gifts; The CS then asked the price of the lunar rock and .DAVIS replied 11alot.? She added that she is waiting for Richard.Branson to call her back,.but that it appeared he was not getti ng his messages from his broker. JDAVIS also talked about researching prices of artifacts in Europe and in the United States. again talked about why she we ted to sell the lunar rock- She mentioned her financial and health problems'and not wanting to struggle in her golden years. iv. When the CS ?t $80 000 00 for the lunar rock, DAVIS immediately rejected the OL ?fer and stated am actually insulted_that. that is the offer for it. It wonldn?t be worth my while to work the deal.? She then told. the CS to go back to his/her buyer for a much'higher price and that she will not take anything less than $1.5 to $1.7 million. 00 - Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 f~ _"ge 514 of 82 Page ID #269 BEES then added that she may not be able to commit to even $1.5 million because of her concern that she may be liable for a quarter or ..- l. - M.- ..-: aid-13w- the the a -y informed. DAVIS that he would need to personally View the lunar . rock for verification prior to-firming up the transaction. The CS and DAVIs agreed that the week of May 16th was a possibility- for a meeting? in California. c. On .2011, at approximately 4:53 pm: (eastern), the CS called DAVIs at 951?674?1320. The fo_lowing5: is a summary 'of the. conversation: I . i. told the CS that she needed another day to- think about the deal, that she had received another yhone call about the lunar rock, and that she needed to talk to her ?tar man." Ihe CS asked whether- there is 'a bidding war and that if there. was, .s he would likeDAVIs to at least extend the courtesy of allowing himkher andhis/her buyer to make the last counteroffer. DAVIS assured?the CS that she is not trying to create a' bidding war, but that people were making offers. She then assured the CS that she is just trying to be honest with the CS, which is why-she called him/her immediately, and stated, ?If I commit . . . if I do commit, I am an honest person.. Then everything else. won.l be recognized, and I know that.? - Di.? . . f? A Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Page 55 of 82 Page ID #270 ii- DAVIS then expressed concern over the payment method and'stated, ?naturally, i'm not gonna?take a ..-- - . like that-"9 vS'he sewing-2d shat she Wis . _concerned about'hOW'to ?deal with?themsituatio?? because she? Wanted to ?protect myself with this? and ?doing thin?s legally?? because ?I?m just not an illegal person . . . responded that s/he and DAVIS are both ?legal,? but intimated that.these types_o? transactions cannot be advertised in - - _newspapers and that-she must know that this is a questionable transaction because she_used the term ?black'market.? DAVIS then continued to discuss her concern.with the payment'method and.making.sure that the payment is ?legal?tender.? DAVIS ami the CS concluded by further discussing the payment'method and potentiall? doing a wire trans?er so desires. and the CS then agreed to speak with each other the next day 'abont the.deal? d. On May 12,.2011,.the CS called'DAVIS at 951~674? 1320. 'The following is a.summary of Conversation: i. DQVIS began.by stating that.she was not aving.a good day because she discovered.that it was not going to be easy to conduct the_transaction. She explained that'she was unable to find a place where a wire transfer could clear' immediatelyr as She was concerned that ?you Would.be gone with the product.? She told the CS that she was ?in a pickle," to 10 WM . Ducumentl I?iied 03/14/13 Page 56 of 82? Page ID #:71 which the CS'replied that DAVIS 'could hold the product until the wire transfer clears. during iinkaAVIS then suggested mpeting en a-Tharsdayt 7ith a the week o?hMayJESEh?- Shevstated that after speakind financial a'visor, she was concerned that she would lose a lcrge sum of money in taxes. DAVIS also stated that she was discussing with her financial advisor whether to have'the'money ?wired to Arizona where-she~has another residence.~ DAVIS then asked the CS to'ask his/her buyer to pay enough so that she would make a net profit of approximately $1.7 million after- taxes. DAVIS and the CS then agreed to speak the day before- their meeting date on May 19th. 12. .Shortly after DAYIS=emailed the phntographs to the CS on May 10, provided the'photograph in.EXhibit 1 to Dr- Gary Lofgren, the lunar curator at Johnson Space Center in Texas. 'Dr. Lofgren is senior lunar expert and has.been with.NASA since August 12, 1968 rough the Apollo program. .As a lunar curator, one of'his responsibilities is to secure and control all lunar material per?NhSA.policies and.procedures. He is also nasaxs expert in identifying lunar material. The about Dr. Lofgren: following is a summary of the information i learned from.and a. According to Dr. Lofgrenq the spec in.the item on the right of the photograph is consistent with the color of 11 JNJ 1 (- Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 kPage 57 of 82 Page ID #272 .lunar material, although he could not confirm that it is lunar material without testing in his laboratory. In addition 'although he was-not familiarcwith the. particular around I I. obj spec, ;it is possible that such material was used to contain lunar material however, Dr. Lofgtren stated that he 'would have. to view the material in person to "make any assessment. J3. In the-past, on a number of occasions, Er. Lofgren 'as asked "to identify lunar materials from photographs .. On those occasions, unlike this one, he was able to definitively determine that the items in the photographs were not lunar c. In addition, based on my conversation with Dr. . Lofgren and other NASA personnel and my reviews of NASA policies I and regulations Dr. and his department ha exclusive control over the receipt and distribution of lunar material obtained from Apollo missions. According to ?Dr. Lofgren, it is against NASA policy to pemanently release lunar samples to individuals (as opposed to nations or entities as gifts) and NASA has never given lunar materials of samples to any one individual, including astronauts . 13. On Wednesday", ?May 18, 2011, the cs'oalied DAVIS at 951?674?1320. The phone call was consensually?monitored. 'Durin this conversation a read to meet the CS at a 12 fV . -Ca?"se Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 "??Pa?ge 58 of 82 Page ID #273 public location in. the Riverside County,- Galifornia,- to allow the CS to examine the Apollo 11 lunar rock. owns-Rania or Lorin trimaran . - . . Basedpn the Lot 1958 and its .inter?retatiozi ?in federal regulations and NASA policies, "it is clear that ?lunar'material is a ?national.resource,? and thus, the property of the . government. (National Aeronautics and Space. Act of "135.3, 42--U..S-.C. @2473; NASA Policy nirective 15. During a 2002 case investigated by NASA OIG involving lunar mate__ialr Astro_aut Neil was interviewed. In that interview, Mr. stated that it has always been. common knowledge to NASA employees who Work in the Manned Spacecraft Center that any moon rocks or dust-collected by astronauts would be and that no one, including'the astronauts, would.hane the right or authority to Lkeep a sample for'his or herself or give it away.L .- Specificaily a ed that he has never given or sold moon rocks? dust, or Apollo 11 equipment to anyone. EONCEUSION .16. Based on the facts set forth above, my training, education and experience as a NASA-DIG SA, consultation with other experienced law enforcement_officers and agents, and conSultation with other reliable sources of information relative to this investigation, I submit there is probable cause to 13; . . .. Ca?e 5513icv-00483-C Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 @geSQ of 82 Page ID #:74 believe that JOANN L. DAVIS is in possession of contraband, evidence of the crime, fruits, and instrumentalities of the crime concefning'a violation of_Title 13,j?nibed States Ends! I . .. L. Section.?41J possession_of.snolen governmenb .F Norman D. Conley .Special Agent, NASA-GIG Sworn and subscribed to before me On this day of May 2011. THE HONORABLE SHERI UKITED STATES JUDGE 14 9: I I i . CaSe Do'cument 1 Filed 03/14/13 60 0f,82 Page ID #275 Aswacmis?i' A. PERSON f0 BE SEARCHEQ - The person to be seafaohed is L. AVIS, ?ths individizal; . who has beennegotiating ens: ?sale of. Liza purpoxtled 390115511 ?lunar'material belonging to. the Uniped States government. The person includes any personal effects such as a purse or a bag teat she may-be carrying on her. DAVIS is described as a White female, born withsocial security nutmeg: 157. 15 76 I Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 {gage 61 'of 82 Page ID #276 :3 ITEMS TO BE SEIZED Ehe items to-be seiZed.from JOANNE L, DAVIS tad her? pereapal effect ee'iq1lows: ?t a. The purported Apollo 11 lunar material offered for sale by DAVIS as shown on the right side of Exhibit 1 attached to this affidavit; Any accumente, recorder andiphotographe-showing-how PI came to possess the purperte? lunar rock and/or Showing her knowledge-about the purported lunar rock. ?16 ?a 7?44 9..-: f- E. '27: H55 ?l'kfc' #1 we?. can? . r3! -. Ewing MW - ?In 03?ag? . 9.1 1. ?mi23H hit"? 9 4% I gag;- In?genIf.? Case 5 MZKK Documentl Filed 03/14/13 I Age 62 of 8-2 Page ID 77 Case 00483- CBM KK Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Page 63 of 82 Page ID #2 78 a; 3 ?:33 A5 a 'ma RETURN DATEWAP RECEIVE DATE COPY oz: WARRANT AND RECEIPT 50R FEMS 15? ,1 m1}; zori (Mg-17;? 25%; 7:130 ??13de L, )5sz 54 .3175 $29,qu [65 5 OF TALE PURSUANTTD TI-EWAPMT -- i I . . i VHZ?t/w?fb?? in. gig ?aw-H (S?s-?gf a; bEmL ?mlg $92; Ww?x?rdi?? 914.830 1234?? CERTIFICATION - . . . .1. d. on 133.6 waiTB-n?i- 1 swear that {ms mventery 1s a tme and detailed acoaum of alhhe property when bd Subscribed, sworn to: and returned before me this date. IUDGE 032.2: MGESTRATE DATE . - 5 Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13?135ge 64 of 82 Page ID #:79 u-o? E?wwi EEK-1.168 d8 Qa. r? w: - LB 0?0 . . .. .. . . . . - - . ZI- . 1.:ch J. VIA. .5. Bmtee 196-93818238 . jab-p;- 21?is 1551 - . -- - . .. . -- spit?fi BE Q?a?1gr- calfst:- m'euztw? ?zi fig-:- . - 3 - 1- - I ?reman, (12711' WIFE IPISTPUCTIOHS FDR. new . 31.515111:le a; - 3-115. "we admin-m 0525;11 I 116de ??337 Bra-p1": dua?ftimru -- . 515mm mama-1mm p?bE? t? 1?1" . . 1 a amt; Ehat: 1 ma - - A luff-5's aim the-gaff; IsfrI' 't'r?a?ie? -: mil air: was. a -. mama?s-5c} aim-are?57 11% bean ?gnawed Egg-'11 ra?c J. v.2. a. flg?p?a-?: . 35:? 1:143:$153917 - rents-:WMI ?cam?vahv?im?hu 1 . . I .. ..I1:521er ransnm . . .wmaqwumuuw131333333. E.?i4: - . i 32315?. Guitar-Isn?t 33.09 @1333 ..Mi?mvh? $133 9' I . . W?iwi?ff. panama-:11" musher . -.- m5. . .. E?btw?.??J?1?rgm?kwyd . - . ?mmk'w ?n??ncr Kim's; - '0 . tf-nrnfu?m?l 1313:; Murmur .- .. . . .-. {untomcimm .- . - . . - -- . - .. .-I .- .- . 'dwan?gdi?mks-s?gn I . 'yh??xy gamrhy . .. .. '41. hi? FEW-.- .- cohteItemi $341345 17% hi?? $1,333"? {L'rnpone??pw?la?dg315?ng E?bg'? $3.634mun: - IIKI . . m?m; 3p - tkcapi ??ght; - - . - -.-.. . Iu- . . . :BItbb - m?ams feI. amt-3' $11.59 dawns-?dunk ?aw i . . I. 15m!" omhnul .. 33%? up]! :Erl?stw? . . 12' .. AM: manna-mi n:Ea?E?rl_ . .3333}. . Tatanusimnnin. If: . . 1565331 as .. .u?Lt?W - -. - .. . ?lidqun-wr'vml' - - .s?malskh?qukmmn? ?533: I ?3333333333333 33333 33333333333333 . {Jachnh?z31313333 31313133331333. xi 3! 2? 1-23} - . -.-. am - .51! q. . 2.1.1.L?gg Pouqa .zBFa? ?313. . .10.3. 5-11-33. 1 . (Case 13=cv 00483 CBM - .--. .-.-.. . .. - . .1111113211 1611521111 . 3 -. .. $111" iyi'm- . . .. Etierjl?l's' {11111111110 . 2111811111? - 71:11.[an Esr??g'l $111111 'Ei?: m?nzzgig: . . 'n I 1:23:33? 11111545 115511;.? 1211:1119 11-11113ch 1,111.1? . 521111511111 1 . 955m ?1111' 111111111111: - LEE-11115151116: . . .. jam: I I 1111111511 R1331 1?1 garment; 1321'" ., metc??i??1:11 sud-1.11119, Fl??t?ulluu 31 1111' IislIn "thh' . d3. - 3115131 +11% #:1141111 IGI-E 1'11; 7111?} 11.515.911.111 pom #81 'rspf 11111211111111? 51111119119111.1114 cm [:11 111.: 1.151 11911113559191.2159 pu? ET 9191111". 11.29121. 12%me $511311" ahdarmfpalws 42351311115 D?is??wl 1:11:11!? Hum?kna? 1-711?th 1.1111311111311159? 51151-11: 5-, .. 1.. . 11111111111191} 111-1119111113. .-. .- I19: 911.111? "113.1111! 11111111113 1,1113%" LCFJIEJI ?1111?: 1117951119512? T974111 .1115151 111951;; ?1111131211: '1511ur?ctm. 1.wig-1154351591.: . . . . Ital-mum? . .. - 119199511111:th 1141111515151. WEI 1.111111:th . :Pcamdum dumhv- . Matt?m ,1 ?lghv's'r? . 111':Iul' u'rq. no: flint-ll: A?m?m axr?dn" I '5 ??amxaxdes .- 5.51:. .- 15? W175 -.- 563151. 1115111111- 31111513 - - - . - - . 1 - . - snrumlurma$11212=? 51215111351:- - -- is. A. . 3'33? I. I . -. 1 I-II II I .- .. 'yg'Juu-uefhh'n 1' .- 1 1111111111111 1 11111111111 or: 91111111411911er ?rm 11711111118 15.11.3111 1111} ?ftma??zen 1 11111111111111111111111111 Iggy-1:15! 5535633. ?995. ark-d .- :1qu 1 1 I If. .- Vanni "111115 35112151. 5.5.12 3:11-11. . 53' 71m 1:30-3:21: wow-1:1: ?hillowl-u- n. . - . - 155-- .5111 3115195 90111n5ht1 Page 67 82' Page 82 51115519. . Document 1 Fried 68 01?82 1131183 .- - . "2012 111-1 11 11111 131151.115 50933192385315141111111..- - .. - - -. - . .- - . . . . . . . . . 11111533135: . .- . ??1513 ?1.11 1 . ?:311'116 .- - . 11' 117.1117 ?1:01:11 'r?ld 838-18988 9993199999133 Documenti ?led 03/14/13 P999 69 9f 82 Fya?e I34 .3290: {'55 . . 794;. .mssma HGTES . -. 7' - . - ?3 .-., -.- . - . 999-: T2299 992 .. 999929-99999' '5 .3 71' 9.234191:- 1-: Ream2%?st 95221032992929 an #:9211992th2222! . 2.5:3599? Enmnu-?zanuns 51295992 19999991155 Elia; EAGLE UbihBr-n -- Ellsaahargewuhmhulamw Dalrc?egmo agarr?rs 329.0559 _an . 2 .. . 1915953939 Pgi?Ifognalur-n ?g . 19993311 3935;911:211 2 - . . 29.912599199222099 ., - .. 3 91.329919999591999? Damn-mum? 1119919195? 1. 99:29:22 gal-229.9299 9'51?! 9222;999:9993? ?nasq?zlgued .22211312112. Jmm?r 9415?? I 1- :5 Anma"mo-55235 -- . . ?add?grsvanm (?Lg?5555??, - I. . - - IQ. GHEQUSS - . . Denna} 11255-5051. 5.551%. I . .. . . Thoratqcaplne BLunbarSpl?a B$1cmm W3: .1 ?36 pi?rf?lathnarlmto - .- . -. 5'3 $54131" [3580.3 5.5151}: 5.151 13.1-5- . -. .. 1-1.3 135515151113 I - -. - I 555313,. IL . {?le 1555115551151; 5151'- . - I I ?1.1.1311-951119 914%": .- - -- "Shudder - 53517515155L-II KHZ: I . .I . 16511515511551: 1.3-- 3551?2 .- - 131.1 "1514REL. .I 3-3" 1rd}: ELIEEII Lumbar?nh?l?v 2; - El 1155.12 - . .-. 111955555555' 111575151? 5.31mi? . 5217:1951. I I IE1 Isdg?kh?: hm???Talm?exam . - .. . -. . . .5: hostugaggpamp ..I I. -- - - . 1?3. 35155211515115 43117115 5431}: ?BedsideP?G . . I ?'lrunadumiu?d??vn . .I I .- - I.I. - -I 73- 13913; a KT I32- - WJ Rema?emars . -- mamammerenuai 5.5?3111?53515 1:53.52. "511535 . .353- Ieramn {5:5th -- . - - - . - . K: . . 25 1 115.5 -- Bhirt?a 55,515.002 535.151 - . 1119555551355511131525515551: 511E5- 7pr15 ?1,111; Fhmm?uaJ?'E} . WT . . . EERUGPEMI ,5:351}be cam-13:: 1.153133Ammonia EiEmmnm EIToia} 1151131552: -- .I 2. .- 14531113331115 Ham?ynainiu .m $55;th .13. 05955551555515 . . . - billWhat . -?baw {15955135111555}: . .I . 15355.31555555- 151.: 5W. Flam-r1051 - - ?alamna?domafManager 50515511155555: 5112: - . . dialgu?errulnar 555515111111 51511515111515; $51151 mutt: . - - - 13.591 15:55 14.551511515551055 15555551151151 . .. 52151-555 5551553155515 .I . .513Shuulaarimmnbiirzer? . 1- 1 gig; -.E?..Svefero.wn..if 55mm:155-111151151515211 . . -. I 21.551111535551653 -: 5.25 . 53555 EL: - - :21- 3- $525.51 2.553551. . 535-5 17514 $1131: 55515993111511- - I Lupus anlm?gufari'Qf. . 4L 5 13:55:11": .- . -. - . ?33. -. -- .535 - -- - . M5555 ?53-55? .- 3955115151535 5.: 51.025151): -. I- . .. . Elf-1111155 13919311 53.3" 111 '62: .- . - 861132111.5: .. .- . .. 51.. . .. El. .Mdliipn?nl, darrnnaagab - . - .1131- 5.1-- - . - 1330853335 - -. .11 --. -- I .I, -. THIS 110151535115 . - .5..- .55. . - .- 1.1.1511?, .. - -- E381: 1938911 JHHIHEE 55m555555~51555YSICIAIMS .. . . . . I ?(5%ng 331.5153 . .- . . . g?gg5/o?ig: 5.1.5.5315;114:1337 - . . -: 1' -. - - .. Unsi - LLDSI I111 rwwi 5325.2. 003311116. 571/2012 I. raxwm Hm prmt). . .. Case 5 3?cv?OO483 CBM KK Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 \Jage 71 of 82 Page ID 86 51 5 "161 ,2 - isosaafazse 322-2: 3113. 3 - 12.1151161111. ?a .r I: 1' M??i??fm?s .. - . :8 . El: amiam fwd?lhe imam 11230 - .. c: I krillgubioqngm ?sP'a. i? '13 Levaqurn 131:9leme 256-. $0Umg?e 1% -. . mg?mgm 1amwm1vw2mmgby?iHHxiten-onhqu . 1.131 Ali} dl?nswm 1131,13,?, . . Sign in?" .1151; 'i - .o?qaemmg mm .. aupms . 1:132 395mm . -. . grim ia- m?aamearu-aapmnj ring 133? mgPaW - .911.- "1-19 2 a. ?Erwin -- - - . 3' l3 ?jto??nln Pram HE 5:113:14 _E?li' 161368ng - - -. -. . a Euralh??fnbiae? 51515 ?lira .. Fa . . wrg?ma?l? - . .1 113mm {Ham pr?tm?m maq?'?ln gym-E - 95; - Emma 1191:; ?11 Min zfa 11131161 mg 2-. 125- Fri-r. .2 It; Geu?an [Ema-[sauna ?16- @12th *mLPa . {f '2 - .. . 1, 1.252135 mFSm? @371??eq 5:553 .. A a 3511131961: {amaia?l?na - 5 whisfup 131$; ml in ami'mmLJ?ag} MEL 'Em??mmaznt' - 5111111131115. f? -- mLJ'rlr .359 I ?#251 KCL 111133111. 537491136 @1111th :BmEi?? . . . - {fa-fr ulna] mLeVary-?? I :.mimms?adlm . .- -.- - .. - - . .-. .- - mama .. '1 - I - 11111:, .- i - 'EEi'phmuia ?rwmumuis . Silasevh?mpltai ig?s map - .3 . .. NOTEE .4155) 685333113 32mm .- . .. . - . . SIG -, g?VnS - - - . -. H.714 -. . .. .. . U: _i . signed; . .. llv?a' . 5/1/2U13iu-5V? I .LCLD ?a??ebgri? $68483 c1314 KK Document 1- Flled 93/121413 ?age 72 0182 Page ID #2 87 .I'u . . . i . 511 21112 111111 2111 1117:1131; ?~35 19(18333133?3 .1. 1. g?j 11mm 1/10 311111} ww?j?? Dipsh?a. 51315:? 41-11114? . 2- 7.131351:- 213191191"; .13. 1; . - 314-1: . gasses-11;. 11115111112: 1 - - .-.-. . 1- . . $135151). .2: .111arfunhee'taslhg 113?. 7' i? Eva-1b. [1111111' centroid 1f: Dagmar: om -. 1' F?dmm?iam 135131511116. 0?19:sz .1 1161351131- Iletlr-nlc?nri Flam _1 1 . .- 11 511 7051111 111111131 11": - 1'1. 11111111 111111111 111111131 1111111 11111 1 . RESULT 11530111111111 mam 1111111511111 1511 1:1 a. 1111 s?a: 9131:1135 iine' comb 7121.13113.10.111110111h - 1? 1,1 "15/ 0:53.125. -I.- HAL-LL Case" 13 cv-OO483 Document 1? Flled (13114113.; 511 1111 1111. _:11 1111 1311111111 - 11133011319238 .: .. - .- - -.. "avg?"11691233 . $2333. . . I. . . war-11131561175! mumpucwmus 1311?; 1111 -1111 WIwomi. 311 2.13?? . .. f: T- 15.0533}: g??f?r?k [Egg-I . - {1135313 . . 3-1515 - 9111': HOW - . 5.1-1, ?gang is: -. . . 1'1. 311} .. 11:1. 51111111111212 flit/3"" 5711* Hfu?bj -.. Ca$e 5 13 cv-OO483 Docu' 'en i "Flled 031140.3- g? .. 'fs?jijn. E1 000:: I. 1111M If?: . 3 ?22300" - . - - .2 .2212- ~e mar-2?- - 3 11000322003} 2222.22 031322220 21 :20. - - .. ova-=2: Ellme?h??.1113: ?Wait. 11.11.1915" 53?; .. - . 12-3-1 192,yamaww-az. . . .?tla?fd "51:4. 31:5 ?nun 3L Teapork' ?loh? . #5223 -I 233.?. M'm?num ?ring-a 31232152320311.4323. 1:231}: 'ff'f .?Emfi'i 11131;? 3102010,: ?3:225:93. if . . 2.23:3 023.2 0.5112133. *umeww- .zs?i)2: .2142? 121* 0:0- muwnw 31.1" $5121.70 Raasxq-30m1? R?upmtj .Lol?l my . - . 3:25:22. Fin: . J. 2' .n '1 "-2115: 551:5" 3%}:x'nLrW. fl 3021. 21000911110 00131.11 1 . . 1L3 53131511 1. . 0483 KK Decument 'iFlled-' 3114/13 - 193913619238 i 3- mm :I'i?nr; 3131.13113er 153.141.11.131; 331.1433 - .l .. WWI: .. - .. . [SldA?Jq-Q?qsa??" . _f mavmmamzu .. . - . Muf?n "35735.3", 3 if?? 3&7; 3,333.33 1d 5155? z. 11th ?'50 3315:?- - .- lien his feigning; R'ici mt ??1191?? .3'3315'5mh . 5?3; i" . I ESL 32165:? Egut?; fictive _Idi? -: . 1121313.. 5.3.1191 375-?31013.1115} Emn?memm?ai?a?f; H?i?3513131331, 1:531}? ?31 - 53.133117111131211; L, .. ?3 11701.9 7{ -. Cas has-r 'wn?v ?IST'is-cv-00483-C WKK Document 1 Filed vvuu-l?un?luv ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL - ORBNGE 1.100 Was-i: Stewart Dzivc brange, Ca. . 92858 Guazgnto: DAVIS JOHN TOTAL CHARGES 4 95 . 45 Gua: Addz: 15271 ALVARADO ST TOTAL 81.11 Guax City: LA CA 92530 IDEAL REFUNDS: EOEEL ADJUSTMENTS: 414.34 PT NAME: LA CURRENT EALAECE: 0.00 1ST IRS MCARD MEDICARE AB ADM: 05 201.1 INS GROUP MGR 2ND ENS UNITED HEALTHCARE DIS ACCT ER SERVICE BEECH BILL REV PROD INS DATE WEB CODE CODE DES 0H mom BUCKET 05/30/11 5 1 86400 MCAR010 IP a GP GA. 1 ?0.01 06/16/11 106 1 35299 MEDICARE c/A 1 ?394.06 SP 06/16/11 106 1 20000 R3 APPLIED TO DEDUCIAPLE ?l 0-00 5? 06/16/11 106 1 20000 RJ APPLIED Io DEDUCIAELE ?1 0.00 SP 06/23/11 189 1 20000 RJ APPLIED TO DEDUCIASLE ?1 0.00 SP 07/29/11 244 1 37070 SMALL BALANCE WRITE OFF 1 ?20.27 SP ?**Sub-Total** -4 14 . 3 4. AD: ?414.34 05/25/11 312 300- 41221522 Poc DIPSTICK UA 1 56 85 **Sub4Total** 300 LABORAIORI 56.85 05/25/11 312 450 41500207 ED LEVEL 2 (BRIEF) 1 ?38.60 450 EMERGENCY ROOM ?38.60 495.45 06/16/11 106 1 '16050 MEDICARE INS.PMT 1 06/23/11 189 1 19030 UNITED HEALIHCARE PMI 1 ~72.32 SP **Sub-Total** H81. ll ?81.ll . - 03/14/13 \B?ge 76 of 82 {Page ID #291 r?x\ - ?x Casec5:13-cv-00483-CEM1KK Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 \PJage 77 of 82 Page ID #292 Posta e& Fe es and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV -. First-Class Mail Permit No. 63?10 R. Senfier: Please print Your name, address, and in this box - A ,7 C, Wke?i/f Sch/udC/w 5 cam-Luge 9% $8 I :3 a (am: /2375 resumes: Complete items 1, 2. and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. I Print your name andaddress on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. is delivery address different from item [3 Yes if YES, enter delivery address below: 1. Article Addressed to: ?ogevx amt oust/?teal Mat, Agra} SWELL 1455m- 3. Sewice Type Certi?ed Mail El EXpress Mail Reglstered El Return Receipt for Merchandise - Cl insured Mail Cl 0.0.D. -?(Exfra?Fee) . Yes Z-M?demmb' 70m 35m noun ease (?ansferfrorr. PS Form 381 February 2004 Domestic Return Recelp?l. 102595-02-M-1540 Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Page 79 of. 82 Page ID #294 UNITED STATES D??i?mcr count?. CENTRAL DISTRICT or CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY - This case has been assigned to District Judge Virginia A. Phillips and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is David T. Bristow. The case number on all documents ?led with the Court should read as follows: 483 . Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions. All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge T0 COUNSEL A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plainti?s). Subsequent documents must be ?led at the following location: Western Division Southern Division Eastern Division 312 N. Spring St, Rm. 6-8 411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 3470 Twelfth St, Rm. 134 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 Riverside, CA 92501 Failure to ?le at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you. (03/06) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY Case Document 1 Filed 03/14/13 Page 80 of 82 Page ID #295 Jon Schlueter (1063 02)/Peter Schlueter (155880) Schlueter Schlueter 108 Orange Street, Suite 8 Redlands, CA 92373 Phone: 909.381.4888 /Fax: 909.381.9238 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Joann Davis, an individual, and Paul Cilley, an CASE NUMBER . 'd"dl?552% ggi?lEi/VG The United States of America, Norman Conley, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt, Patricia Searle, Gary Lofgren, and Does 1 through 10 SUMMONS TO: A lawsuit has been ?led against you. Within 60 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached Bloomplaint amended complaint counterclaim El cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff?s attorney, Peter Schlueter/ Jon Schlueter whose address is 108 Orange Street. Suite 8, Redlands, CA 92373 . If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must ?le your answer or motion with the court. Dated: MIR 1 4 203. Deputy Clerk (Seal ofthe Court) [Use 60 days if the defendant is the United Statesor a United States agency, or is an o??icer or e171ployee of the United States. Allowed 60 days by Rule EOF CALIFOR. NI A Page 81 of82 Page ID #296 Case 5: I PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing vourself D) Joann Davis. an individual and Paul Cillev an individual, DEFENDANTS The United States of America Norman Conley. Thomas Reynolds- Mike Harrison, Robert Schmidt= Patricia Searle, Gary Lofgren and Does 1 through 10 Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you are representing yourself, provide same.) Peter B. Schlueter (155880), Jon R. Schlueter (106302), Schlueter Schlueter, 108 Orange Street, Suite 8, Rerllancis= CA 92373 Phone: (909)381-4888, Fax: (909)381-9238 Attorneys (If Known) unknown II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an in one box only.) CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES For Diversity Cases Only (Place an in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.) 1 U.S. Government Piaintiff 3 Federal Question (U.S. PTF DEF PTF DEF Govemrnent Not a Farm) Citizen of This State 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business in this State 131/2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 of Parties in Item 111) of Business in Another State Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 IV. ORIGIN (Place an in one box only.) of 1 Original 2 Removed ?'om 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from another district (specify): 6 Multi- 7 Appeal to District Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Disrrict Judge from 5 Litigation Magistrate Judge v. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: rum" DEMAND: n? Yes No (Check ?Yes? only if demanded in complaint.) CLASS ACTION underFDEMANDED IN COMPLAINT 5 not less then $10,000.00 I CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U. S. Civil Statute under which you are ?ling and write a brief statement of cause Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) 42 U. S. C. Sect. 1983- Of?cers arrested clients without probable cause and used excessive force against Davis and Cillev. VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an 1n one box only.) State Reapportionment surance . PERSONAL Fair Labor Standards 410 Antitrust 120 Marine 310 Airplane .7 PROPERTY 430 Banks and Banking 130 Miller Act 13 315 Airplane 370 Other Fraud Vacate Sentence 720 Labor/Mgmt. 450 Commerce/ICC 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability "71 Truth in Lending Habeas Corpus Relations Rates/etc. 150 Recovery of 320 Assault, Libel 8" #1121780 Other Personal 530 General 730 Labor/Mgmt. 460 Deportation Overpayment 8: .. Slander Property Damage 535 Death Penalty Reporting 8: 470 Racketeer In?uenced Enforcement of 330 Employers 385 Property Damage 540 Mandamus! Disclosure Act and Corrupt Judgment L?a13111w Product Liability Other 740 Railway Labor Act Organizations 151 Medicare Act 349 Marine Civil Rights 790 Other Labor 480 Consumer Credit 152 Recovery of Defaulted 343 fag?? Product Appeal 28 USC . PrisonCondition Litigation 490 Cable/SatTV Student Loan (Excl. 1:1 .50 riatlr?ir h. 153 :1 791 Empl. Rct. Inc. 1:1 810 Selective Service Veterans) 1:1 :55 Vzhif?: 1:1 423 Withdrawal 23 Act 850 Securities/Commodities! 153 Recovery of Product Liability USC 157 Agriculture Exchange Overpayment of #360 Other Personal 620 Other Food S20 Copyrights 875 Customer Challenge 12 Veteran?s Bene?ts Injurv 441 Voting Drug 830 Patent USC 3410 160 Stockholders? Suits 362 persgnai Injury- 442 Employment 625 Drug Related 840 Trademark 890 Other Statutory Actions 190 Other Contract Med Malpractice 443 Housing/Acco- Seizure of SOCIAL SECURITY 891 Agricultural Act 195 Contract Product [1 365 Personal InjuTY- mmodations Property 2] USC S61 HIA (1395ff) 892 Economic Stabilization Liability Product Liability 444 Welfare 881 862 Black Lung (923) Act 196 Franchise 7 5 368 Asbestos Personal 445 American with 630 Liquor Laws 863 893 Environmental Matters ..I 7 Injury Product Disabilities - 640 RR &Truck (405(2)) 894 Energy Allocation Act 210 Land Condemnation Employment 650 Airline Regs 864 SSID Title XVI 895 Freedom of Info. Act 220 Foreclosure American with 660 Occupational 865 R31 (405(9) 900 Appeal of Fee Determi~ 230 Rent Lease Ejectment Naturalization Disabilities a Safety [Health 3333 FEDERAL TAX SUITS nation Under Equal 240 Torts to Land Application Other #690 Other 870 Taxes (U. Plaintiff Access to Justice 24s Tort Product Liability 463 Hebeas Cornis? if 44 Other Civil or Defendant) 950 ConstitutiOnality of 290 All Other Real Property Allen Detainee . Rights 871 IRS-Third Party 26 State Statutes 46:1 Other Immigration USC 7609 Actions FOR ise ONLY: Case NumberE 1 ?2?9 0 4 (i i i1 AFTER COil'li?Llil'l?lTiGTHE FRONT SID OF FORM COMPLETE THE REQULSI 1.1} CV- 71 (05er i: sirEET free I of?- Case Page ID #:97 1- -.. Cir .13 IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously ?led in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? Iii/No El Yes If yes, list case number(5): RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously ?led in this court that are related to the present case? No E/Yes If yes, list case number(s): CBM (CSPX) Civil cases are deemed related if a previously ?led case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) li-IA. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or Cl B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or Cl C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or Cl D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, gm one of the facrors identi?ed above in a, or also is present. Di. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. El Check here if the government. its agencies or emplovees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked. go to item in this California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country Joann Davis- Riverside Paul Cilley - Riverside List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. Check here if the government its agencies or employees is a named defendant. If this box is checked, go to item in this DiSiTiCi3* California County outside of this District: State, if other than California; or Foreign Country List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose. Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved. County in this California County outside of this District; State, if other than California: or Foreign Country Riverside Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties Note: In land condemnation cases. use the location of the tract of land involved x. SIGNATURE or ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER): i7 Date 03/14/3013 [i .1 Notice to Counsel/Parties: The (IS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the ?ling and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3~1 is not ?led but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.) Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause ofAction 861 HIA All claims for health insurance bene?ts (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certi?cation as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. l935FF(b)) 862 BL All claims for ?Black Lung? bene?ts under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923) S63 DIWC All claims ?led by insured workers for disability insurance bene?ts under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims ?led for child?s insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) S63 DIVVW All claims ?led for widows or widowers insurance bene?ts based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) 864 88113 All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended. 865 RSI All claims l?or retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 ofthe Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 1.05303) cm" 1.: an MST Page. 2 of: