Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 1 of 19

Roy Warden, Publisher

Arizona Common Sense
6502 E. Golf Links Road #267
Tucson Arizona 85730
roywarden@hotmail.com
520 551-3496

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROY WARDEN, Case No. 4:18-cv-00096-RCC

Plaintiff, In Forma Pauperis

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF,
Vs AND DAMAGES, FOR NEG-
CHRIS MAGNUS, individual- LIGENT AND INTENTIONAL
ly and in his official capacity VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 42
U.S.C. § 1983 AND TITLE 42
as Chief of the Tucson Police U.S.C. §1985
Department; ROB BROWN,
individually and in his offi-
cial capacity as Officer of the THE HON. RANER COLLINS
Tucson Police Department;
CORY AUGERMAN, individ-
ually and in his official ca-
pacity as Officer of the Tuc-
son Police Department;
RYAN SACHS, individually
and in his official capacity
as Officer of the Tucson Po-
lice Department; ROB
BRANDT individually and in
his official capacity as SGT.
of the Tucson Police De-
partment; THE CITY OF
TUCSON; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

1
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 2 of 19

1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff Roy Warden, with his Complaint

2 for Damages, against the Defendants, named and unnamed
3 above, and as grounds therefore alleges:
4

5 I. INTRODUCTION

6 1. This is an action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of

7 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985 and 28 U.S.C.
8 § 1343, seeking redress for the negligent and inten-
9 tional deprivation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional
10 rights. Venue is proper in the 9th District of Arizona, as
11 all of the acts complained of occurred in Pima County
12 Arizona.
13 II. JURISDICTION
14 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28
15 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) for negligent and intentional viola-
16 tions of constitutional rights as provided by 42 U.S.C.
17 §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985. The Plaintiff seeks in-
18 junctive relief, declaratory relief and monetary damag-
19 es—including exemplary damages—as well as attorney
20 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
21 3. The Plaintiff seeks redress for violation of the Plaintiff’s
22 rights to speech, press, petition and assembly under
23 the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United
24 States, the Plaintiff’s right to be free of illegal seizures
25 under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of
26 the United States, the Plaintiff’s right to be free from
27 false arrest, malicious prosecution and imprisonment

2
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 3 of 19

1 as provided for by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amend-

2 ments of the Constitution of the United States, and the
3 Plaintiff’s right to due process of law as guaranteed by
4 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Consti-
5 tution of the United States.

6 III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

7 4. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

8 cedure, Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

9 IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

10 5. Plaintiff Roy Warden, community activist, writer and

11 publisher of political newsletters Common Sense II, CS
12 II Press, Arizona Common Sense and Director of the
13 Tucson Weekly Public Forum, is a citizen of the United
14 States and was a resident of Pima County Arizona at
15 all times relevant to this complaint.
16 6. Defendant Chris Magnus is employed by the City of
17 Tucson, and acted individually and in his official ca-
18 pacity as Chief of the Tucson Police Department, un-
19 der color of state law, regulations, customs and poli-
20 cies at all times relevant herein. Defendant Magnus is
21 sued in his individual and official capacities.
22 7. Defendant Officer Rob Brown is employed by the City
23 of Tucson, and acted individually and in his official
24 capacity as Tucson City Police Officer, under color of
25 state law, regulations, customs and policies at all

3
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 4 of 19

1 times relevant herein. Defendant Brown is sued in his

2 individual and official capacities.
3 8. Defendant Officer Cory Augerman is employed by the
4 City of Tucson, and acted individually and in his offi-
5 cial capacity as Tucson City Police Officer, under color
6 of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
7 times relevant herein. Defendant Augerman is sued in
8 his individual and official capacities.
9 9. Defendant Officer Ryan Sachs is employed by the City
10 of Tucson, and acted individually and in his official
11 capacity as Tucson City Police Officer, under color of
12 state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
13 times relevant herein. Defendant Sachs is sued in his
14 individual and official capacities.
15 10. Defendant Sgt. Rob Brandt is employed by the City of
16 Tucson, and acted individually and in his official ca-
17 pacity as Tucson City Police Officer, under color of
18 state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
19 times relevant herein. Defendant Brandt is sued in his
20 individual and official capacities.
21 11. Defendant City of Tucson, a municipal corporation, is
22 a unit of local government organized under the laws of
23 the State of Arizona. Municipalities “…may be sued for
24 constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to gov-
25 ernmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has
26 not received formal approval through the body’s official
27 decision-making channels.” Monell v. Department of
28 Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 691 (1978)

4
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 5 of 19

1 12. Defendant Does 1-100 are (1) individuals or members

2 of various political organizations who acted individual-
3 ly or as agents of the state, under the direction or con-
4 trol of, or acted in concert with, named or unnamed
5 Defendants, to deprive Plaintiff of rights secured by the
6 First Amendment, and (2) Tucson City employees, in-
7 cluding councilpersons, their staffs, and employees of
8 the Tucson Police Department, who acted individually,
9 and at the direction of their superiors, within their en-
10 forcement, administrative and executive capacities,
11 under color of state law, regulations, customs and pol-
12 icies at all times relevant herein. Does 1-100 are sued
13 in their individual and official capacities.

14 V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

15 13. Plaintiff is an unpaid political activist working on be-

16 half of the people of Pima County, the publisher of
17 Common Sense II, CSII Press, Arizona Common Sense
18 and the Director of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum.
19 14. Plaintiff has spent the last 12 years investigating alle-
20 gations of malfeasance within the legal and political
21 institutions of Pima County, including the malfeasance
22 of Tucson City Officials who have used their public of-
23 fices to (1) aid and abet, entice and invite, and other-
24 wise to encourage the unlawful entry of impoverished
25 Mexican citizens to supply local contractors with low
26 cost labor, (2) advance the policy of the Mexican Gov-
27 ernment to exclude their poor so they may come to

5
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 6 of 19

1 America to earn and send home remittances, and (3)

2 employ Tucson City Administrators, and staff, on the
3 basis of cronyism and not on the basis of their fitness
4 to hold public office.
5 15. On March 6, 2004 Tucson Police Officers, acting at the
6 specific direction of their superiors and pursuant to
7 well-established COT policy to chill or deter the speech
8 of opponents of COT policy1, stood idly by and refused
9 their duty to protect public safety when “Pro-Raza”
10 open border activists disrupted the Glen Spencer Ral-
11 ly, held in Presidio Park Tucson Arizona, and assault-
12 ed Kathy McKee, the author of PAN2, and other mem-
13 bers of the Protect the Border political movement.
14 16. One of the TPD officers apologized to rally attendee
15 Laura Leighton with words to the effect “I’m sorry this
16 is happening to you. But we were told to stand by and
17 not to interfere.”
18 17. On April 10, 2006, at the “Pro Raza” National Day of
19 Protest Rally held in Armory Park Tucson Arizona,
20 when Plaintiff complained to TPD Sergeant Timpf that
21 “Pro Raza” demonstrators were crowding into a circle
22 protected by “Peacekeepers,” pushing and shoving and
23 interfering with Plaintiff’s right to commit the First

1 See Gilmartin & Harris vs. City of Tucson, et.al., 4:00-cv-

00352-FRZ-CRP
2 Arizona’s original protect the border initiative, “The Arizona
Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act” (aka Proposition 200)
passed in 2004 by more than 1 million votes.

6
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 7 of 19

1 Amendment protected act of Mexican Flag Burning,

2 Sergeant Timpf, acting at the specific direction of his
3 superiors and pursuant to well-established COT policy
4 to chill or deter the speech of opponents of COT policy,
5 refused to intervene to protect public safety, and in-
6 stead responded with words to the effect, “you tried
7 very hard to be here today Mr. Warden. Let’s see how
8 long you can stay.”
9 18. Subsequently; Sergeant Timpf did assign3 officers to
10 protect Plaintiff, and public safety, when Plaintiff in-
11 formed him with words to the effect:
12 “We’re all packing heat. Those punks try to
13 knock us down, kick us in the face, drive us out
14 of the park, we will stand our ground and dis-
15 charge our firearms into their faces; put more
16 people in the ground than Wyatt Earp, make
17 what happened at the OK Corral look like a Sun-
18 day School picnic!”
19
20 19. On or about May 06, 2006, at Plaintiff’s “Protect the
21 Border” rally held in Kennedy Park Tucson Arizona,
22 TPD officers,4 acting at the specific direction of their
23 superiors and pursuant to well-established COT policy
24 to chill or deter the speech of opponents of COT policy,
25 stood idly by and refused to intervene and protect pub-
26 lic safety when Plaintiff was assaulted by a group of

3 TPD After Action Report dated May 10, 2006.

4 The TPD officers were led by TPD Sgt. Richard Anemone and
TPD Assistant Chief of Police Kathleen Robinson.

7
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 8 of 19

1 “Chicanos” led by “Pro Raza” open border activists

2 Wade Colwell and Luke Salcido.
3 20. Plaintiff has a video recording showing TPD officers
4 working in concert with Colwell and Salcido and other
5 “Pro Raza” activists, when after the assault, (which did
6 prevent Plaintiff from committing the protected act of
7 Burning the Mexican Flag), TPD Sgt. Anemone told the
8 “Pro Raza” activists with words to the effect:
9 TPD Sgt. Anemone:
10 “You did good. We have to try and outthink him
11 (Warden). If he thinks he’ll have to deal with you
12 folks then that’s a little more incentive for him to
13 stay away.”

14 Wade Colwell:
15 “Then it worked this time. And it will work next
16 time too!” (Then Colwell addressed TPD Assistant
17 Chief Kathy Robinson) “Thanks for the ‘Heads
18 Up’ Kathy!’

19 21. On or about June 6, 2006 at Plaintiff’s “Protect the

20 Border” rally held in front of the Mexican Consulate
21 Tucson Arizona,5 Plaintiff and members of his group
22 were assaulted by “Pro-Raza” activists and self-styled
23 “gangbangers6” Arturo and Alexander Rodriquez.
24 22. Rally participant Emanuel “Manny” Enriquez called
25 911, was directed to TPD Headquarters, reported the

5 In Tucson Arizona, the Mexican Consulate is located ap-

proximately 6 blocks from TPD Headquarters.
6 As described by rally participant Emanuel “Manny” En-
riquez.

8
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 9 of 19

1 assault was ongoing, and was told “officers will re-

2 spond.”
3 23. However, no officers appeared to stop the assault
4 which continued on for approximately another ½ hour
5 even though 2 TPD officers specifically assigned to the
6 rally were located approximately a block and a half
7 away as testified to at trial in CR6027286 &
8 CR6041685
9 24. Consequently; three days later, after Plaintiff ad-
10 dressed the Tucson Mayor and City Council, Plaintiff
11 was arrested outside the council chambers, charged,
12 prosecuted and convicted for alleged threats and in-
13 timidation, and assault, on the Rodriquez brothers at
14 the June 06, 2006 rally in front of the Tucson Mexican
15 Consulate.
16 25. On September 15, 2006, after a 17 day jury trial, the
17 Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Tucson Arizona en-
18 tered a verdict in favor of Kevin Gilmartin and Jack
19 Harris against TPD Chief of Police Richard Miranda,
20 other Tucson City Officials and Defendant Tucson City
21 for nearly 3 million dollars in damages, including two
22 million dollars in punitive damages, for violation of the
23 First Amendment, Conspiracy, First Amendment Re-
24 taliation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Dis-
25 tress. (see Gilmartin & Harris vs. City of Tucson, et.al.,
26 4:00-cv-00352-FRZ-CRP)
27 26. On or about March 26, 2007, TPD officers led by TPD
28 Sgt. Coleman, acting at the specific direction of their

9
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 10 of 19

1 superiors and pursuant to well-established COT policy

2 to chill or deter the speech of opponents of COT policy,
3 stood idly by and refused to intervene and protect pub-
4 lic safety when Plaintiff was spit upon and threatened
5 with gang rape as he directed the Tucson Weekly Pub-
6 lic Forum in front of the Main Tucson Public Library.
7 (see CR-7030208)
8 27. On or about February 13, 2008 TPD officers, acting at
9 the specific direction of their superiors and pursuant to
10 well-established COT policy to chill or deter the speech
11 of opponents of COT policy, stood idly by and refused
12 to intervene and protect public safety when Plaintiff
13 was assaulted by “Pro-Raza” supporter Alan Ward and
14 struck with a banner while Plaintiff directed the Tuc-
15 son Weekly Public Forum in front of the Bank of Amer-
16 ica, across the street Main Tucson Public Library.
17 28. TPD officers instead arrested Plaintiff, handcuffed him
18 and transported Plaintiff to TPD Headquarters.
19 29. Subsequently; Plaintiff applied for, received and had
20 served a “no-contact” injunction against Alan Ward
21 (see M-1041-HR-8009274)
22 30. However; on or about February 20, 2008, TPD officers,
23 acting at the specific direction of their superiors and
24 pursuant to well-established COT policy to chill or deter
25 the speech of opponents of COT policy, stood idly by
26 and refused to intervene and protect public safety
27 when Ward again assaulted Plaintiff, even though

10
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 11 of 19

1 Plaintiff informed the officers he had a “no-contact” in-

2 junction against Ward.
3 31. Instead TPD officers again arrested Plaintiff after Plain-
4 tiff was forced to defend himself against Ward’s physi-
5 cal assault. (see CR-08022995)
6 32. On February 25, 2016, acting at the specific request of
7 U.S. Marshall Richard “Dick” Tracy, Plaintiff attended
8 a U. S. District Court “heavyweight” meeting of securi-
9 ty professionals and public officials, including U.S.
10 Marshall Tracy and a U.S. Attorney, TPD Officer-
11 Defendants Brown and Augerman, etc., all of whom
12 warned Plaintiff that “Red-Necked Militia Thugs” would
13 attend and disrupt Plaintiff’s planned “Justice for La-
14 Voy” Rally on March 4, 2016, and potentially inflict
15 deadly force upon Plaintiff.
16 33. Subsequently; during the “Justice for LaVoy” rally on
17 March 4, 2016 TPD officers, acting at the specific di-
18 rection of their superiors and pursuant to well-
19 established COT policy to chill or deter the speech of
20 opponents of COT policy, stood idly by and refused to
21 intervene and protect public safety when Plaintiff was
22 assaulted by Cody Whitaker, a physically intimidating
23 ex-Marine supporter of Cliven Bundy and an advocate
24 for armed resistance to federal officers serving a war-
25 rant to seize cattle, and forced to “back down” and re-
26 treat to the street.

11
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 12 of 19

1 34. On February 22, 2018, the Court informed Plaintiff of

2 the May 1, 2017 implementation General Order 17-08
3 (the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project in the
4 District of Arizona) thus, Plaintiff contends, signaling
5 the Appellate Court’s frustration that trial judges fre-
6 quently ignore the F.R.Civ.P (Doc. 4)

7 OVI. COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

8 35. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-

9 tion contained in paragraphs 1-33 as though fully set
10 forth herein.
11 36. The Arizona Supreme Court has stated:
12 “Any question regarding infringement of First
13 Amendment rights is of the utmost gravity and
14 importance, for it goes to the heart of the natural
15 rights of citizens to impart and acquire infor-
16 mation which is necessary for the well being of a
17 free society. Since an informed public is the most
18 important of all restraints upon misgovernment,
19 (the government may not take) any… action which
20 might prevent free and general discussion of pub-
21 lic matters as seems essential to prepare the peo-
22 ple for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citi-
23 zens.” New Times Inc. v Arizona Board of Regents,
24 110 Ariz. 367, 519 P.2d 169 (1974)
25
26 37. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants violated
27 Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights as set forth below:
28 a) Defendants Brown and Augerman, when acting pur-
29 suant to well-established COT policy to chill or deter
30 the speech of opponents of COT policy, they attempt-
31 ed to chill Plaintiff’s speech at the February 25,

12
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 13 of 19

1 2016 “U.S. Marshall’s Meeting” and to deter Plaintiff

2 from the free exercise of his rights under the First
3 Amendment to conduct the Justice for LaVoy rally
4 on March 4, 2016.
5 b) Defendants Sachs and Brandt on March 4, 2016
6 when, acting pursuant to well established COT policy
7 to chill or deter the speech of opponents of COT poli-
8 cy, they stood idly by and refused to intervene to
9 protect public safety at the March 4, 2016 Justice
10 for LaVoy Rally when Plaintiff was assaulted by Co-
11 dy Whitaker.
12 38. The actions taken by Defendants Brown, Augerman,
13 Sachs and Brandt, and others who have not yet been
14 identified, were the proximate cause of harm done to
15 Plaintiff.

16 VII. COUNT TWO: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION

17 39. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-

18 tion contained in paragraphs 1-38 as though fully set
19 forth herein.
20 40. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants met,
21 came to an agreement and acted in concert for the
22 purpose of retaliating against Plaintiff for his ten year
23 challenge to COT “Pro-Raza, Open Border Policy as set
24 forth below:
25 a) Defendants Brown and Augerman, when, acting
26 pursuant to well-established COT policy to retaliate

13
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 14 of 19

1 against opponents of COT policy, when they at-

2 tempted to chill Plaintiff’s speech at the February
3 25, 2016 “U.S. Marshall’s Meeting” and to deter
4 Plaintiff from the free exercise of his rights under
5 the First Amendment to conduct the Justice for La-
6 Voy rally on March 4, 2016.
7 b) Defendants Sachs and Brandt on March 4, 2016
8 when, acting pursuant to well established COT policy
9 to retaliate against opponents of COT policy, they
10 stood idly by and refused to intervene to protect
11 public safety at the March 4, 2016 Justice for La-
12 Voy Rally when Plaintiff was assaulted by Cody
13 Whitaker;
14 41. The actions taken by Defendants Brown, Augerman,
15 Sachs and Brandt, and others who have not yet been
16 identified, were the proximate cause of harm done to
17 Plaintiff.
18 VIII. COUNT THREE: CONSPIRACY
19 42. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-
20 tion contained in paragraphs 1-40 as though fully set
21 forth herein.
22 43. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants met,
23 came to an agreement and acted in concert for the
24 purpose of denying Plaintiff his rights under the First
25 Amendment as set forth below:
26 a) Defendants Brown, Augerman, and Magnus when
27 acting pursuant to well-established COT policy to
28 chill or deter the speech of opponents of COT policy,

14
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 15 of 19

1 they met with other COT employees and formulated

2 a plan to deter Plaintiff’s speech at the February 25,
3 2016 U. S. Marshall’s meeting;
4 b) Defendants Sachs, Brandt, and Magnus on or
5 about March 4, 2016 when, acting pursuant to well
6 established COT policy to chill or deter the speech of
7 opponents of COT policy, they met with other TPD
8 officers and formulated a plan to deter Plaintiff’s
9 speech at the March 4, 2016 Justice for LaVoy Ral-
10 ly;
11 44. The actions taken by Defendants Magnus, Brown, Au-
12 german, Sachs and Brandt, and others who have not
13 yet been identified, were the proximate cause of harm
14 done to Plaintiff.
15 IX. COUNT FOUR: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
16 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17
18 45. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-
19 tion contained in paragraphs 1-43 as though fully set
20 forth herein.
21 46. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants engaged
22 in unlawful conduct for the purpose of denying Plain-
23 tiff his right to free speech, knowing that such denial
24 of rights would (1) diminish Plaintiff’s stature within
25 the community, (2) inhibit Plaintiff’s opportunity for
26 employment as an Arizona Certified Legal Document
27 Preparer, (3) cause dissention within Plaintiff’s house-
28 hold, and (4) cause Plaintiff to suffer significant emo-
29 tional harm, as set forth below:

15
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 16 of 19

1 a) Defendants Brown and Augerman, when acting pur-

2 suant to well-established COT policy to chill or deter
3 the speech of opponents of COT policy, they (1) met
4 with Defendant Magnus and other TPD superiors
5 and formulated a plan to deter Plaintiff’s speech at
6 the February 25, 2016 U. S. Marshall’s meeting and
7 (2) attempted to chill Plaintiff’s speech at the Feb-
8 ruary 25, 2016 “U.S. Marshall’s Meeting” and deter
9 Plaintiff from the free exercise of his rights under
10 the First Amendment to conduct the Justice for La-
11 Voy rally on March 4, 2016.
12 b) Defendants Sachs and Brandt on March 4, 2016
13 when, acting pursuant to well established COT policy
14 to retaliate against opponents, they (1) met with De-
15 fendant Magnus and other TPD superiors and for-
16 mulated a plan to deter Plaintiff’s speech at the
17 March 4, 2016 Justice for LaVoy Rally and (2) act-
18 ing pursuant to a plan made with Defendant Mag-
19 nus and other TPD superiors, stood idly by and re-
20 fused to intervene to protect public safety at the
21 March 4, 2016 Justice for LaVoy Rally when Plain-
22 tiff was assaulted by Cody Whitaker;
23 47. The actions taken by Defendants Magnus, Brown, Au-
24 german, Sachs and Brandt, and others who have not
25 yet been identified, were the proximate cause of harm
26 done to Plaintiff.
27

28

16
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 17 of 19

1 X. CONCLUSION
2 In America on Trial Alan Dershowitz, in analyzing Walker v
3 Birmingham, 87 S.Ct. 1824, explained that in the sixties, the
4 entire system of justice in the southern states was “commit-
5 ted in theory to free speech and equal rights for all, but in
6 practice used the police and the courts to silence the voice
7 of political opponents.” (emphasis added)
8 Petitioner, who has endured 14 arrests and seven separate
9 criminal prosecutions arising out of legitimate street protest
10 and his excoriation of public officials engaged in the promul-
11 gation of Open Border Policy, and Cronyism, earnestly be-
12 lieves the same conditions of oppression exist in Arizona to-
13 day.
14 For nearly a century the Federal Courts have energetically
15 protected the expressive rights of those who exist on the
16 fringes of American society—Communists, Nazis, Klansmen
17 and Hells Angels—with the following rationale: “If we don’t
18 protect the rights of the minority among us, someday the gov-
19 ernment will step in and deny these rights to the rest of us.”
20 In Whitney v People of the State of California, 47 S.Ct. 648,
21 649 the Supreme Court wrote eloquently on the issue of free
22 speech:
23 “Those who won our independence by revolution
24 were not cowards. They did not fear political
25 change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liber-
26 ty. They believed liberty to be the secret of happi-
27 ness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They
28 believed that freedom to think as you will and to
29 speak as you think are means indispensable to the
30 discovery and spread of political truth; that without

17
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 18 of 19

1 free speech and assembly discussion would be fu-

2 tile;…that the greatest menace to freedom is an in-
3 ert people; that public discussion is a political duty;
4 and that this should be a fundamental principle of
5 the American government.”
6
7 “They recognized…that repression breeds hate; that
8 hate menaces stable government…They eschewed
9 silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its
10 worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of
11 governing majorities, they amended the Constitu-
12 tion so that free speech and assembly should be
13 guaranteed.”

14 Moreover;

15 “(A)s Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v Ore-

16 gon, 299 US 353, 365, 260, it is only through free
17 debate and free exchange of ideas that government
18 remains responsive to the will of the people and
19 peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely
20 and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is
21 therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us
22 apart from totalitarian regimes.” Terminiello v City of
23 Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).
24
25 The long-feared day of totalitarianism and blatant disre-
26 gard for the right of free political expression has finally come
27 to Tucson Arizona.
28 Defendants’ long term custom, practice and usage of the
29 Tucson Police Department to (1) silence the voice of political
30 dissent, whether that dissent takes place in the streets of
31 Tucson or before the Mayor and Council, and (2) protect local
32 government officials from public criticism, is taken directly
33 from Hitler’s play-book.

18
 Case 4:18-cv-00096-RCC Document 14 Filed 05/01/18 Page 19 of 19

1 Our Founding Fathers established the Courts for perilous

2 and revolutionary times such as these. During the great Civil
3 Rights era, the Courts protected the rights of the American
4 people so they could organize, assemble and accomplish what
5 in effect was a peaceful revolution. Plaintiff earnestly prays
6 this Court will do no less now.
7

8 XI. PRAYER

9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

10 A. Direct the Tucson Police Department to instruct their
11 officers of their legal duty to protect members of the
12 public while they are lawfully engaged in the free ex-
13 ercise of their constitutional rights;
14 B. Provide Plaintiff with just compensation for COT em-
15 ployment of policy intended to deter, chill, or retaliate
16 against Plaintiff for the exercise of his constitutional
17 rights;
18 C. Assess punitive damages against Defendants in their
19 individual capacities to deter them and other public
20 officials from engaging in similar misconduct; and
21 D. Provide such additional relief the Court deems prop-
22 er.

23 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this first day of May, 2018.

24

25 BY /s/ Roy Warden

19