Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sheriff Deputies

Author
Theprophetessglynis
Cranky
  • Total Posts : 104
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/16 21:47:26
  • Status: offline
2006/12/02 14:23:46 (permalink)

Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sheriff Deputies

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
 PENSACOLA DIVISION
 
ORLANDO BETHEL and GLYNIS        
BETHEL individually, and ORLANDO
BETHEL and GLYNIS BETHEL as
Next friends of minor children ZOE BETHEL,
KEZIA BETHEL and ZION BETHEL
                      Plaintiffs,
   Case No.:
                                                                           Violation Date: September 29, 2005
Demand for Jury (7th Amendment) Claim as to All Counts
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA;
RON McNESBY, in his individual and      
official capacity as Sheriff for Escambia
Sheriff’s Office and Escambia County;
JOEL MOONEYHAM, in his individual
and official capacity as a Spokesman     
for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and Escambia
County; KRYSTAL JEFFCOAT, in her
individual and official capacity as a deputy
sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and
Escambia County; RICHARD GOODWIN,
in his individual and official capacity as a
deputy sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office
and Escambia County; RONALD BUSBEE,
in his individual and official capacity as a
deputy sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office
and Escambia County; BUTCH LEWIS,
in his individual and official capacity as a
deputy sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office
and Escambia County; REGINALD BRUSTER,
in his individual and official capacity as a
deputy sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office
and Escambia County; KEITH SNUFFIN,
(Parties Continued)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in his individual and official capacity as a
deputy sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office
and Escambia County ;IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY
FLORIDA; JUDGE JOYCE WILLIAMS
in her individual and official capacity as Judge
in the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County;
JUDGE TERRY TERRELL in his individual
and official capacity as Judge in the Circuit Court
in and for Escambia County; STATE ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA; WILLIAM EDDINS in his individual
and official capacity as the State Attorney
for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida in for
Escambia County; GREG MARCILLE in his
individual and official capacity as the Assistant
State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida
in for Escambia County; TOM BERRIGAN in his
individual and official capacity as the Assistant
State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida
in for Escambia County; SUZIE JEFFERY in her
individual and official capacity as the Assistant
State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida
in for Escambia County; PRESIDENT GEORGE
W. BUSH in his individual and official capacity as the
President of the United States; GOVERNER
CHARLIE CRIST in his individual and official
capacity as the Governor of the State of Florida;
ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL MCCULLOM
in his individual and official capacity as the
Attorney General of the State of Florida;
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FIRST
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA;
PUBLIC DEFENDER JACK BEHR in his individual
and official capacity as the Public Defender for the
Office of the Public Defender First Judicial Circuit of
Florida; ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
CHRIS ROSS in his individual and official capacity
as the Assistant Public Defender for the Office of the
Public Defender First Judicial Circuit of Florida;
            Defendants.
____________________________________/
 
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
                                                                       
INTRODUCTION
1.              COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel and next friends of minor children Zoe Bethel, Kezia Bethel and Zion Bethel, and respectfully requests this Court to issue Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages.  In support thereof the malicious prosecution and denial of civil rights and Constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and all of the Defendants named in this Complaint in the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County Criminal Division as a result of the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their Constitutional rights and sincerely held religious beliefs to go into the “highways and hedges” and to “go into all of the world to preach the gospel to every creature” and to train up their children in street evangelism and in advocating civil rights and Constitutional rights and redress of grievances of government through Religious protests in Escambia County, Florida and the United States against applicable Defendants;
2.              The Plaintiffs are praying for injunctive relief from the actions of all Defendants in conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights which includes injunctive relief against judges and state in which there is no immunity against injunctive relief which is also available against the prosecuting attorney;
3.              There is a conflict of interest between the Plaintiffs and the state attorney’s office in attempting to maliciously prosecute the Plaintiffs in retaliation for their exercise of their constitutional rights to the public streets of Escambia County in which no probable cause exists beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prosecute the Plaintiffs on false charges in conspiracy from the Escambia Sheriff’s Office (IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION State of Florida, Plaintiff Vs. Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel Defendants);     CASE NO:      2005-CF-005355A and1705-CF-005355B;
4.              There is a conflict of interest between the Plaintiffs and the public defender’s office in attempting to assist in the maliciously prosecution of the Plaintiffs in retaliation for their exercise of their constitutional rights to the public streets of Escambia County and the public defender’s office refusal to provide effective assistance of counsel in the protection of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and constitutional defenses fro the false and malicious charges and the denial of the public defender to preserve the record with the Plaintiffs’ constitutional issues violations for appeal;
5.              There is a conflict of interest between the Plaintiffs and the Judge Joyce Williams who denied Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to access to a public street in attempting to assist, in conspiracy, in the maliciously prosecution of the Plaintiffs in retaliation for their exercise of their constitutional rights to the public streets of Escambia County in which no probable cause existence or have been established for the false arrest, imprisonment and the kidnap of the Plaintiffs’ three children by the Deputy Sheriffs of the Escambia Sheriff’s Office;
6.              There is a conflict of interest between the Plaintiffs and the Judge Terry Terrell who denied Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to access to a public street in attempting to assist in the maliciously prosecution of the Plaintiffs in retaliation for their exercise of their constitutional rights to the public streets of Escambia County in which no probable cause existence or have been established for the false arrest, imprisonment and the kidnap of the Plaintiffs’ three children by the Deputy Sheriffs of the Escambia Sheriff’s Office. The Judge Terry Terrell has also denied the Plaintiffs the right to have a speedy trial and the right to a dismissal as a result of the violation of the right to a speedy trial. The Judge Terry Terrell has also denied the Plaintiffs the rights to confront their witnesses and has attempted to force the Plaintiffs into a trial without the Plaintiffs due process of law and equal protection of the laws;
7.              All applicable (directly or indirectly) Defendants conspired to deprive and deprived (directly or indirectly) the Plaintiffs of their rights protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States as follows:
8.              False arrest;
9.              Detention and Confinement;
10.          Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights by all Defendants;
11.          Refusing or Neglecting to Prevent;
12.          Malicious Prosecution;
13.          Malicious Abuse of Process;
14.          Violation of Florida Civil Rights Act;
15.          False Arrest and Imprisonment;
16.          Assault;
17.          Battery;
18.          Conspiracy;
19.          Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
20.          Negligence;
21.          Willful and Knowingly Violation of Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiffs by the Defendants;
Plaintiffs Show Unto the Court as Follows
brief Statement of Facts
INCLUDING COUNTS:
 
22.          This is a civil action whereby Plaintiffs seek Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages enjoining all Defendants, their agents, servants and employees and those acting in active concert and with actual notice thereof (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as “Defendants”), from enforcing 94-131 through 94-132, (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as “Ordinance”) against Plaintiffs and maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiffs for exercising their constitutional rights while on the public property in Escambia County, Florida in violation of the applicable First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,  from requiring Plaintiffs to:
23.          Wear a “vest” before interacting and communicating with motorist on the public street of Escambia County;
24.          Obtaining a “permit” before exercising their right to free speech on a public right of way;
25.          Acting in such a manner as to violate Plaintiffs’ rights to Freedom of Speech, Free Exercise of Religion and Equal Protection, guaranteed under the First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
26.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, on its face and of Defendants’ actions in denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to exercise his rights and to declare Defendants’ Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, both on its face and as applied, unconstitutional as a direct violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and a violation of the freedoms protected by the First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and for an award of such damages as are directly and proximately caused by the Defendants’ violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights;
27.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ actions in constantly requiring the Plaintiffs to have a “permit” in order to conduct their Religious demonstrations on its face and of Defendants’ actions in denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to exercise his rights and to declare Defendants’ Ordinance, both on its face and as applied, unconstitutional as a direct violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and a violation of the freedoms protected by the First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
28.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, combined use of the state statute Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(3)(a); Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Sections 827.03(3)(C); and Child Abuse Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(1)(c) on its face and as applied of Defendants’ actions in denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to exercise their rights to the public streets and to declare Defendants’ Ordinance combined use of the state statute Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, combined use of the state statute Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(3)(a); Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Sections 827.03(3)(C); and Child Abuse Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(1)(c) both on its face and as applied, unconstitutional as a direct violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and a violation of the freedoms protected by the First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and for an award of such damages as are directly and proximately caused by the Defendants’ violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights in violation of the applicable First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 
29.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, combined use of the state statute Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(3)(a); Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Sections 827.03(3)(C); and Child Abuse Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(1)(c) on its face and as applied to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants’ actions in denying the Plaintiffs and their children Plaintiffs Zoe Bethel, Kezia Bethel and Zion Bethel (“next friends”) equal access to the public streets and public property on Pace and Massachusetts Streets in Escambia County the opportunity to exercise their rights and to declare Defendants’ Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, combined use of the state statute Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(3)(a); Child Neglect Without Great Bodily Harm Sections 827.03(3)(C); and Child Abuse Florida Statutes (F3-L6) Sections 827.03(1)(c) both on its face and as applied to the Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected activities (i.e. street evangelism, distributing free Religious literature to motorist, sign holding, mega-phone preaching, and communicating with motorist), unconstitutional as a direct violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and a violation of the freedoms protected by the First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and for an award of such damages as are directly and proximately caused by the Defendants’ violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights;
30.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of forcing counsel upon the Plaintiffs first without the Plaintiffs’ consent when the Plaintiffs notified the Courts at the outset of the “probable cause” hearing that the Plaintiffs would be “self-represented” on a form given to the jail clerk. The forcing the Plaintiffs to an unconstitutional “Faretta” hearing in violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to a “speedy trial” and the right to have the counsel of their choice in violation of the Sixth (6th Amendment). The Plaintiffs freedom of speech, Religion were violated when the Plaintiffs were given a verbal questionnaire type interrogation and questioning of the Plaintiffs which was a deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech by the state Court judge who coerced (and/or attempted coercion) the Plaintiffs to confess at a “Faretta” hearing that an attorney-at-law would be the best person to represent the Plaintiffs and that the attorney-at-law would put forth the best effort and expertise in representing the Plaintiffs in which the Plaintiffs do not agree. The Plaintiffs were subjected to humiliation, embarrassment and anguish when they were refused the right to represent themselves in Court in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
31.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of forcing counsel upon the Plaintiffs first without the Plaintiffs consent and forcing the Plaintiffs to a “Faretta” hearing in violation of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights to a “speedy trial” and the right to have the counsel of their choice in violation of the Sixth (6th Amendment) and violation of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
32.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of forcing ineffective counsel by the Public Defender’s office who refuses to represent the Plaintiffs in a entrapment type defense utilizing the Constitution against the corruption of the Deputy Sheriffs of Escambia County including the Sheriff Ron McNesby in conspiracy and retaliation  against the Plaintiffs’ public protest against the ESO in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
33.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the Circuit Court denying the Plaintiffs dismissal on probable cause hearing and motion to dismiss based on the facts the “Child Neglect…” “Child Abuse” statutes don’t apply to the facts or truth of the Plaintiffs case and Plaintiffs pray this Court would determine the constitutionality of the State Attorney’s Office’s “transverse” in denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss on protected constitutional activities;
34.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of denying the Plaintiffs’ “property, without due process of law” and without a Seize/Release property release form first given to the Plaintiffs when the Defendants illegally seized the Plaintiffs personal property in violation of the, Fourth, Fifth Fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process and equal protection of the laws;
35.          The Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the State Attorney’s office attempting to prosecute the Plaintiffs by use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest in violation f the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Peaceable Assembly in violation of the First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violation of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment due process and equal protection of the laws;
36.          The Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the State Attorney’s office attempting to prosecute the Plaintiffs by use of evidence obtained pursuant to not only an unlawful arrest in violation the Plaintiffs First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, but also in violation of use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure by the Defendants Krystal Jeffcoat (i.e: “property, without due process of law” and without a Seize/Release property form given to the Plaintiffs when the Defendants illegally stole the Plaintiffs personal property, including video taped evidence in violation of the Fifth, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection of the laws) and of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
37.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of refusing (i.e: Court, SAO, and Public Defender) to accept motions, documents filed by the Plaintiffs as Attorney Pro Se in the Plaintiffs’ record in the criminal court filed by the Plaintiff based on the ineffective assistance of counsel of the public defender’s office who refused to preserve constitutional issues on behalf of the Plaintiffs for appeals in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
38.           Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of denying the Plaintiffs the right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him” in which the Plaintiffs were denied the right to confront Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat, the sole arresting officer and the one who completed the “offense report,” by the Public Defender Chris Ross or Defendants in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Public Defender Chris Ross refused to depose Defendant Krystal Jeffcoat and as a result the trial was delayed and the Plaintiffs had to request a Court’s “order” to have Krystal Jeffcoat deposed which prolonged the Plaintiffs rights to a “speedy trial” thus denying the Plaintiffs a “speedy trial” in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The denial of the Public Defender to depose Krystal Jeffcoat is also unconstitutional and the proof of ineffective assistance of counsel in violations of due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
39.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of denying the Plaintiffs the right to be “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” in which the Plaintiffs submitted a “witness” list timely to the criminal Court and the list was not only rejected, but the Plaintiffs were banned from having a compulsory process for obtaining their witnesses in their favor by the Court Judge Terry Terrell and the Public Defender  Chris Ross when both denied the Plaintiffs a right to subpoena Defendant Ron McNesby and Defendant Joel Mooneyham, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth (14th) Amendments due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
40.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the lower Court and the Public Defender’s Office is currently depriving the Plaintiffs their constitutional rights to “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” and are attempting to force the Plaintiffs to chose either a “bench” or a “jury” trial without the Plaintiffs’ witnesses in their favor (i.e.: corrupt Sheriff Ron McNesby and handicapped by GOD former Spokesman Joel Mooneyham [Psalm 37]) in due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
41.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the Public Defender’s Office not protecting the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs, but forcing them to admit to false criminal charges against themselves (self-incrimination) instead of a defense of entrapment or violation of the Constitutional issues against the Plaintiffs in violation of the due process and equal protection of the laws in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
42.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the State Attorney’s Office refusing to produce the Plaintiffs’ video taped evidence of the Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat requesting that the Plaintiffs have a “permit” in order to conduct their demonstration not protecting the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs by the “unconstitutional failure of the prosecution to disclose to the defendant evidence favorable to the Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel and their children in in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
43.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the Court Judge Terry Terrell and the Public Defender Chris Ross denying the Plaintiffs the right of appeal by denying the Plaintiffs’ timely filed objections, motions, notices, and constitutional issues in order to preserve their appeals in violation of in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
44.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the Court Judge Terry Terrell and the Public Defender Chris Ross denying the Plaintiffs the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
45.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the Court Judge Terry Terrell and the Public Defender Chris Ross denying the Plaintiffs the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments and refusing to replace the Public Defender Chris Ross with one competent in Constitutional issues;
46.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the Court Judge Terry Terrell and the Public Defender Chris Ross denying the Plaintiffs the right to represent themselves as attorney pro se in criminal court and to have the additional assistance of counsel in order to assist them in self-representation with their defense and denying the Plaintiffs of this right of assistance of counsel in violation of the in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
47.          Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice of the Court Judge Terry Terrell and the Public Defender Chris Ross denying the Plaintiffs the right to the “waiver of counsel” due to the current lack of effective assistance of counsel without having to appear for another “Faretta Hearing” in violation of the in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments and refusing to replace the Public Defender Chris Ross with one competent in Constitutional issues for a trial not yet scheduled by the Court;
48.           Plaintiffs pray for Declaratory Judgment to determine the constitutionality of Defendants’ custom and practice and ordinance combined use of the state statute on its face and as applied of Defendants’ actions in denying Plaintiffs Zoe Bethel, Kezia Bethel and Zion Bethel (“next friends”) equal access to the public streets and public property on Pace and Massachusetts Streets in Escambia County the opportunity to exercise their rights and to declare Defendants’ Ordinance combined use of the state statute (i.e.: Child Neglect Without Great Harm and Child Abuse), both on its face and as applied to the Plaintiffs, unconstitutional as a direct violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and a violation of the freedoms protected by the in violation of the applicable 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments;
49.          Plaintiffs further pray for all counts and for an award of such damages as are directly and proximately caused by the Defendants’ violations of the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional and civil rights.
50.          An actual controversy exists between all of the parties involving substantial CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, in that Defendants’ Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, violates Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, equal protection and free exercise of religion guaranteed under the First. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
51.          This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §12983;
52.          This Court has jurisdiction of this claim under, and by virtue of, 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 2201-02.
53.          Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §13291 (b).  Each and all of the acts alleged herein were done by Defendants, and each of them, not as individuals, but under the color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and uses of Escambia County.
54.          This Court is authorized to grant Declaratory Judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 implemented through Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to issue the Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief requested by Plaintiff under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Procedure;
55.          This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiff’s prayer for relief regarding costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee (if ever applicable), under 42 U.S.C. §12988 and this Court is asked to assign the all the Plaintiffs a constitutional attorney to protect the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and their children (i.e.: “next friends”);
56.          28 USC 1441 AND 28 USC 1443(1) AND 28 USC 1443(2);
57.          This action arises under, 42 U.S.C. §12985(3) because the Defendants acted in concert in a conspiracy to willfully and knowingly violate Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;
58.          Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. secs 1331, 1337, 1343(a), and 1367(a); 42 U.S.C. secs. 12983, 12985, and 12986;
59.          18 U.S.C. 12961-12968;
60.          Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set forth;
61.          This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. §14141 and a private right of action under (Title VI) and under the OJP Program Statute; because the Plaintiffs have first exhausted their administrative remedies by filing a complaint with both the Department of Justice and through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
62.          This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 18 and 42 U.S.C. §2000d7;
63.          This Court has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, over this action because it includes federal questions and/or seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom and/or usage rights, privileges and/or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and Federal law, which provides for equal rights of citizens and others, including the Plaintiff, within the jurisdiction of the United States;
64.          This Court has authority to declare the rights and legal relations of the parties, pursuant 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202, because this is a case of actual controversy within this Court’s jurisdiction. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 13291 (b)(1) and (2). Each and all of the acts alleged herein were committed by Defendants, within the territorial limits of this Court;
65.          This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. §14141 based on the officers violations against the Plaintiffs of 18 U.S.C. §241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. §14141 and a private right of action under (Title VI) and under the OJP Program Statute 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 37829d(c), because the Plaintiffs have first exhausted their administrative remedies by filing a complaint with both the FBI and the Department of Justice;
66.          Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §1331. Jurisdiction is premised upon the existence of federal questions and deprivation of federally protected civil rights; This Court further has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1443 because the Plaintiffs who are considered to be African Americans were denied free access to public facilities;
67.          The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and claims under the Florida Constitution Religious Freedom Amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367;
PARTIES
68.          The Plaintiff Orlando Bethel, street preacher by profession, is a natural person and a Christian who ministers the gospel of JESUS CHRIST on public property in Escambia County, Florida and a citizen who is a resident of Escambia County, Florida. Plaintiff at all times relevant to this action, resided and continues to reside at 12724D Hwy 290 Escambia County, Florida 36551; Phone/Fax: 251-2964-292955;
69.          The Plaintiff Glynis Bethel, street preacher, is a natural person and a Christian who ministers the gospel of JESUS CHRIST on public property in Escambia County, Florida and a citizen who is a resident of Escambia County, Florida. Plaintiff at all times relevant to this action, resided and continues to reside at 12724D Hwy 290 Escambia County, Florida 36551; Phone/Fax: 251-2964-292955;
70.          The Plaintiff Zoe Bethel, the daughter of Orlando and Glynis Bethel,  is a natural person and a Christian who ministers the gospel of JESUS CHRIST on public property in Escambia County, Florida and a citizen who is a resident of Escambia County, Florida. Plaintiff at all times relevant to this action, resided and continues to reside at 12724D Hwy 290 Escambia County, Florida 36551; Phone/Fax: 251-2964-292955;
71.          The Plaintiff Kezia Bethel, the daughter of Orlando and Glynis Bethel,  is a natural person and a Christian who ministers the gospel of JESUS CHRIST on public property in Escambia County, Florida and a citizen who is a resident of Escambia County, Florida. Plaintiff at all times relevant to this action, resided and continues to reside at 12724D Hwy 290 Escambia County, Florida 36551; Phone/Fax: 251-2964-292955;
72.          The Plaintiff Zion Bethel, the son of Orlando and Glynis Bethel,  is a natural person and a Christian who ministers the gospel of JESUS CHRIST on public property in Escambia County, Florida and a citizen who is a resident of Escambia County, Florida. Plaintiff at all times relevant to this action, resided and continues to reside at 12724D Hwy 290 Escambia County, Florida 36551; Phone/Fax: 251-2964-292955;
73.          Defendant, Escambia County (hereinafter “County”), is a public body corporate and politic established, organized, and authorized under and pursuant to the laws of Florida, with the authority to sue and be sued, and was at all times relevant herein, operating within the course and scope of its authority and under color of state law;
74.          Defendant Ron McNesby (hereinafter “Sheriff”) is and was at all times relevant herein the Sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Sheriff for Escambia County, Florida at the address of 1700 W. Leonard, Pensacola, Florida 32501; Phone 850-436-29515;
75.          Defendant Joel Mooneyham is and was at all times relevant herein a former Spokesman for the Escambia Sheriff’s Office of Escambia County, Florida, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a Spokesman for the Escambia Sheriff’s Office in the Escambia County, Florida for the date of on or about September 29 or 30 2005 was featured in a news broadcast from WEAR TV3;
76.          Defendant Krystal Jeffcoat is and was at all times relevant herein the Deputy Sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the course and scope of her employment as Deputy Sheriff for Escambia County, Florida at the address of 1700 W. Leonard, Pensacola, Florida 32501; Phone 850-436-29515;
77.          Defendant Richard Goodwin is and was at all times relevant herein the Deputy Sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Deputy Sheriff for Escambia County, Florida at the address of 1700 W. Leonard, Pensacola, Florida 32501; Phone 850-436-29515;
78.          Defendant Ronald Busbee is and was at all times relevant herein the Deputy Sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Deputy Sheriff for Escambia County, Florida at the address of 1700 W. Leonard, Pensacola, Florida 32501; Phone 850-436-29515;
79.          Defendant Butch Lewis is and was at all times relevant herein the Deputy Sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Deputy Sheriff for Escambia County, Florida at the address of 1700 W. Leonard, Pensacola, Florida 32501; Phone 850-436-29515;
80.          Defendant Reginald Bruster is and was at all times relevant herein the Deputy Sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Deputy Sheriff for Escambia County, Florida at the address of 1700 W. Leonard, Pensacola, Florida 32501; Phone 850-436-29515;
81.          Defendant Keith Snuffin is and was at all times relevant herein the Deputy Sheriff for Escambia Sheriff’s Office and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Deputy Sheriff for Escambia County, Florida at the address of 1700 W. Leonard, Pensacola, Florida 32501; Phone 850-436-29515;
82.          Defendant Judge Joyce Williams is and was at all times relevant herein the Judge for In the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County Florida and was acting within the course and scope of her employment as Judge for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-;
83.           Defendant Judge Terry Terrell is and was at all times relevant herein the Judge for In the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County Florida and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Judge for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-;
84.          Defendant STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA is a public body corporate and politic established, organized, and authorized under and pursuant to the laws of Florida, with the authority to sue and be sued, and was at all times relevant herein, operating within the course and scope of its authority and under color of state law at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4200;
85.          Defendant William Eddins is and was at all times relevant herein the State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Escambia County and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as State Attorney for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4200;
86.          Defendant Greg Marcille is and was at all times relevant herein the Assistant State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Escambia County and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Assistant State Attorney for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4200;
87.          Defendant Tom Berrigan is and was at all times relevant herein the Assistant State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Escambia County and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Assistant State Attorney for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4200;
88.          Defendant Suzie Jeffery is and was at all times relevant herein the Assistant State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Escambia County and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as Assistant State Attorney for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4200;
89.          Defendant President George W. Bush is and was at all times relevant herein the president of the United States at the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500; Phone; 202-456-1414;
90.          Defendant Governor Charlie Crist is and was at all times relevant herein the governor of the State of Florida at the address of The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida   3232929-0001 850-488-4441;
91.          Defendant Attorney General Bill McCullom is and was at all times relevant herein the as the attorney general of the state of Florida at the address Office of Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 3232929-1050 850-414-3300;
92.          Defendant Office of the Public Defender First Judicial Circuit of Florida is a public body corporate and politic established, organized, and authorized under and pursuant to the laws of Florida, with the authority to sue and be sued, and was at all times relevant herein, operating within the course and scope of its authority and under color of state law at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4100;
93.          Defendant Jack Behr is and was at all times relevant herein the Public Defender for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Escambia County and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as the Public Defender for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4100;
94.          Defendant Chris Ross is and was at all times relevant herein the Assistant Public Defender for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Escambia County and was acting within the course and scope of his employment as the Assistant Public Defender for Escambia County, Florida circuit court at the address of 1290 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32502; Phone 850-5295-4100 Extension: #2429;
95.          Plaintiff sues all public employees in their official and individual capacities;
STATEMENT OF FACTS
96.          Plaintiffs have religious beliefs to share their faith by verbal means and by written means, including holding up signs with Religious messages because the Plaintiffs are obeying GOD and their HOLY BIBLE (King James Version) which states that the Plaintiffs are to personally go into all of the world to preach the gospel to EVERY creature (according to Mark Chapter 16 Verse 15);
97.          The Plaintiffs have three children who at that time were ages: Zoe Bethel, 11-years-old; Kezia Bethel, 29-years-old; and Zion Bethel, 7-years-old and the children, whose parents train their children to preach the gospel in all the world to every creature in the “highway and byways,” (i.e.: public property, etc.) were with their parents on the public property helping to distribute free literature to motorist at a stop sign;
98.          Plaintiffs are Christians with sincerely-held religious beliefs to share their faith through street preaching and street evangelizing;
99.          Plaintiffs have religious beliefs to share their faith by verbal means and by written means, including holding up signs with religious messages;
100.      From time to time Plaintiffs share their faith by holding signs that contain religious messages on public right-of-ways, including streets, sidewalks and other public right-of-ways;
101.      From time to time, Plaintiffs share their faith by preaching and evangelizing to people they meet on the street, sidewalks, and other public right-of-ways;
102.      Plaintiffs have in the past, and will in the future, exercise their right to free speech by holding signs on the public right of ways in the Escambia County;
103.      Plaintiffs have in the past, and will in the future, exercise their right to free speech by preaching and evangelizing to people they meet on public streets, sidewalks, and other public right-of-ways in the County;
104.      Escambia County Ordinance establishes a requirement to wear an “vest” prior to communicating to “motorist” for the Plaintiffs’ to conduct their public Religious demonstrations which includes passing out free Religious literature to motorist and standing on the public street or the public sidewalk or right of way while other pedestrians including their children are able to move about freely without a “vest” requirement. See Escambia County Ordinances 94-131 through 94-132, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”;
105.      Prior to engaging in any type of public Religious demonstration or interacting or communicating with “motorist” in the Escambia County on the street, right-of-way or sidewalk, a select few persons must first purchase an “orange,” “yellow,” or “red” rests, obtained from a private store or business such as a Home Depot or Lowe’s store, etc. ( See “Article III. Pedestrian Safety” attached hereto as Exhibit “B”);
106.      According to the “Article III. Pedestrian Safety” the person or group to wear the “vests” is left to the discretion of the law enforcement officer at his very own predilection which entails the person being scrutinized as to the reason for their presence on the public street, sidewalk, right-of-way or median;
107.      If a person, in which the law enforcement officer discriminates should have on a “vest” does not have on this “vest,” then this person must disclose to the law enforcement officer the reason or purpose for not wearing the “vest”;
108.      A person or “pedestrian” cannot engage in a conversation or “roadside communications” with a motorist or a public Religious demonstration without first obtaining a “vest”.
109.      According to the “Article II. Pedestrian Safety,” there is no age limit to who may interact for “roadside communications with motorists by pedestrians”;
110.      According to the “Article II. Pedestrian Safety,” any and all “communications” or speech is banned if the person or “pedestrian” does not have on a “vest” and there is no right to speak to motorist if the “vest” is not worn;
111.      The Defendants who are legalistic to their religious beliefs in the Holy Bible (King James Version) conduct is motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that God (the Father, Son [Jesus] and the Holy Spirit) has placed a command upon them personally to preach their religion in all the “world” to EVERY “creature” in the “streets” and “highways” (i.e. public property);
112.      The Defendants who are Spirit filled Christians, belief and peaceful conduct is a motivated belief, which is religious in nature (Christianity);
113.      To the contrary, the State regulations for child neglect and child abuse (i.e. statute and ordinance) imposes a burden on the religious exercise of such belief and conduct of the Plaintiffs;
114.      There is no compelling State interest to justify the burden imposed upon the Plaintiffs’ belief or conduct which would include the Plaintiffs religious beliefs of supervising their children while training their children in street evangelism on the public streets (right of way) to distribute religious free literature to motorist at a stop light being restricted by the Defendants to remain positioned on the sidewalk and right of ways especially when the Plaintiffs through their religious beliefs are obeying the established laws in the State of Florida, Escambia County Ordinance Sec. 94-131 and Sec. 94-132.(a) which lawfully condones and approves of not only the Plaintiffs’ i.e. : “pedestrians” lawful conduct of interacting with motorist on the public street and roadway at a stop light, but also Escambia County Ordinance Sec. 94-131 and Sec. 94-132.(a) condones and approves the Plaintiffs’ children i.e.: “pedestrians” lawful conduct of interacting with motorist or vehicular traffic at a stand still at a stop light  on the public streets and roadways while at a stop light and being closely supervised by their parents while distributing free religious literature, praying for people who desire a prayer, praying for people who desire to accept Jesus Christ, peacefully open air preaching the gospel and receiving donations in a small white container as a result of the parents training them up in street evangelism. Stopping the Plaintiffs’ children from having access to the public streets and roadways and denying them their practice and liberty of their religious belief and conduct serves no compelling interest. There is no Escambia County ordinance that bans the Plaintiffs’ children from interacting with vehicular traffic at a stand still at a traffic light;
115.      Contrarily, the State of Florida should have no form of regulation available to the State which would legally deprive any citizen from legally having access to public streets and roadways that would violate protected constitutional activities such as Freedom of Speech, Peaceable Assembly, Freedom of Association and Free Exercise Interest in religious based conduct such as street preaching and of sincerely held Religious Beliefs; therefore, criminal charges of child neglect and child abuse are grossly an outrageous form of government intrusion and government regulation of the Plaintiffs religious conduct and belief while street preaching;
116.      There is no other allegations of child neglect or child abuse outside the Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected street preaching activities (i. e.: the Escambia County Deputy Sheriffs and the State Attorneys Office) have officially criminalized the Plaintiffs’ constitutionally religious protected activity which includes their children interacting with vehicular traffic at a stand still on a roadway and the ESO and the SAO have officially unlawfully and illegally and outside of their jurisdiction have repealed Escambia county ordinance Sec. 94-131 and Sec. 94-132.(a) DISCRIMINATORILY AGAINST THE Plaintiffs and their children’s conduct and made it a crime for just the Plaintiffs to enjoy the public streets as other citizens in the United states in gross violation of their constitutionally protected rights;
117.      The Plaintiffs are being prosecuted under state statutes that are unconstitutionally vague and over broad on their face and as applied for conduct protected by federal constitutional guarantees or by federal statutes or by both constitutional and statutory guarantees. All false criminal charges surround the Plaintiffs’ speech, peaceful assembly, and their religion in violation of the constitution (Exhibit “HHH”);
118.      THE STATE, HAVING NO PROBABLE CAUSE OF THE CRIME CHARGED “CHILD NEGLECT WITHOUT GREAT HARM” 827.03(3)(a)(c) and “CHILD ABUSE WITHOUT GREAT HARM” 827.01(3)(c) and in RETALIATION FOR THE PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUSLY FILING A 42 USC 12983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION LAWSUIT HAS PURPOSELY MISAPPLIED TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED STREET PREACHING ACTIVITIES OF THE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE “STREET PREACHERS” AND CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATES BY PROFESSION;
119.      The Plaintiffs and their children have been denied in the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County the enforcement of their rights to peaceable assembly, freedom of speech, redress of grievances and free exercise of their religious beliefs establishment clause under the First Amendment and while on public property and has further been denied and suffered violations of their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Plaintiffs and their children have been denied in the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County the enforcement of their rights to Escambia County ordinance Sec. 94-131 and Sec. 94-132.(a). In violation of 28 1443(1) (Exhibit states: “Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;” Also, “For any act under color of authority derived from ant law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.” Additionally, the Plaintiffs have suffered from acts performed under the color of authority that is derived from laws providing for the equal rights and equal protection of the Plaintiffs under Escambia County ordinance Sec. 94-131 and Sec. 94-132.(a);
120.      The Plaintiffs arrest and subsequent prosecutions are being carried out with the purpose and effect of harassing them and punishing them without any probable cause in retaliation for their actions of free speech in protesting civil rights violations by Escambia County (redress of grievances) and the Escambia County Sheriffs Office. The conduct for which they are being prosecuted is protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Establishment Clause under the United States Constitution;
121.      The Plaintiffs’ religious speech in violation of the establishment clause was content-based restriction by the deputy sheriffs and scrutinized the Plaintiffs religious speech in the arrest reports as “derogatory” “religious slurs” and “curse” words and the prosecuting attorney (i.e. “wicked witch”, “bastards”, fornicators” “hell”) refused to nolle prosse the false charges against he Plaintiffs knowing that the charges are not only false, but also in violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights by law.
122.      In the is case at hand, the Plaintiffs are being maliciously charged and prosecuted without any probable cause with CHILD NEGLECT WITHOUT GREAT HARM” 827.03(3)(a)(c) and “CHILD ABUSE WITHOUT GREAT HARM” 827.01(3)(c) for which as applied to the Plaintiffs’ actions blatantly violates their rights under the equal protection clause; see ;
123.      The prosecution by the State as initiated by the Escambia County Sheriffs’ Office constitutes a malicious and groundless prosecution without any probable cause in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights of protesting the civil rights violations by the Escambia County Sheriffs Office and for previously filing a 42 USC 12983 civil rights law suit;
124.      Additionally, When considering protection of religious conduct and avoiding government intrusion courts have historically applied a balancing test to balance the state's compelling interest against the actor's free exercise interest in religious based conduct. This balancing test has been called the strict scrutiny test and is "manifested in the 'compelling interest test', which is composed of five elements:
125.      Whether a defendant's belief, or conduct motivated by belief, is sincerely held;
126.      Whether a defendant's belief, or conduct motivated by belief, is religious in nature;
(c) Whether a state regulation imposes a burden on the exercise of such belief or conduct;
(d) Whether a compelling state interest justifies the burden imposed upon a defendant's belief or conduct;
(e) Whether there is a less obtrusive form of regulation available to the state."

127.      Regarding the first element, a person's religious beliefs must be found by a court to be sincerely held based on the facts of a case. For example in DeJonge, the Court had no trouble confirming that the DeJonge family was sincere in their beliefs. The Court reasons in Dejonge: "To be afforded the protection of the Free Exercise Clause, an individuals behavior must be religiously motivated”;
128.      Thus this Court must accept a worshiper's good faith characterization that its activity is grounded in religious belief because 'it is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds';
129.      This must be so because "men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others." Ballard, supra at 86. Religious belief and conduct need not be endorsed or mandated by a religious organization to be protected;
130.      Indeed, because popular religious beliefs are rarely threatened by elected legislators, the free Exercise Clause's major benefactors are religious minorities or dissidents whose beliefs and worship are suppressed or shunned by the majority;
131.      In a recent case in Minnesota, a lawsuit against a clergyperson counselor for negligence was challenged because it fostered excessive governmental entanglement with religion thus violating the Establishment Clause;
132.      The Courts found that a resolution of the negligence claim for negligent counseling would violate the First Amendment because in this particular case the District Court had made an assessment of whether the counselor followed the ethical counseling guidelines of the minister's handbook, and the Appeals court found that such an assessment resulted in the excessive entanglement of the district court in 'religious doctrine practice, or church polity";
133.      Pursuant to Ordinance 94-132;
134.      On September 29, 2005, Defendant Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat passed by the Plaintiff Glynis Bethel as she preached on Massachusetts Street and Krystal Jeffcoat, being a “whore” was personally offended by Plaintiff Glynis Bethel’s in-your-face strong street evangelism against “whores” and her sermon as Plaintiff Glynis Bethel preached in a megaphone calling Krystal Jeffcoat (anyone) a “whore”;
135.      Defendant Krystal Jeffcoat scrutinized the Plaintiff Glynis Bethel’s speech and felt the speech was “derogatory”;
136.      Defendant Krystal Jeffcoat left the scene and without any probable cause then came back on Pace street and entered on to Massachusetts Street and began to harass Plaintiff Glynis Bethel and her family and stopped the Plaintiffs speech through chilling and banning the speech;
137.      Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat, (hereinafter “Deputy Jeffcoat”), a County deputy, approached Plaintiff Glynis Bethel and told her that she had to have a “permit” who called over Plaintiffs (subsequently along with five [5] other deputies) who had a camera and now Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat told Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel that they had to have a “permit” to do what they were doing (demonstration);
138.      Deputy Sheriff Jeffcoat stayed at the scene for about 30 minutes while the couple and their children preached the gospel and passed out free literature with a Religious and Christian message to motorist on the public street positioned at a stop light;
139.      Plaintiffs informed the Deputy Sheriffs several times that they were impeding their First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech on a public right of way and the Deputies were discriminating against them because of the religious content of their speech or preaching and signs;
140.      Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat along with other Deputy Sheriffs began falsely arrested the Plaintiffs and then assaulted their children physically and remove the Plaintiffs from the public property including the sidewalk and right-of-way without probable cause and kidnapped the Plaintiffs’ children;
141.      Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Plaintiff Glynis Bethel’s personal property was stolen by the Deputy Sheriffs and the two were then transported to Escambia County Jail where they was booked and held;
142.      The Plaintiffs notified the State Attorney’s office Greg Marcille and requested a “No Prosecutions” on all the false charges, but the state attorney’s office refused to dropped the false charges which violated the Plaintiffs constitutional rights and there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge; 
143.      The Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat used the unconstitutional Ordinance 94-131 and 94-132 to establish a “probable cause” in order to create a governmental interest to justify her false arrest of the plaintiffs, but the Ordinance that was utilized to create the “child neglect’ needs to be repealed;
144.      Plaintiffs still believe they will be falsely arrested if they engage in street preaching, evangelizing, or holding up signs on public right-of-ways with their children without a “vest” in the future and the Deputy Sheriffs will use this unconstitutional Ordinance to harass the Plaintiffs who do not need a “vest” in order to communicate with motorist while others from the public interact with motorist without a “vest” on a daily basis;
145.      Escambia County Sheriff’s spokesman Defendant Joel Mooneyham gave a public statement in a WEAR TV3 broadcast about the Plaintiffs’ false arrest;
146.      Defendant Joel Mooneyham, now paralyzed by GOD (Psalm 37), aluded that the Plaintiffs’ children participation with their parent’s street evangelism was to be considered a felony crime of child abuse worthy of an arrest and imprisonment;
147.      Plaintiffs desire from time to time to engage in First Amendment protected activity by returning to the county right-of-ways to hold up signs and to evangelize without being falsely arrested and harassed by the Deputy Sheriffs with Sheriff Ron McNesby’s knowledge because the Plaintiffs have been preaching at the same location for three years now, but with constant harassments and false arrests by the Deputy Sheriffs for their speech activities;
148.      Plaintiffs believe that they may be subject to arrest at any time for returning to a county right-of-way to hold up signs, preach or to evangelize and to communicate with motorist with their children;
149.      The Plaintiffs will be returning back to the public street on Pace and Massachusetts to preach, but need Court intervention because the Plaintiffs sincerely held Religious beliefs includes allowing their children to participate in street evangelism on the public property including the streets in which the Escambia Sheriff Office considered to be a crime of a felony “child abuse’;
150.      Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected right to preach and evangelize and hold up signs on county right-of-ways without first wearing a “orange,” “yellow,” or “red” vest;
151.      Defendants intentionally and knowingly violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights;
152.      Defendants arrested Plaintiffs wrongfully and without provocation;
153.      Plaintiffs realize that they will face continued threats of harassment or false arrest by Defendants for exercising their Constitutional rights and their children will be subject to false arrest and detainment by the Deputy Sheriffs;
154.      Plaintiffs intend to return to street preach, hold up signs, and evangelize on the public streets and communicate with motorist, but anticipate arrest if they do so and the detainment of their children;
155.      Due to the unconstitutional arrest of Plaintiffs and the denial of their constitutional rights, Plaintiffs have suffered damages including but not limited to pain and suffering, public embarrassment, and humiliation because the Escambia Sheriff’s Office made it their business to broadcast the false arrest and false charges against the Plaintiffs on the local WEAR TV3 broadcast in which the Plaintiffs viewed while inside of the jail with others prisoners who saw the broadcast;
156.      Because of Defendants’ unconstitutional actions, Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of expression has been chilled and Plaintiffs have refrained from engaging in speech due to fear of arrest and prosecution from Defendants;
DEFENDANTS, WHO ARE STREET PREACHERS, BRIEF BIO AND MOTIVES OF THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS FOR ILLEGALLY PHYSCIALLY REMOVING THE DEFENDANTS OFF OF PUBLIC PROPERTY REPEATEDLY
 
157.      Both Black Americans and Christians Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel considers themselves to be Fire-and-Brimstone Religious “Street Preachers” and Religious protestors (civil rights advocates) by profession (Orlando Bethel is officially ordained as a Christian minister) who share their faith by preaching the gospel message of JESUS CHRST and evangelizing to people they meet on the PUBLIC streets, sidewalks, and other public right-of-ways throughout the United States of America sanctioned by law.;
158.      While preaching in Escambia County, Florida, the Defendants considers themselves to be, in good faith, proclaiming the truth of GOD’S word and the often despised gospel in this County by preaching against sin (i.e.: drunkenness, fornications, whores, whoremongers, gay lifestyles, pornography, masturbation, abortion, witchcraft [“witches”] and corrupt law enforcement officers in Escambia County). These exact sins are also practiced by the local law enforcement officers who are also employees of the Escambia Sheriff’s Office and as a result, instead of repenting, the ESO’S Deputy Sheriffs have taken offense against the Defendants personally and have used their official positions as law enforcement officers to retaliate (revenge) through perjury and constant harassments, bad faith, malicious prosecutions, false arrests and imprisonments WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSES;
159.      Contrarily, white racist bigots (Ku Klux Klan rejects), gays, whores, and overall corrupt (who are antagonistic against the Defendants’ preaching that GOD hates Sinners [i.e. “Whores” and “Gays”] and that the Sinners need to REPENT) Deputy Sheriffs including Sheriff Ron McNesby and Deputy Chief Larry Smith (who the Defendants have targeted through religious preaching publicly featured in the local “Pensacola News Journal,” and “WEAR TV-3” in their officials religious protests, while on Pace and Massachusetts, “Corrupt Law Officers Repent”) were aware of this fact and based on their personal objections to the despised gospel preaching, their public rebukes and messages of the Defendants, would allow the Deputy Sheriffs as a pattern and practice to harass the Plaintiffs and their children consistently while on the public property in Escambia County on the same location of Pace now for about 3 years;
160.      The religious protest and preaching signs and placards that the Defendants’ display have been an issue with the Deputy Sheriffs who would illegally confiscate the signs and have been stealing the signs from the Defendants now for about 3 years;
161.       The signs or placards most recently stolen on September 29, 2005 for this “Motion to Dismiss” reads, “GOD Hates You Sinners, Repent In JESUS Name, Live Sin Free,” “Repent Whores.”  Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat took personal offense and called the Defendants speech, which included their religious messages on their placards or signs as “derogatory” in her “arrest report”;
162.      Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel, who are “Street Preachers” by profession, have in the past, and will in the future, with the restraint of outlaw Deputy Sheriffs, exercise their rights to free speech as other citizens and tax-payers by preaching and evangelizing to people they meet on the PUBLIC streets (INCLUDING MOTORIST IN VEHICULAR TRAFFIC), sidewalks, and other public right-of-ways in Escambia County by holding his signs, with his religious messages, etc. and also allowing his children, who are home schooled, to participate in these street preaching field trips in which they enjoy;
163.       The Bible states that the Defendants are to train their children up in the way that they should go and the Defendants are training their children in the profession of being religious ministers or street preachers, too;
164.      The Defendants would like to press charges and ask the Court to sanction the officers On September 29, 2005, who conspired with Krystal Jeffcoat to file false charges of “Child Neglect Without Great Harm” by Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat with the presence of Deputy Sheriff Butch Lewis, Deputy Sheriff Richard Goodwin, Deputy Sheriff Reginald Bruster, Deputy Ronald Busbee and Deputy Sheriff Keith Snuffin (pre listed on the “arrest report”); for any or all that applies: conspiracy, fraud, perjury, falsifying official “arrest report,” giving false information on “arrest report” to mislead a judge and state, false arrest, false imprisonment, Deputy Sheriff misconduct, conspiracy, failure to protect and prevent, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress;
BACKGROUND HISTORY PATTERN AND PRACTICE AND EXCERPTS FROM FEDERAL COURT (42 U.S.C. 12983) LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND UNDISPUTED FACTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY DEPUTY SHERIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS’ STREET PREACHING ACTIVITIES, WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSES, IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY
 
165.      On both April 12, 2003 and April 30, 2003 Orlando Bethel was falsely arrested and harassed through repeated patterns and practices against the Plaintiff by the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office’s staff (Deputy Sheriffs) by the purposeful misapplication of another ordinance requiring a “permit” to “demonstrate” in order to remove the Orlando Bethel from public property based on a “Heckler’s Veto” which violated his constitutional rights. The false charges were promptly dropped by the State Attorney’s office and the Orlando Bethel filed a lawsuit against the parties involved including Sheriff Ron McNesby;
166.      On one occasion in the year 2003, under the DIRECT “strict” orders of the Escambia County Sheriff Office Deputy Chief Larry Smith (Please See video tape Exhibit “A” Deputy Sheriff Joseph Stacey Perkins demanding that Orlando Bethel leave public property and to basically abandon Orlando Bethel’s First Amendment rights as a result of Deputy Chief Larry Smith’s “strict” orders);
167.      On April 12, 2003, Deputy Sheriff Joseph Stacey Perkins demanded that Orlando Bethel have a “permit” to demonstrate and falsely arrested Orlando Bethel;
168.      On April 30, 2003, Deputy Bill Chavers stating that Orlando Bethel needs a “permit” to stand on public property and hold his signs with his religious messages (Please review video tape Exhibit A) falsely arrested Orlando Bethel even while WEAR TV3 was videotaping the violations of the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights (Exhibit “A” video tape evidence);
169.      That Complaint was filed on August 07, 2003 and on October 9, 2003, a “Preliminary Junction” was granted restraining the Deputy Sheriffs and agents from falsely arresting Orlando Bethel for not having a “permit” to “demonstrate” and the parties settled subsequently;
170.      On October 26, 2003, yet still more pattern and practice harassments ensued and Orlando was standing alone on a public right-of-way located on Pace Street in Escambia County, Florida, when approached by both Caucasian or Ethnic Deputy Jeremy Joseph Small and Caucasian Deputy Halford Sherwood Harris with retaliatory motives to harass and strategically to administer bad faith against the Orlando Bethel;
171.      The Deputy Sheriffs chilling and stopping the Plaintiff’s Orlando Bethel’s speech and without probable cause or an ordinance, Sheriffs ordered, with harassments, Orlando Bethel to remove all five of the signs that the Orlando Bethel had set on the ground and put them away into his vehicle which was located across the five lane (Pace) street;
172.      Orlando Bethel then placed the signs in between his legs but Deputy Small snatched the Plaintiff’s protected speech and stole the Plaintiff’s signs and the Plaintiffs Bethel filed a Complaint in Federal Court for the violation of his Constitutional rights by the Deputy Sheriffs operating outside the scope and authority of any law or ordinance and operating in their individual capacity, but under color of law; into his vehicle or else they would be confiscated (Exhibit “B”);
173.      The aforementioned actions of Deputy Small and Deputy Harris were also witnessed and filmed by a WEAR-TV3 News reporter along with a WEAR-TV3 News cameraman and it was reported on the WEAR-TV3 evening news broadcast and the WEAR-TV3 internet website titled “Street Preacher Hassled By Law” that the Orlando Bethel’s religious signs were illegally, with bad faith, confiscated by the Defendants;
174.      On October 28, 2003, Sheriff Ron McNesby knew and was confronted by the Orlando Bethel by written communications, through McNesby’s attorney; however, Ron McNesby continued to ignore the issue against his Deputy Sheriffs; therefore, Ron McNesby has also violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights through negligence, wantonness and by not training his Deputy Sheriffs properly pertaining to constitutional issues and violations;
175.      On February 20, 2004, while the Plaintiffs were on the public property participating in a public demonstration in Escambia County by holding a sign, Deputy Sheriff S. Eddins, with harassment and bad faith, told the Plaintiffs that they would have to have a “permit”;
176.      She also made comments that she knew about the Plaintiffs’ “frivolous” lawsuit and she said basically in spite of the Lawsuit filed and a Federal injunction granted to the Plaintiffs, that the Plaintiffs STILL would have to have a “permit” (Please review video tape Exhibit A). The Defendants’ words placed the Plaintiffs in anticipation of another false arrest and the Constitutional activities of the Plaintiffs were hindered by Deputy Sheriff S. Eddins and the Plaintiffs speech quelled;
177.      On July 23, 2004, the Plaintiffs Bethel and Glynis Bethel, acting as “Attorney Pro Se” conferred by written means (official letter) with Defendants’ Counsels Charles Peppler and John Jolly to notify the Defendants (“officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them”) once more that his Constitutional rights were being violated by the Deputy Sheriffs and that he was sending in a “Demand Letter” against the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office in compliance with the Local Rule 7.1. which serves as a “statement certifying that you either conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised, or attempted to so confer but, for good cause stated, were unsuccessful;
178.      On August 029, 2004, September 27, 2005, Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel, acting as “Attorney Pro Se” conferred by written means (official letter) with Defendants’ one Counsel John Jolly and Charles Peppler responded in a letter denying “alleged” violations; that his Constitutional rights were being violated by the Deputy Sheriffs and that he was sending in a “Demand Letter” against the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office in compliance with the Local Rule 7.1. which serves as a “statement certifying that you either conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised, or attempted to so confer but, for good cause stated, were unsuccessful;
179.      On July 11, 2005, while the Plaintiffs were standing on public property participating in a public demonstration by preaching the gospel through verbal means to the general public Deputy Sheriff Jackson, with harassment and bad faith, confronting the Plaintiffs about a “permit” requirement for their First Amendment activities (Please review video tape Exhibit A);
180.      Additionally in July, 2005, while the Plaintiff was standing on public property participating in a public demonstration by preaching the gospel through verbal means and passing out free religious literature to the general public, etc. Deputy Sheriff Gilmore, with harassment and bad faith, told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff could not stand out on the public property without a “permit” and unless the Plaintiff obtains a “permit” from the Deputy Sheriff’s Office to do his preaching activities (Please review video tape Exhibit A). Deputy Sheriff Gilmore also told Orlando Bethel that he had “arrested” several people already;
181.      On July 16, 2005, Deputy Sheriff T. Peacock, with harassment and bad faith, banned Orlando Bethel from standing on public property (median). When asked by Orlando Bethel what ordinance that T. Peacock was citing, T. Peacock told Orlando Bethel that he did not have to tell him the "ordinance" and that Orlando Bethel would have to look it up for himself;
182.      On July 2005, the Plaintiffs Bethel, acting as “Attorney Pro Se” conferred with Defendants’ Counsel John W. Jolly assistant to notify the Defendants (“officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them”) once more that his Constitutional rights were being violated by the Deputy Sheriffs and that he would be possible taking legal action (to paraphrase) against the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office in compliance with the Local Rule 7.1. which serves as a “statement certifying that you either conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised, or attempted to so confer but, for good cause stated, were unsuccessful;
183.      October 03, 2005, Plaintiffs being harassed with bad faith by the Defendants and while on public property with absolutely no REMEDY from the Defendants, Defendants’ attorneys, etc. entered a “Motion for Contempt of Court Proceedings in Violation of Injunction” was filed with the Federal Courts by the Plaintiffs based on current violations of the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights by the Defendants including repeated demands for a “permit” for their demonstrating and preaching activities while the Plaintiffs are position on the right-of-way in Escambia County Florida, but due to red-tape was refused due to a ‘Deficiency Order” (Exhibit “D” );
184.      On October 28, 2005, after the October 03, 2005, filing the “Motion for Contempt…” with the Federal Court, the Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel, acting as an “Attorney Pro Se,” hand delivered a letter to the Defendants (“officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them,”) Attorney Rusty Wells (Charles Peppler), to confer that the Defendants were still request that the Plaintiffs have a “permit” in order to demonstrate along with listing other violations of Constitutional rights, on behalf of the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office in compliance with the Local Rule 7.1 which serves as a “statement certifying that you either conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised, or attempted to so confer but, for good cause stated, were unsuccessful;
185.      The Plaintiffs have delivered numerous other letters of violations of Constitutional rights for the year of 2005 to the attorney for the Defendants;
186.      On July 2005, the Plaintiffs Bethel, acting as “Attorney Pro Se” conferred with Defendants’ Counsel John W. Jolly assistant to notify the Defendants (“officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them”) once more that his Constitutional rights were being violated by the Deputy Sheriffs and that he would be possible taking legal action (to paraphrase) against the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office in compliance with the Local Rule 7.1. which serves as a “statement certifying that you either conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised, or attempted to so confer but, for good cause stated, were unsuccessful;
187.      Another Complaint with the Federal Court was filed against both Escambia County and the Deputy Sheriffs of Escambia County in which both attorneys lied and denied any wrong doings;
188.      On September 29, 2005, Orlando Bethel and his wife Glynis Bethel were arrest for Child Neglect Without Great Harm” by Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat; recently ridiculously falsely arrested, through retaliation and harassments, by a Caucasian Deputy Sheriff’s manipulation of another ordinance (state), under color of law, to remove both Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel and their youth illegally from the public property;
189.      Caucasian Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat falsely filed a  (orchestrated by Caucasian Sheriff Ron McNesby, Caucasian Chief Deputy Larry Smith, and Caucasian Deputy Sheriff Captain Mooneyham) pattern and practice of filing "false" and “perjured” statements to falsely charge both Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel with "Child Neglect Without Great Harm”  (Florida State Code: 827.03(3)(a)(c)) for allowing their children, who enjoy these religious activities, to participate in a non-profit fundraising for a religious non-profit ministry or organization in which Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel have the civil rights under the Constitution; 
190.      Also, Orlando Bethel and his wife Glynis Bethel who are religious preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who utilizes the public property in the United States and civil rights advocates along with the Bethels’ three children (ages 11, 9 and 7-years-old) who also enjoy preaching the gospel of JESUS CHRIST by passing out free religious literature while on public property (including to motorist in vehicular traffic at stop lights according to Florida law: Section 94-132(a)) and talking about the Bible and JESUS with the general public alongside with their parents which is the religious beliefs of the parents to train up their children in public evangelism;
191.      Still more patterns and practices against the preacher Orlando Bethel and his wife Glynis Bethel and their three children while they were legally, peaceably and safely assembled on the public sidewalk and right of way preaching, displaying signs, passing out free religious literature lawfully to vehicular “traffic” (motorist) and receiving “ALMS” OR DONATIONS as the First Amendment and the Florida Constitution allows, like the non-religious or secular Caucasian football teams (which the Deputy Sheriff confirmed that they get their donations on “Saturday”), Caucasian cheerleaders, Caucasian girl scouts, red cross, Fire Department the state of Florida and even Sheriff’s Ron McNesby’s AirBorne Law Enforcement Unit in Escambia County, for a religious non profit organization or ministry at the traffic stop lights for which they and their children volunteer for approximately 1-3 hours per day once or twice a week in Escambia County Florida; Atlanta, Georgia and Selma, Florida, etc.;
192.      As previously stated, in times past as a pattern and practice, the couple and their children had been harassed constantly and repeatedly by the Deputy Sheriffs since 2003 for being on public property preaching the gospel through “Heckler’s Veto” and the Sheriff’s Office’s antagonism;
193.      On September 29, 2005, Orlando Bethel, his wife and children were all together preaching and LEGALLY collecting donations from vehicular “traffic” (motorist) as they normally have done for some time while wearing “…bright orange, yellow, or red vests” as is outlined in Escambia County ordinance Section 94-132(a): Safety requirements for roadside communications with motorists by pedestrians;
194.      “Any pedestrian, who, from a right-of-way or other area adjoining a roadside but which right-of-way or adjoining area is not expressly or prescriptively dedicated for pedestrian use, communicates or attempts to communicate with passing motorists, is hereby required to wear bright orange, yellow or red vests, as set forth in subsection (b) of this section” ;
195.      PLEASE NOTE: that the Florida law Section 94-132(a): DOES NOT EXCLUDE ANY YOUTH FROM INTERACTING WITH VEHICULAR “TRAFFIC” OR “MOTORIST” IN OR ON THE “ROADSIDE.” THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS HAVE CRIMINALIZED THE BETHEL CHILDREN’S INTERACTION WITH MOTORIST AT A STOP LIGHT AS “CHILD NEGLECT” WHERE THERE IS NO LAW OR COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST TO STOP THE YOUTH FROM ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC, ROADWAY, ROADSIDE OR STREETS;
196.      For example, school children EVERY SINGLE DAY utilized the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC, ROADWAY, ROADSIDE OR STREETS going to and from school with the approval of the Department of Education and the blessings of the Sheriff’s Office;
197.      Even though Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel allow their youth to participate, the youth are not allowed to leave the location near the sidewalk to cross into a four-lane roadway. The Defendants’ children stayed near the sidewalk when interacting with motorists being directly supervised by their mother and father as recorded in Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat’s false “arrest report” when she continually made references to the fact that the 7-year-old was being directed continuously (to paraphrase) by the commands of the mother even though the Deputies attempted to distract the mother from her mission of supervising her child by their constant interference with the families’ street preaching activities;
198.      At all times Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel’s children were closely supervised and directed by Orlando Bethel and his wife personally and were in absolutely no danger and no criminal activity nor “probable cause” was present before, during and after the Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat arrived as confirmed in HER own “arrest report” and as confirmed in the video tape (Exhibit “A”) which shows Orlando Bethel positioned legally on public property in the median watching his children only feet away and legally interacting with motorist and the video shows their two children legally interacting with the vehicular “traffic” or motorist at a red light (just as everyday school children interact with the yellow school bus or vehicular “traffic” and a motorist by walking onto the PUBLIC street from the sidewalk to enter the school bus) giving out free religious tracts right next to the sidewalk as the video shows blatantly the youth standing on public property legally on the side of the “roadway” while viewing the Krystal Jeffcoat’s Deputy Sheriff vehicle arriving at the scene:
199.      The video tape (Exhibit A) shows that the female child was marching (“balancing act”) and stretching her legs, but did NOT fall directly into “traffic” as falsely reported by Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat nor was any child standing in the middle of the “intersection” (Exhibit “A”) as Krystal Jeffcoat embellished the “arrest report” in order to mislead the judge and the state;
200.      (“I OBSERVED A JUNVENILE FEMALE TO BE STANDING AT THE CORNER OF PACE BLVD AND MASSACHUSETTS ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION. THIS PARTICULAR FEMALE APPEARED TO BE ATTEMPTING TO DO SOME TYPE OF BALANCING ACT ON ONE FOOT WHILE LEANING FORWARD AND THEN STUMBLING INTO TRAFFIC.””);
201.      Orlando Bethel had at least three video surveillance cameras (Exhibits A) and two-way radios available and in use because of being harassed repeatedly and illegally by the wicked Deputy Sheriffs of Escambia County;
202.      On September 29, 2005, Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat, with bad faith and harassment, falsely arrested Orlando Bethel and his wife Glynis Bethel for “child neglect without great harm” because Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat basically created a law or custom that the youth could not have access to the “roadway” as other citizens and specially stated in her perjured arrest report: “Upon arrival I observed one juvenile female to be standing in the middle of the intersection on Pace BLVD at the intersection of Massachusetts on the south side of the intersection”;
203.      Completely contrary to the perjured sworn testimony of Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat, video taped footage from a surveillance camera provides proof that the “juvenile female” described in Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat’s perjured arrest report was never “…standing in the middle of the intersection on Pace BLVD…” or in the middle of any other intersection as falsely reported by Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat (See video tape Exhibit “A”);
204.      Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat also falsely stated in her perjured sworn “arrest report”: “Deputy Busbee attempted to gain control of this juvenile due to the fact that they were both now in the roadway on Pace BLVD in danger of getting struck by passing vehicles”;
205.      The video tape proves that Krystal Jeffcoat’s “arrest report” is a lie because the video clearly shows Deputy Busbee on a public side walk without probable cause assaulting the Defendants’ daughter and NOT “... to the fact that they were both now in the roadway on Pace BLVD in danger of getting struck by passing vehicles”;
206.      Video taped footage from a surveillance camera again provides proof that the “juvenile female” described in Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat’s perjured “arrest report” was never “…in the roadway on Pace BLVD in danger of getting struck by passing vehicles,” as the Deputy Ronald Busbee attacked the juvenile, but on the sidewalk in which the Deputy Sheriff Ronald Busbee assaulted the child not being aware that a surveillance camera caught the deputies’ illegal activity of Deputy Sheriff misconduct and excessive and unnecessary force and physical assault against one of the Bethel’s children (See video tape Exhibit “A”);
207.       All of the children were assaulted (numerous motorist were witnesses) by the Deputies. Another one even had scratch marks on her arms whereas the Deputy Sheriff purposely assaulted her;
208.      To reiterate Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat perjured herself in her sworn “arrest report” by stating: “I observed a juvenile female to be standing at the corner of Pace BLVD and Massachusetts on the Northwest side of the intersection. This particular female appeared to be attempting to do some type of balancing act on one foot while leaning forward and then stumbling into traffic”;
209.      This scene is caught on tape through a surveillance camera footage which shows that the other “juvenile female” described by Deputy Krystal Jeffcoat was located on the public sidewalk and as is allowed by Escambia County Ordinance Section 94-132(a) (Safety requirements for roadside communications with motorists by pedestrians), the “juvenile female” was lawfully and legally communicating with motorist by collecting donations willfully from the vehicular “traffic” while the vehicles were stopped and not moving at the signal light. (See video tape Exhibit “A”);
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BASED ON LAW
210.      Based on the evidence, we are praying that this Court will press charges or sanctions for these “crimes’ by the Deputy Sheriffs listed in this Complaint based on the fact under the Federal Criminal Enforcement:
211.      “It is a crime for one or more person acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution of laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. 241,242). “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts “under color of law” even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by this law include excessive force, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another”); (Continued)
()
 
(Co)
#1

6 Replies Related Threads

    Theprophetessglynis
    Cranky
    • Total Posts : 104
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2006/01/16 21:47:26
    • Status: offline
    RE: Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sh 2006/12/02 14:33:31 (permalink)


    THE ESCAMBIA SHERIFF’S OFFICE VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM ILLEGAL SEIZURE
     
    212.      On September 29, 2005, Deputy Sheriffs from the Escambia Sheriff’s Office violated the Plaintiffs’ Due Process rights and rights to be free from an Illegal Seizure by seizing the Plaintiffs’ personal property and effects without carefully inventorying the Plaintiffs’ property that was seized at the scene of the (false) arrest which also included unspecified amounts of cash money (approximately $60.00 reported by the property department clerk) nor did the Deputy Sheriffs fill out a “seized/ released property receipt” and give the Plaintiffs a copy of the inventory that was seized; therefore, the Plaintiffs and the ESO illegally are retaining the personal property of the Plaintiffs;
    213.      While being searched and booked on false charges at the Escambia County Jail by an officer employed at the jail facility, Deputy Sheriff Busbee stole a digital recording devise from Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel’s personal possessions that were being inventoried by the jail facility officer. Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel repeatedly confronted Deputy Sheriff Busbee informing Busbee that what he was doing was unlawful and that all of the Plaintiff’s possessions that were seized at the jail facility were to be inventoried and listed together on the Escambia County Jail’s property receipt. Deputy Sheriff Busbee told the Plaintiffs that his reason for taking the Plaintiff’s recording devise was only to make sure that it did not get stolen or lost at the Escambia County Jail facility which is not the procedure for seizing property at the Escambia County Jail facility nor did they claim that the seizure was incident to the Plaintiffs’ arrest;
    The Plaintiffs’ were not granted Due Process of the law as outlined in Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act
     
    214.      Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act affords the Plaintiffs more protection than the federal statutes it is modeled after. It guarantees the Plaintiffs a post-seizure, adversarial preliminary hearing "to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that such property has been or is being used in violation of the [law]." This puts the burden on the State Attorney’s Office to prove that the seized property is truly contraband, and, forces the State Attorney’s Office to prove their case by a clear and convincing standard before forfeiture is adjudicated in which they do not have the proof that the following items has been or is being used in violation of the law; therefore, these items MUST BE RETURNED:
    ·        Two signs with religious messages, "GOD hates you Sinners. Repent in JESUS' name. Live Sin Free" (we think that there is one more with, "Repent Whore" on it [dedicated to Krystal Jeffcoat and her real reason for the false arrest]);
    ·        A megaphone worth approximately $100.00;
    ·        One miniature video camera with evidence worth approximately $130.00;
    ·        One video camera with evidence worth approximately $250.00;
    ·        On audio recorder with evidence worth approximately $50.00;
    ·        About eight (8) bouquets of flowers worth approximately $5.2929 each (and these flower bouquets MUST BE RETURNED fresh and NOT dead);
    ·        Be a MODEL for the GOSPEL booklets with Religious messages and teaching on sexual purity worth about $10.00 each which were being distributed on the streets for free;
    ·        About three (3) baskets for holding tracts with Religious messages given to the general public and motorist for free;
    ·        Tracts with Religious message given to the motorist for free;
    ·        A red mug for drinking water worth about $1.00 (requested by my daughter);
    ·        A key ring with keys (including the key to our mailbox) of the Plaintiffs in order to get into their home, vehicle, P.O., etc.
     
    215.      The Escambia Sheriff’s Office was never issued a warrant to seize the personal property and effects of the Plaintiffs before or after the (false) arrest of the Plaintiffs. There are absolutely no exigent circumstances in this case for the Escambia Sheriff’s Office to justify the warrant-less seizure of the Plaintiffs’ personal property. The State Attorney’s Office has not presented to this court any claims that the Plaintiffs’ personal property was used as an instrumentality in any illegal activity but the State Attorney’s Office has not released the Plaintiffs’ personal property back into their possession. Please respect the constitution and give us back our property;
    216.       We need these items to continue the work of the ministry and to complete our street preaching activities on the PUBLIC property. Now that GOD has sent a plague on Joel Mooneyham, we believe that this sign and wonder will scare the deputies sheriffs into doing the right thing or GOD too, will send a plague in their lives. We have prayed that GOD will send a plague into any and every person who is attempting to stop us from preaching the gospel on PUBLIC property in Escambia County (including Suzie Jeffrey the lying prosecuting witch);                                                                                                                                              
    CONSITUTIONAL
    217.      Fourth Amendment (protects right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; provides that warrants shall issue only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation) It is a crime for one or more person acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution of laws of the.
     
    COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE
    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
     
    218.      Plaintiffs hereby reiterate and adopt each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs;
    219.      Defendants’ actions in arresting Plaintiffs and harassing Plaintiffs for preaching, evangelizing, and holding up a sign, and street preaching with their children constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of Plaintiffs’ affirmative rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in a traditional public forum;
    220.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are unconstitutional abridgements of the Plaintiffs’ affirmative right of speech protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because they act as content-based restrictions on free speech;
    221.      Plaintiffs were not arrested for any lawful purpose, but for the specific purpose of harassing Plaintiffs and stopping them from exercising their Constitutional rights;
    222.      Defendants told Plaintiffs that they could not preach on the public street or sidewalk without out a “reflective vest” and that the children’s present on the PUBLIC street was considered to be “child abuse”;
    223.      Defendants’ actions constitute an impermissible prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech;
    224.      Defendants’ actions are a content-based restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech;
    225.      Defendants’ actions are a viewpoint-based restriction on speech;
    226.      Defendant’s Ordinance is vague and over broad;
    227.      There is no compelling government interest sufficient to justify Defendants’ Ordinance or actions in criminalizing the Plaintiffs’ speech;
    228.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible government purpose sought to be served;
    229.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are not a narrowly tailored restriction on free speech;
    230.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions do not serve a significant government interest;
    231.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions does not leave open ample alternative channels of communication without the “vest”;
    232.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are unreasonable, and impose unjustifiable and unreasonable restrictions on constitutionally protected speech;
    233.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are unconstitutional abridgements of the Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because they act as a prior restraint on free speech;
    234.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions unconstitutionally chill and abridge the right of Plaintiffs to engage in free speech;
    235.      Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech has caused, and will continue to cause, Plaintiffs to suffer undue and actual hardship and irreparable injury; 
    236.      Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of their most cherished constitutional liberties;
    237.      Defendants either knew, or should have known, that their actions are a blatant violation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;
    238.      WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the declaratory and injunctive relief along with damages set forth herein.
    COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLE
    ASSEMBLY UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
     
    239.      Plaintiffs hereby reiterate and adopt each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs;
    240.      Defendants’ actions are a content-based restriction on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in a traditional public forum;
    241.      Defendants’ false arrest of Plaintiffs was designed to stop Plaintiffs and their children from exercising their right to peacefully assemble;
    242.      Defendants’ actions are viewpoint-based restriction on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;
    243.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are an unconstitutional abridgement of Plaintiffs’ affirmative rights to freedom of assembly under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;
    244.      Freedom of assembly includes and protects the right of Plaintiffs to engage in meetings, discussions and distribution of literature to others either alone or in a group including motorist;
    245.      There is no compelling government interest sufficient to justify Defendants’ Ordinance or actions;
    246.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible government purpose sought to be served by the actions;
    247.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions not a narrowly tailored restriction on free assembly;
    248.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions do not serve a significant government interest;
    249.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication;
    250.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions create an unconstitutional prior restraint;
    251.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions indicate that Defendants exercise unfettered discretion in deciding who should wear a “vest” or deny a person the ability to exercise Constitutional rights if they do not have a “vest” and with their discretion criminalize a person’s if their child doesn’t have on what appears to be the proper “reflective” vest as being “child abuse” or “child neglect”;
    252.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are unreasonable and imposes unjustifiable and unreasonable restrictions on constitutionally protected assembly;
    253.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions unconstitutionally chills and abridge the right of Plaintiffs to peaceably assemble or to engage in group advocacy or redress of grievances of government;
    254.      Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of their most cherished constitutional liberties;
    255.      Defendants either knew, or should have known, that their Ordinance and actions were a blatant violation of Constitutional rights;
    256.      WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court will grant the declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, set forth herein.
    COUNT III – VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
    UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
     
    257.      Plaintiffs hereby reiterate and adopt each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs;
    258.      Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the laws is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    259.      Defendants’ Policies, customs, practices, actions of misapplying a state statute to criminalized the Plaintiffs’ street evangelism are unconstitutional abridgements of Plaintiffs’ affirmative right to equal protection of the laws, are not facially neutral, and specifically target Plaintiffs’ religious viewpoints and speech and Christian beliefs of training their children to have access to the street for street evangelism as other children have access to the streets daily to attend public schools;
    260.      Defendants’ Policies and actions are unconstitutional because they treat religious speech and practices differently than they treat secular speech and practices;
    261.      Defendants’ Policies and actions are unconstitutional abridgements of Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the law because Defendants treats Plaintiffs allowing their children access to the streets differently from other similarly situated individuals who allow their children access to the streets and groups on the basis of Plaintiffs’ religious content, viewpoint and expression;
    262.      Defendants’ Policies and actions are not supported by a compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify its enactment or enforcement against Plaintiffs;
    263.      Defendants’ Policies and actions are not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible government purpose sought to be served by the actions;
    264.      Defendants’ Policies and actions do not serve a significant government interest;
    265.      Defendants’ Policies and actions do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication;
    266.      Defendants’ Policies and actions are irrational and unreasonable, and impose irrational and unjustifiable restrictions on constitutionally protected speech;
    267.      Defendants, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, have caused, and will continue to cause, Plaintiffs to suffer undue and actual hardship and irreparable injury; Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivations of Plaintiffs’ most cherished constitutional liberties;
    268.      As a direct and proximate result of Defendants continuing violations of Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintiffs have in the past and will continue to suffer in the future direct and consequential damages, including but not limited to, the loss of the ability to exercise their constitutional rights;
    269.      WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the declaratory and injunctive relief set forth herein and award such damages to Plaintiffs as are reasonable, just and necessary
    COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE
    OF RELIGION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
     
    270.      Plaintiffs hereby reiterate and adopt each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs;
    271.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions violate Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
    272.      Plaintiffs are Christians with sincerely held religious beliefs that they should publicly preach the gospel, evangelize, and hold up signs on the public right-of ways in Escambia County and past out free literature with a Christian message to motorist at the red light and they have a mandate from GOD and are to train their children in street evangelism as well;
    273.      Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are sincerely and deeply-held;
    274.      Plaintiffs’ preaching and witnessing activities are compelled by their religious beliefs in GOD the FATHER, SON [JESUS] and the HOLY GHOST (with speaking with tongues);
    275.      Personal one-on-one evangelism is part of Plaintiffs’ religious belief and worship and is obedience to God according to their sincerely-held religious beliefs;
    276.      Defendants’ Ordinance and misapplication of a state statute and actions substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely-held religious beliefs;
    277.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions do not constitute a neutral or general law of applicability and have specifically and discriminatorily target religion and preaching through street evangelism;
    278.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely-held religious beliefs;
    279.      There is no compelling government interest sufficient to justify Defendants’ Ordinance and actions;
    280.      Defendants Ordinance and actions are not a generally applicable;
    281.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are not neutral;
    282.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible government purpose sought to be served by the actions;
    283.      Defendants’ Ordinance and actions are not a narrowly tailored restriction on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
    284.      Defendants have failed or refused to accommodate Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs;
    285.      Defendants either knew, or should have known, that their actions are a blatant violation of constitutional rights;
    286.      WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages set forth herein.
    COUNT V - DENIAL OF RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEIZURE AND DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
    IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
    AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
     
    287.      Plaintiffs hereby reiterate and adopt each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs;
    288.      Plaintiffs were falsely arrested so that Defendants could silence them from exercising their Constitutional rights;
    289.      Plaintiffs told the deputies that the Plaintiffs had the right to be on the public sidewalk street preaching, evangelizing, and holding up signs;
    290.      During the entire encounter, Plaintiffs did not resist the officers’ attempt to falsely arrest them and the detainment and kidnapping of the Plaintiffs’ children;
    291.      Plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional distress because of the unlawful arrest by Defendants and the detainment and kidnapping of the Plaintiffs’ children by the Defendants;
    292.      News of Plaintiffs’ false arrest spread throughout Escambia County to their and acquaintances, and was broadcast through the television and media, causing them embarrassment;
    293.      The news of the false arrest has tarnished their reputation as a Christian and made them a public spectacle to other people in Escambia County and internationally;
    294.      The charges against Plaintiffs we needs to be dropped and rendered null and void;
    295.      Defendants did not have sufficient information to reasonably believe that Plaintiffs were committing or had committed a crime when Defendants falsely arrested them;
    296.      The Defendants did not have sufficient information to prosecute the Plaintiffs any further after the false arrest and the Defendants’ actions of continual prosecutions against the Plaintiffs for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their constitutional rights is considered to be malicious prosecution and proof of a conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights by all Defendants;
    297.      Defendants arrested Plaintiffs for violation of an unconstitutional Ordinance;
    298.      Defendants arrested Plaintiffs for violation of an unconstitutional Ordinance combined with the misapplication of a state statute;
    299.      Plaintiffs were publicly humiliated by Defendants when they were falsely arrested for exercising their Constitutional rights and the Defendants purposely broadcasted the false arrests and the false charges to the general public in bad faith and harassments and for intentional infliction of emotional distress;
    300.      Defendants arrested Plaintiff wrongfully and without provocation;
    301.      Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs;
    302.      Defendants acted contrary to clearly established law when they arrested Plaintiffs;
    303.      No reasonable officer could have believed that Plaintiffs were subject to arrest under the circumstances and that the Plaintiffs were guilty of “child abuse”;
    304.      Defendants either knew, or should have known, that their Ordinance and actions are a blatant violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;
    305.      WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages set forth herein;
    COUNT VI
    RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
    306.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full.
    307.      The unlawful actions of the Defendants as stated herein, were without any probable cause of the Plaintiffs’ committing any crime and made in bad faith and in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ peaceful exercise of constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, free association, and free exercise of religion;
    308.      The criminal actions of the Defendants as stated herein, were without any probable cause of the Plaintiffs’ committing any crime and made in bad faith and in retaliation for the Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel petitioning the government when they filed a 42 U.S.C. 12983 civil rights action against the Escambia Sheriff’s Office and its’ Deputy Sheriff officers which was served on those Defendants;
    309.      The Defendants actions of characterizing the Plaintiffs’ unpopular and despised religious speech as “derogatory” were without any probable cause of the Plaintiffs’ committing any crime and constitutes First Amendment retaliation, in that Defendants  were also the subjects of the Plaintiffs’ public exercise of their religious speech;
    310.      The Defendants cannot avoid liability by hiding behind a third party or an ordinance for their malicious, bad faith and retaliatory actions to deter, silence and stop the Plaintiffs’ peaceful exercise of their constitutional rights on the public street;
    311.      The Defendants including Defendant who is the final policy maker for the Escambia Sheriff’s Office had no probable cause of the Plaintiffs’ committing any crime and further approved and/or consented to the Defendants’ actions by not dismissing the false charges;
    312.      The Defendants mainly Ronald Busbee also took part in the physical assaults against the Plaintiffs and their children;
    313.      Defendant statement made to the Plaintiff Orlando Bethel that they were aware that the Plaintiffs had sue them demonstrates further proof of the retaliatory motive behind the Defendants’ actions;
    314.      The Defendants used the Plaintiffs’ religious speech as the cause for falsely arresting the Plaintiffs as outlined in the Deputy Sheriff’s Krystal Jeffcoat’s report;
    315.      The Defendant in retaliation for the Plaintiffs filing a 42 U.S.C. 12983 constitutional civil lawsuit and for the exercise of their religious speech rebuking the Escambia Sheriff’s Office officials used the Plaintiffs’ unpopular and despised religious message signs (religious speech) and stole their [illegally] seized property to use as incriminating evidence in their prosecutions against the Plaintiffs;
    316.      Defendants Further stated that the Plaintiffs needed a “permit” and but in order to remove the Plaintiffs off of the public property changed the “permit” violation to a felony of “child abuse”;
    317.      Defendants actions as stated herein proves a flagrant retaliatory content-based and viewpoint-based violation of the Plaintiffs’ protected rights to free speech as proven in Krystal Jeffcoat’s report that the Plaintiffs speech was “derogatory” the main issue;
    318.      The Defendant   actions of arresting the Plaintiffs without any probable cause in and then stating that they got a 2911 call that the children looked hot was not probable cause and proves lack of any probable cause or government interest to chill the Plaintiffs’ religious speech which is in violation of the Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise their religious expression and sincerely held religious beliefs while in a traditional public fora;
    319.      As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ bad faith retaliatory actions, the Plaintiffs were injured in their rights to free speech, assembly, association, and religion as guaranteed by the First, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as their right to be free from illegal seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress, pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    320.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    COUNT VII
    ASSAULT AND BATTERY –Supplemental State Claim
    321.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full; All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    322.      Defendants with intent to cause physical injury to the Plaintiffs Zoe Bethel, Kezia Bethel and Zion Bethel did cause physical injury to Zoe Bethel by purposely clawing (putting his finger nails into her skin) the Plaintiff unlawful actions were not provoked, were without probable cause and constitute assault and/or battery;
    323.      Defendant Ronald Busbee with intent to cause physical injury to the Plaintiff Kezia Bethel did cause physical injury to Kezia Bethel by jerking and kicking the Plaintiff’s legs and pushing the Plaintiff to the ground and twisting her arms (Exhibit A video taped evidence) on her legs and causing her physical pain to her legs. Her legs were hurting while she was at the Deputy Sheriff station and Kezia Bethel had to carried on her sister’s back because of the pain in her legs. Defendant Ronald Busbee unlawful actions were not provoked, without probable cause and constitute assault;
    324.      The Defendant (unidentified) grabbed Zion Bethel’s arm and twisted it around his back causing Zion Bethel pain and with the intent to cause physical injury to next friend Zion Bethel did cause physical injury to Zion Bethel by choking Zion Bethel around his neck and jumped full body on top of Zion Bethel’s back and caused Zion pain in your chest area and legs and unlawful actions by the Defendants were not provoked, were without probable cause and constitute assault and/or battery;
    325.      Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel were physically assaulted through unwanted physical contact as the handcuffs were placed on the Plaintiffs as a result of the false arrest by the Defendants;
    326.      As a direct and proximate cause of the intentional conduct of Defendants in ordering, consenting, and/or agreeing to the Plaintiffs’ false arrests, all of the Plaintiffs were assaulted and suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress, pain, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    327.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    COUNT VIII
    UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT-Supplemental State Claim
    328.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full.
    329.      The Defendants ordered, consented to, and/or agreed to the Plaintiffs’ arrests, physical restraint, handcuffing, transporting to jail, and incarceration;
    330.      The Plaintiffs were unreasonably and unjustifiably physically restrained, handcuffed tightly, transported to jail and incarcerated without any probable cause, without their consent and against their will;
    331.      Defendants actions in confining and restraining the Plaintiffs were unreasonable, unjustifiable, discriminatory and unlawful because there was no probable cause of any criminal activity on behalf of the Plaintiffs;
    COUNT IX
    CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY-Supplemental State Claim
    332.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full.
    333.      The Defendants, as stated herein, acted individually and in concert to criminally deny and deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights secured by the laws of the United States and the State of Florida Constitution of under the Religious Freedom Amendment;
    334.      The Defendants as stated herein, acted in concert and agreed with each other with the intent to criminally engage in assaulting, falsely arresting, physically restraining, handcuffing, transporting to jail, incarcerating the Plaintiffs without any probable cause and illegally confiscating the Plaintiffs’ videotaped evidence of the Defendants’ unlawful actions against the Plaintiffs;
    335.      The purpose of the Defendants  ’s actions in depriving the Plaintiffs of their rights was to silence and deter the Plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment rights and rights secured by the State of Florida Constitution of under the Religious Freedom Amendment;
    336.      The actions of Defendants   constituted criminal conspiracy according to Florida law by agreeing to engage in and committing overt criminal acts of assault, false arrest and false imprisonment in retaliation to silence, deter and stop the Plaintiffs from the exercise of their rights secured by the laws of the United States Constitution and the State of Florida Constitution under the Religious Freedom Act;
    337.      The Defendant  (Defendants) who is in agreement with and consented to the Defendants  ’s unlawful actions by overtly, willfully and maliciously harassing the Plaintiffs with repeat bad faith prosecutions and bad faith harassment against the Plaintiffs in order to silence, deter and stop the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights secured by the laws of the United States Constitution and the State of Florida Constitution of under the Religious Freedom Amendment;
    338.      The Defendant  (Defendants) who as the Escambia County Florida Sheriff’s Office acts as its’ chief law enforcement officer, has a history of repeat bad faith prosecutions and harassments of the Plaintiffs for the Plaintiffs engaging in protected speech activities;
    339.      The Defendant  (Defendants) who as the Escambia County Florida prosecutor acts as its’ chief law enforcement officer, has further obstructed the operation of justice by maliciously and illegally withholding the Plaintiffs’ personal property of videotaped evidence of the Deputy Sheriff Defendants unlawful actions of assault, false arrest and false imprisonment in retaliation to silence, deter and stop the Plaintiffs from the exercise of their rights secured by the laws of the United States Constitution and the State of Florida Constitution of  under the Religious Freedom Amendment, which occurred against the Plaintiffs while in the Escambia County Public street (public median or sidewalk or right-of-way) on September 29, 2005;
    340.       As a direct and proximate cause of this criminal conspiracy to engage in and commit offenses against the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    341.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT X
    TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE-Supplemental State Claim
    342.       All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    343.      The Defendants   as stated herein, maliciously and illegally seized the Plaintiffs’ personal property of videotaped evidence of the Defendants  ’s unlawful assaults, false arrests, and false imprisonment of the Plaintiffs with the intent of refusing to return the Plaintiffs’ personal videotaped evidence of the Defendants’ criminal actions against the Plaintiffs (Exhibit “A”);
    344.      The Defendants, refused to give the Plaintiffs a copy of a property receipt for all their personal property unlawfully seized at the time of the Plaintiffs’ false and unconstitutional arrest by the Defendants in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedures. The Defendants further stated that the Plaintiffs' audiotape and videotapes were being held for evidence;
    345.      The Defendant  (Defendants) admitted to receiving the Plaintiffs’ personal property of the videotaped evidence but he further refuses to return the audiotape and videotapes;
    346.      The Defendant  (Defendants) admitted to also giving the Plaintiffs’ audio tape and videotapes to a third party Defendants without the Plaintiffs’ permission but the Defendant  (Defendants) still refuses to return the audio and videotapes to the Plaintiffs;
    347.      The Plaintiffs through a motion to the Court requested the Defendant in written motions for disclosure of evidence and specifically to return and produce the Plaintiffs' videotaped evidence but the Defendants   (Defendants) has still refused to return the Plaintiffs' audio tape and videotapes;
    348.      The Defendant has full knowledge that the Plaintiffs’ audio tape and videotapes are pertinent and incontrovertible material proof that the Plaintiffs were engaged in peaceful speech activity protected under the First Amendment and are innocent of all of the charges brought against the Plaintiffs, but the Defendant(s) is still bringing this bad faith prosecution against the Plaintiffs in retaliation for the purpose of bad faith harassment;
    349.           The Defendant  (Defendants) has full knowledge that the Plaintiffs’ audio tape and videotapes further prove the criminal and retaliatory actions of the Defendants   that were committed against the Plaintiffs on September 29, 2005 while in the Escambia County Public street (public) ;
    350.      The Defendants, have acted without legal authority by concealing, removing and/or altering, destroying or mutilating the plaintiffs’ physical evidence with the intent to impair it’s use, verity or availability in any and all pending official prosecutions of the Plaintiffs and civil actions in Federal court brought by the Plaintiffs, which clearly constitutes tampering with evidence according to Florida Code and demonstrates retaliatory, bad faith prosecution and bad faith harassment of the Plaintiffs;
    351.       Additionally, Escambia County Florida prosecutor (Defendants), Defendant ’s actions of unlawfully obstructing the Plaintiffs’ access to their own personal property of their videotaped evidence and further unlawfully stealing and concealing the Plaintiffs’ videotaped evidence without a receipt also constitutes a violation of the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct;
    352.      Escambia County Florida prosecutor (Defendants), Defendant ’s actions of aggressively proceeding to prosecute charges that he knows are not supported by probable cause and willfully failing to make any disclosure to the Plaintiffs of all evidence or information known to the Defendant that negates the guilt of the Plaintiffs (i.e. videotape evidence) constitutes a violation of the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct and the Plaintiffs’ false charges should have been dismissed;
    353.      Escambia County Florida prosecutor (Defendants), Defendant ’s actions of violating the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct constitutes misconduct and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; and further engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice under of the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct;
    354.      The Defendants Escambia County Florida through it’s Deputy Sheriff department has a history of destroying evidence, unlawfully altering information pertaining to evidence or arrests reports and unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs’ personal property and further not returning evidence that has been seized by the Defendant Deputy Sheriff officers;
    355.       As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants, actions to engage in and commit offenses of concealing and/or tampering with evidence against the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were subjected to intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and suffered pain, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community by the Defendants;
    356.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XI
    MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
    357.       All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full.
    358.      The  (Defendants) Defendant Escambia County Florida Prosecutor ’s actions of maliciously describing the Plaintiffs’ fire and brimstone preaching using biblical words and messages on their signs and allowing their children to participate as a crime  [of Escambia County] is evidence of a retaliatory motive, bad faith and malicious prosecution;
    359.      The Defendant  (Defendants) has full knowledge that the Plaintiffs’ videotapes are pertinent and incontrovertible material proof that the Plaintiffs were engaged in peaceful First Amendment activity in the Escambia County Public street (public)  and are innocent of all of the charges brought against the Plaintiffs but Defendant  (Defendants) without any probable cause is still bringing bad faith prosecutions against the Plaintiffs in retaliation and for the purpose of harassment with the help of the Circuit Judge and the Public Defender;
    360.      The Defendant ’s actions (Defendants) of bringing criminal charges against the Plaintiffs are designed to maliciously hinder, harass and deter the Plaintiffs from further filing a civil suit in the Federal courts;
    361.      The Defendant ’s actions (Defendants) of retaliatory and bad faith prosecution of the Plaintiffs without any probable cause, clearly demonstrates that the Defendant is engaging in the punitive machinery of government in order to punish the Plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights;
    362.      The Defendant  (Defendants) has instituted charges against the Plaintiffs with “no genuine expectation” of eventual success, but instead the Defendant’s  (Defendants) motives are for the purposes of deterring and discouraging the Plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment rights in the future;
    363.      The Defendant ’s actions (Defendants) are in violation of a prior immunity and a temporary restraining order granted by the Federal Court and that the Escambia County Florida’s Self-insurance carrier settled with the Plaintiffs;
    364.      The Defendant  (Defendants) is bringing charges against the Plaintiffs in a tribunal that he knows is demonstrably biased against the Plaintiffs’ fire and brimstone gospel preaching, in that the Judge Terry Terrell has previously denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and refuses to allow the Plaintiffs to depose their witnesses in preparation for trial;
    365.       Escambia County Court Judge Joyce Williams and Defendant Judge Terry Terrell’s (Defendants) actions were in concert with the Defendants Escambia Sheriff’s Office and the state attorney’s office and the public defender’s office to secure guilty verdicts in the retaliatory and bad faith prosecutions against the Plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights on September 29, 2005 in order to deter the Plaintiffs from filing a civil rights Federal suit against the Escambia County Florida;
    366.      The Defendant (Defendants) wrote in the arrest report that the Plaintiffs’ religious speech [without probable cause] was “derogatory” and as a result a content based restriction on the speech and the true cause for falsely arresting the Plaintiffs in the Escambia County Public street on September 29, 2005;
    367.      The Defendant ’s (Defendants) actions further show that the retaliatory, bad faith and harassing prosecutions against the Plaintiffs for the lawful exercise of their Constitutional Amendment rights were maliciously brought against them with “no genuine expectation” of eventual success, because the Defendant (Defendants) previously had dropped false charges against the Plaintiff Orlando Bethel when the Escambia Sheriff’s Office in conspiracy to violate constitutional rights had falsely arrested the Plaintiff for having a “demonstration without a permit”;
    368.      The Defendant  (Defendants) under the Plaintiffs’ State Claims, refused to provide the Plaintiffs with full and complete disclosure of any and all evidence that was and still is within his control, possession, or custody which are material to the preparation of the Plaintiffs’ defense as is required by the Florida Rules of Evidence and the constitution;
    369.      The Defendant (Defendants) attempted to coerce the Plaintiffs into giving up their rights to confront their witnesses when the public defender refused to depose Krystal Jeffcoat and when the public defender along with the Judge Terry Terrell refused to allow the Plaintiffs to have compulsory witnesses on their behalf, who demanded a jury trial, in violation of their Sixth Amendment rights;
    370.      Escambia County Florida prosecutor, Defendant  (Defendants) knew that his actions were dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful misrepresentative and prejudicial to the administration of justice in attempting to coerce the Plaintiffs to participate in a trial in order to defend themselves of false charges which violated their constitutional and civil rights;
    371.      Escambia County Florida prosecutor, Defendant   (Defendants) knew that it is unlawful for him to obtain and secure an unconstitutional conviction of the Plaintiffs through attempting to fraudulently coerce the Plaintiffs to surrender their constitutional rights when the public defender threatened the Plaintiffs that if they wanted to depose Krystal Jeffcoat they would not be allowed to have a public defender or assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment;
    372.      As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant ’s (Defendants) actions of retaliatory, bad faith, malicious and harassing prosecutions against the Plaintiffs for the lawful exercise of their Constitutional Amendment rights the Plaintiffs were injured in their rights to free speech, assembly, association, and religion as guaranteed by the First, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as their right to be free from illegal seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress, pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community as a direct cause by the Defendants;
    373.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XII
    CONSPIRACY-42 U.S.C. 1985(3) Interference With Civil Rights
    374.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full.
    375.      The Defendants, Caucasians as stated herein, acted together and/or by common design to unlawfully deny and deprive the Plaintiffs, who are considered to be African Americans, of their civil and constitutional rights;
    376.      The Defendants   as stated herein, acted together and/or by common design to unlawfully cause the Plaintiffs to be arrested, physically restrained, handcuffed, transported to jail and incarcerated for the purpose of interfering with and depriving the Plaintiffs’ of their civil rights to free access to the public facilities of the Escambia County Public street (public) ;
    377.      The purpose of the Defendants  ’s actions in depriving the Plaintiffs of their civil rights was to silence and deter the Plaintiffs from further using public facilities to exercise their First Amendment rights in which they were chilled from doing by the Defendants;
    378.      The actions of Defendants   constituted conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of the Plaintiffs;
    379.      As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community as a direct result of the Defendants’ actions of violating the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights;
    380.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XIII
    INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
     
    381.       All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    382.      The actions of the Defendants individually and in concert were outrageous, intentional, unlawful, malicious, and committed for the express purpose of causing the Plaintiffs to suffer increased humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress in retaliation for the exercise of their religious speech;
    383.      The actions of the Defendants   in confirming and ratifying this unlawful conduct was done with the knowledge that the Plaintiffs would suffer great physical and emotional distress, and was undertaken with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to the Plaintiffs and caused the Plaintiffs emotional distress by the direct actions of the Defendants;
    384.      The Defendants do not have any statutory or judicially created privilege available to them as to exempt them from tortuous liability for their willful and unlawful actions;
    385.       All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants   to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against the Escambia County Florida and each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of reputation in the community as a direct result of the Defendants’ actions against the Plaintiffs;
    386.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XIV
    SIXTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
    387.       All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    388.      The Defendant Judge Terry Terrell (Defendants) who is the Escambia County Public street Court judge has denied the Plaintiffs their right to a speedy trial upon the Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss for the denial of a speedy trial;
    389.      The Plaintiffs did not have their trial before the Court before 175 days and as a result the charges against the Plaintiffs must be dismissed;
    390.      The Judge of the Circuit Court prolonged the trial by granting a public defender an extension to be present in the Courtroom for a “Faretta Hearing” when the Plaintiff made a written statement that they would be self-represented
    391.      The Judge Joyce Williams ignored the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights to represent themselves in court and assigned the Plaintiffs counsel without the consent of the Plaintiffs; therefore, prolonging the Plaintiffs trial by forcing the Plaintiffs into a “Faretta Hearing” in violation of the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution;
    392.      The Defendant Judge Terry Terrell (Defendants) further forced the Plaintiffs to go forth in a trial at a docket hearing on the date of Wednesday, November 22, 2006 without the Plaintiffs having the effective assistance of counsel (or counsel specializing in Constitutional law) and denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to admit their witnesses and denying the Plaintiffs their right to compulsory process to obtain witlessness in their favor in violation of the Sixth Amendment;
    393.      The Defendant Judge Terry Terrell (Defendants) additionally refused to allow the Plaintiffs to depose their choice of witnesses, but also refused to allow the Plaintiffs to serve subpoenas on their witnesses for the trial;
    394.      The Plaintiffs also was not given assistance of effective counsel and the public defender made threats against the Plaintiffs if the Plaintiffs insisted on confronting their witnesses through the discovery process by requesting for Krystal Jeffcoat to be deposed;
    395.      The Plaintiffs were denied the assistance of effective counsel who refused to present a Constitutional defense or entrapment type defense on behalf of the Plaintiffs;
    396.       Escambia County Public street Court Judge, Defendant Judge Terry Terrell’s (Defendants) actions were in concert or conspiracy with the Defendant to secure guilty verdicts in the retaliatory and bad faith prosecutions against the Plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights on September 29, 2005 in order to deter the Plaintiffs from filing a civil rights federal suit against the Escambia County Florida;
    397.      The Plaintiffs demanded that their charges be dismissed due to the violations of their constitutional rights from their public defender, but he refused to place before the judge any motions to dismiss. When the Plaintiffs placed the motions before the judge, the judge refused the motions because they did not come directly from the public defender;
    398.      The Plaintiffs informed the Judge Terry Terrell that they would NOT be going forward to trial unless they were able to have compulsory process to depose their witnesses and to obtain witnesses in their favor and specifically requested the witnesses of Ron McNesby and Joel Mooneyham which was denied by both he judge;
    399.      The Plaintiff told the Judge Terry Terrell that if they could not have the right to confront their witnesses or to have a process to get the witnesses of their choice then the Plaintiffs’ case and false charges should be dismissed
    400.      The Plaintiffs informed the Judge that they would be appear for a bench or jury trial without their constitutional rights protected or with a constitutional defense in which the public defender refused to present constitutional issues for the record on appeal which left he Plaintiffs with ineffective counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment;
    401.      The charges should have been dismissed because the Plaintiffs were denied a speedy trial and were not dismissed and the Jude Terry Terrell kept granting a continuous based on the State attorney’s officer Suzie Jeffery not being prepared to answer the motion to dismiss and a continuance because the public defender refused to conduct depositions of the deputy sheriff who pressed the false charges against the Plaintiffs;
    402.      The Judge Terry Terrell attempted to force the Plaintiffs to trial without he Plaintiffs being able to have Ron McNesby and Joel Mooneyham’s depositions. The judge, prosecuting attorney and the public defender was forcing the Plaintiffs into an illegal trial for the false charges, that a defense against the false charges would be their only option even though the Plaintiffs knew the charges were false and as a result of retaliation and entrapment;
    403.      The Supervisor over the public defender’s office counseled the Plaintiffs and reassured them that they would not be assisting the Plaintiffs in the defense for constitutional issues because the Plaintiffs had presented constitutional issues on their previous motion to dismiss;
    404.      Judge Terry Terrell (Defendants) made it clear to the Plaintiffs personally that the Plaintiffs had only two choices one would be to either have a bench or jury and that he would assign a jury trial if the Plaintiffs refused to select between the two, but the Plaintiffs told the Judge that they would not select either until they were allowed to depose their two selected witnesses as is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment;
    405.      The Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Plaintiff Glynis Bethel, without assistance of counsel were forced to submit to a trial before and denied their right to a speedy trial and to confront their witnesses and to have their compulsory process to obtain witnesses in their favor which happens to include Ron McNesby and Joel Mooneyham in violation of the Sixth (6th) Amendment;
    406.      The actions of the Defendant Judge Terry Terrell (Defendants) clearly proved that the Plaintiffs were subjected to a demonstratively biased tribunal and ineffective counsel in conspiracy to violate constitutional rights;
    407.      The Defendant  (Defendants) attempted to coerce the Plaintiffs into making a defense for the false charges and attempted to coerce the Plaintiffs to have their daughter testify at trial for the false charges instead of representing the Plaintiffs with a defense with Constitutional issues preserved for the record for appeals in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights, in order to be granted their Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial, which right the Plaintiffs were denied;
    408.       All of the unlawful actions stated herein by the (Defendants), were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against the Escambia County Florida and each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    409.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XV
    FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
    410.       All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    411.      On September 29, 2005, Deputy Sheriffs from the Escambia Sheriff’s Office violated the Plaintiffs’ Due Process rights and rights to be free from an Illegal Seizure by seizing the Plaintiffs’ personal property and effects without carefully inventorying the Plaintiffs’ property that was seized at the scene of the (false) arrest which also included unspecified amounts of cash money (approximately $60.00 reported by the property department clerk) nor did the Deputy Sheriffs fill out a “seized/ released property receipt” and give the Plaintiffs a copy of the inventory that was seized; therefore, the Plaintiffs and the ESO illegally are retaining the personal property of the Plaintiffs;
    412.      While being searched and booked on false charges at the Escambia County Jail by an officer employed at the jail facility, Deputy Sheriff Busbee stole a digital recording devise from Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel’s personal possessions that were being inventoried by the jail facility officer. Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel repeatedly confronted Deputy Sheriff Busbee informing Busbee that what he was doing was unlawful and that all of the Plaintiff’s possessions that were seized at the jail facility were to be inventoried and listed together on the Escambia County Jail’s property receipt. Deputy Sheriff Busbee told the Plaintiffs that his reason for taking the Plaintiff’s recording devise was only to make sure that it did not get stolen or lost at the Escambia County Jail facility which is not the procedure for seizing property at the Escambia County Jail facility nor did they claim that the seizure was incident to the Plaintiffs’ arrest;
    The Plaintiffs’ were not granted Due Process of the law as outlined in Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act
     
    413.      Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act affords the Plaintiffs more protection than the federal statutes it is modeled after. It guarantees the Plaintiffs a post-seizure, adversarial preliminary hearing "to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that such property has been or is being used in violation of the [law]." This puts the burden on the State Attorney’s Office to prove that the seized property is truly contraband, and, forces the State Attorney’s Office to prove their case by a clear and convincing standard before forfeiture is adjudicated in which they do not have the proof that the following items has been or is being used in violation of the law; therefore, these items MUST BE RETURNED:
    ·        Two signs with religious messages, "GOD hates you Sinners. Repent in JESUS' name. Live Sin Free" (we think that there is one more with, "Repent Whore" on it [dedicated to Krystal Jeffcoat and her real reason for the false arrest]);
    ·        A megaphone worth approximately $100.00;
    ·        One miniature video camera with evidence worth approximately $130.00;
    ·        One video camera with evidence worth approximately $250.00;
    ·        On audio recorder with evidence worth approximately $50.00;
    ·        About eight (8) bouquets of flowers worth approximately $5.2929 each (and these flower bouquets MUST BE RETURNED fresh and NOT dead);
    ·        Be a MODEL for the GOSPEL booklets with Religious messages and teaching on sexual purity worth about $10.00 each which were being distributed on the streets for free;
    ·        About three (3) baskets for holding tracts with Religious messages given to the general public and motorist for free;
    ·        Tracts with Religious message given to the motorist for free;
    ·        A red mug for drinking water worth about $1.00 (requested by my daughter);
    ·        A key ring with keys (including the key to our mailbox) of the Plaintiffs in order to get into their home, vehicle, P.O., etc.
     
    414.      The Escambia Sheriff’s Office was never issued a warrant to seize the personal property and effects of the Plaintiffs before or after the (false) arrest of the Plaintiffs. There are absolutely no exigent circumstances in this case for the Escambia Sheriff’s Office to justify the warrant-less seizure of the Plaintiffs’ personal property. The State Attorney’s Office has not presented to this court any claims that the Plaintiffs’ personal property was used as an instrumentality in any illegal activity but the State Attorney’s Office has not released the Plaintiffs’ personal property back into their possession. Please respect the constitution and give us back our property;
    415.       We need these items to continue the work of the ministry and to complete our street preaching activities on the PUBLIC property. Now that GOD has sent a plague on Joel Mooneyham, we believe that this sign and wonder will scare the deputies sheriffs into doing the right thing or GOD too, will send a plague in their lives. We have prayed that GOD will send a plague into any and every person who is attempting to stop us from preaching the gospel on PUBLIC property in Escambia County (including Suzie Jeffrey the lying prosecuting witch);                                                                                                                                               
    416.      All of the unlawful actions by the (Defendants) stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against the Escambia County Florida and each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    417.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XVI
    VIOLATION: ATTEMPTED USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
     
    418.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    419.      The Defendants unlawfully and without any probable cause of the Plaintiffs committing any crime, unconstitutionally seized the Plaintiffs’ religious message signs, video cameras and audio tape recorder for the purpose of using the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious speech as evidence to obtain the Plaintiffs’ conviction in what they knew to be a biased tribunal;
    420.       The (Defendants) Defendant in bad faith intentionally and unconstitutionally used the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious message signs which he knew were obtained by Defendants without any probable cause and through entrapment of the Plaintiffs committing any crime and through an unconstitutional seizure as evidence to obtain and secure the Plaintiffs’ unconstitutional conviction in a tribunal that he knew was biased against the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious speech;
    421.      The (Defendants) Defendant Judge Terry Terrell intentionally attempted to convict the Plaintiffs in bad faith knowing that the Defendants   unlawfully and without any probable cause and entrapment of the Plaintiffs committing any crime, unconstitutionally seized the Plaintiffs’ religious message signs, video cameras and audio tape recorder for the purpose of using the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious speech as evidence to obtain the Plaintiffs’ conviction as a part of a conspiracy, in what the Defendants knew to be a biased tribunal;
    422.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    423.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XVII
    VIOLATION: ATTEMPTED USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO UNLAWFUL ARRESTS 
    424.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    425.      The Defendants unlawfully and without any probable cause (entrapment) of the Plaintiffs committing any crime but in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their despised and unpopular religious speech while on the Escambia County Public right-of way, sidewalk and median (public property) on September 29, 2005. The Defendants further unlawfully arrested the Plaintiffs, and then violently and unconstitutionally seized the Plaintiffs’ religious message signs, video cameras and audio tape recorder for the purpose of using the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious speech as evidence to unconstitutionally obtain the Plaintiffs’ conviction in what they knew to be a biased tribunal;
    426.      The (Defendants) Defendants in bad faith intentionally and unconstitutionally used the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious message signs as evidence to attempt to obtain and secure the Plaintiffs’ unconstitutional conviction based on the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious speech and which evidence the Defendant knew was obtained through unlawful arrests because there was no probable cause of the Plaintiffs committing any crime but the unlawful arrests were done in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their despised and unpopular religious speech and redress of grievance with the Escambia Sheriff’s Office while on an Escambia County Public right-of-way, sidewalk and median (public property)  on September 29, 2005;
    427.       The (Defendants) Defendant Judge Terry Terrell deliberately disregarded the material facts in bad faith knowing that the Defendants unlawfully and without any probable cause of the Plaintiffs committing any crime but in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their despised and unpopular religious speech while on an Escambia County Public right-of-way, sidewalk and median (public property) on September 29, 2005, The Defendants unlawfully arrested the Plaintiffs, and then violently and unconstitutionally seized the Plaintiffs’ religious message signs, video cameras and audio tape recorder and  used the Plaintiffs’ despised and unpopular religious speech as evidence to attempt to unconstitutionally obtain the Plaintiffs’ conviction as a part of a conspiracy in what the Defendants knew to be a biased tribunal;
    428.      All of the unlawful actions (Defendants) stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    429.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    (Continued)
    #2
    Theprophetessglynis
    Cranky
    • Total Posts : 104
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2006/01/16 21:47:26
    • Status: offline
    RE: Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sh 2006/12/02 14:39:38 (permalink)


    COUNT XVIII
    VIOLATION: DEFENDANT PROSECUTOR’S  ATTEMPT (DEFENDANTS) TO UNCONSTITUIONAL FAIL TO DISCLOSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS
    430.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    431.      The Defendant (Defendants) has in the prosecutions for September 029, 2006, unconstitutionally refused to provide the Plaintiffs with full and complete disclosure of any and all videotaped evidence that was and still is within his control, possession, or custody, which are material to the preparation of the Plaintiffs’ defense;
    432.      The Defendant Deputy Sheriff (Defendants) admitted to receiving the Plaintiffs’ personal property for the September 29, 2005 false criminal charges, but the Defendant  (Defendants) also gave the Plaintiffs’ personal property of videotapes to a third party (Defendants State Attorney’s Office) without giving the Plaintiffs’ a seized/returned property receipt, further (Defendants) Defendants still refuses to return the Plaintiffs’ videotaped evidence and video cameras in violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;
    433.       The Plaintiffs requested the Defendant  (Defendants) in written motions to disclose all evidence and specifically to return and produce the Plaintiffs videotaped evidence but the Defendants has still unconstitutionally refused to return the Plaintiffs videotapes and video cameras;
    434.      The Defendant  (Defendants) has full knowledge that the Plaintiffs’ videotaped evidence is pertinent and incontrovertible material proof that the Plaintiffs were engaged in peaceful First Amendment activity for which the Defendant Deputy Sheriff Krystal Jeffcoat told the Plaintiffs that they needed a permit to engage in their activities and the Plaintiffs are further innocent of all of the charges brought against the Plaintiffs but the Defendant (Defendants) is still bringing this bad faith prosecution against the Plaintiffs in retaliation for the Plaintiffs exercise of their constitutional rights;
    435.      The Defendant  (Defendants) has full knowledge that the Plaintiffs’ videotaped evidence further proves the criminal and retaliatory actions of the Defendants Deputy Sheriffs that were unlawfully committed against the Plaintiffs on September 29, 2005;
    436.      Additionally, Escambia County Florida prosecutor, Defendant ’s (Defendants) actions of unlawfully obstructing the Plaintiffs’ access to their own personal property of their videotaped and audio taped evidence in order to unlawfully obtain a conviction of the Plaintiffs and that the Defendant knew was favorable to the Plaintiffs’ defense and further unlawfully altering, destroying or concealing the Plaintiffs’ videotaped evidence also constitutes a violation of the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct;
    437.      Escambia County Florida prosecutor, Defendant ’s (Defendants) actions of aggressively proceeding to prosecute charges that she knows are not supported by probable cause and willfully failing to make any disclosure to the Plaintiffs of all evidence or information known to the Defendant that negates the guilt of the Plaintiffs (i.e. videotape evidence) in order to unlawfully obtain and secure a conviction of the Plaintiffs constitutes a violation of the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct;
    438.      Escambia County Florida prosecutor, Defendant ’s (Defendants) actions of violating the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct constitutes misconduct and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation by intentionally failing to disclose and produce for the Plaintiffs evidence that is favorable to the Plaintiffs’ case and further engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice under of the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct;
    439.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    440.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XIX
    VIOLATION: DENIAL OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
    441.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    442.      The (Defendants) were guilty of a denial of competent “Constitutional” attorney and effective assistance of counsel, because the Plaintiffs’ false criminal charges involved questions pertaining to specific Constitutional violations and the Plaintiffs desired the defense of “entrapment” and was not given counsel at the time of their Constitutional rights and proper defense methods or strategies;
    443.      The Defendant Judge Terry Terrell (Defendants) further forced the Plaintiffs to go forth in a trial at a docket hearing on the date of Wednesday, November 22, 2006 without the Plaintiffs having the effective assistance of counsel (or counsel specializing in Constitutional law) and denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to admit their witnesses and denying the Plaintiffs their right to compulsory process to obtain witlessness in their favor in violation of the Sixth Amendment;
    444.      The Defendant Judge Terry Terrell (Defendants) additionally refused to allow the Plaintiffs to depose their choice of witnesses, but also refused to allow the Plaintiffs to serve subpoenas on their witnesses for the trial;
    445.      The Plaintiffs also was not given assistance of effective counsel and the public defender made threats against the Plaintiffs if the Plaintiffs insisted on confronting their witnesses through the discovery process by requesting for Krystal Jeffcoat to be deposed;
    446.      The Plaintiffs were denied the assistance of effective counsel who refused to present a Constitutional defense or entrapment type defense on behalf of the Plaintiffs;
    447.      Then the Plaintiffs’ public defender himself stated that he would not be deposing, at the Plaintiffs’ request, Krystal Jeffcoat which further violated the Plaintiffs’ right to confront their witnesses and the public defender alos refused to allow the Plaintiffs their right to compulsory process to obtain their witnesses in their favor and the Court approved this violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right under the 6th Amendment;
    448.      The Plaintiffs’ as Attorney Pro Se also complained to the Court and the Supervisor of the Public Defender that he was not being given a “Constitutional” attorney; when the Plaintiffs raised specific issues of Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations of their constitutional rights;
    449.      The Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel, were without effective counsel, and demanded a jury trial, but wanted to choice either a “bench” or “jury” based on witnesses;
    450.      This ineffective counsel Defendant Chris Ross was assigned as a public defender, in the Circuit Court to defend the Plaintiffs. This public defender complained that he was not going to represent the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional issues in which the Plaintiff wanted to exert as a defense;
    451.      Attorney Sharon Potter was another ineffective counsel for the Plaintiff Glynis Bethel. Instead of Sharon Potter arguing Constitutional violations as a defense or entrapment upon the Plaintiff’s request, Sharon Potter, being incompetent to the corporal punishment law in the State of Florida had published on her web site contrary to the Florida State law that spanking a child was considered to be child abuse.
    452.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    453.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    COUNT XX
    VIOLATION: DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO APPEAL BY PUBLIC DEFENDER AND JUDGE REFUSING TO PRESERVE THE RECORD ON CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FOR APPEAL
    454.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    455.      The Defendant Public Defender and Judge  (Defendants) actions of aggressively refusing to raise and acknowledge the Plaintiffs constitutional issues as a defense thereby denied them their due process rights to appeal based on their constitutional protected rights violates the Plaintiffs’ right and ability to appeal based on their constitutional defenses;
    456.      Escambia County Florida prosecutor, (Defendants) Defendant knew that their actions were dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful misrepresentative and prejudicial to the administration of justice in deliberately disregarding the Plaintiff’s factual evidence of their constitutionally protected activities for which they were falsely arrested;
    457.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    458.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    COUNT XXI
    VIOLATION: POLICY, CUSTOM OR PRACTICE LIABILITY
    459.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    460.      The Escambia County Florida (Defendants) through the Escambia County Florida Deputy Sheriff Department, is a person under Section 12983, action under color of State Law, subjected or caused the Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel, Glynis Bethel individually and Orlando Bethel, Glynis Bethel as (next friends) of Zoe Bethel, Kezia Bethel and Zion Bethel, violated Constitutional rights and caused the Plaintiffs to be subjected to the deprivation of their right to Freedom of Speech, Free Exercise of their Religion, Peaceable Assembly, Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances, Equal Protection of the Laws, Due Process of the Law, Unreasonable Search and Seizure and further violations of the Fifth, Sixth Amendments under the United States Constitution;
    461.      The Escambia County Florida, acting through it’s employees and agents Defendants, Judge Terry Terrell, officially sanctioned the above-described unconstitutional acts that occurred during and as a result of the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. The Escambia County Florida (Defendants) has caused by policy, custom or practice, bad faith harassing arrests and prosecutions in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights;
    462.      Defendant Ron McNesby (Defendants), who is the final policy making authority on Deputy Sheriff activities for Escambia County Florida, was not only aware of the previous immunity granted to the Plaintiffs to engage in their protected First Amendment activity but the Defendant Ron McNesby has ratified his Deputy Sheriffs’ unconstitutional conduct of banning, deterring, suppressing, chilling, assaulting, arresting, restraining, detaining, confining, and prosecuting the Plaintiffs in retaliation for the Plaintiffs exercise of their unpopular and despised religious speech. Where the person (Defendants) who establishes policy, custom or practice ratifies the action, he is responsible whether that action is to be taken only once or to be taken repeatedly;
    463.      The  (Defendants) Defendant Escambia County Florida through it’s Circuit Court has an unconstitutional policy, custom and practice of denying the Plaintiffs and others their right to self representation, without being forced to attend a “faretta” hearing and even after the Plaintiffs have demanded that they not be assigned a Public Defender and then notified the Circuit Court judge of their demand represent themselves which is a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment;
    464.      The (Defendants) Defendant Escambia County Florida through it’s ordinance has an unconstitutional policy, custom and practice of denying the Plaintiffs their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments while on public property (sidewalks, right-of-ways and medians) in Escambia County Florida if the Plaintiffs are not wearing a “vest”;
    465.      The (Defendants) Defendant Escambia Sheriff’s Office has a history of failing to adequately train the Defendant Deputy Sheriff officers to protect the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and this lack of training constituted deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and their children and is an unconstitutional policy, custom or practice sufficient to impose liability;
    466.      It is the unconstitutional policy, custom and practice of the Escambia County Florida Defendants and it’s Deputy Sheriff officers to exclude the Plaintiffs from the public facilities and public ways if the Plaintiffs are not wearing a “vest” while expressing their unpopular and despised religious views to motorist while standing on sidewalks, right-of-ways and medians;
    467.      It is the unconstitutional policy, practice or custom of the Escambia County Florida Defendants to suppress the peaceful expressive religious speech of the Plaintiffs while the Plaintiffs are standing on the public sidewalks, right-of-ways and medians if the Plaintiffs are not wearing a “vest”;
    468.      It is the unconstitutional policy, practice or custom of the Escambia County Florida Defendants to deny the Plaintiffs of their peaceful expressive religious speech of the Plaintiffs while the Plaintiffs are standing on the public sidewalks, right-of-ways and medians if the Plaintiffs are not wearing a “vest” ;
    469.      It is the unconstitutional policy, practice or custom of the Escambia County Circuit Court and the Public Defender’s Office Defendants to deny the Plaintiffs their Constitutional rights of effective assistance of counsel knowing that the Public Defender is not presenting and raising Constitutional issues on behalf of the Plaintiffs;
    470.      It is the unconstitutional policy, practice or custom of the Escambia County Florida Defendants to require that the Plaintiffs wear a “vest” (permission) in order to stand on the public sidewalks, right-of-ways and medians in Escambia County Florida and communicating with motorist;
    471.      The unlawful actions of the Defendants, as stated herein were taken or ratified by the final policy makers (i.e. Sheriff for the Escambia County Florida; Escambia County Florida) and thus constitutes unconstitutional policies, practices, customs, and usages sufficient to impose liability;
    472.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    473.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XXII
    VIOLATION: ABUSE OF PROCESS
    474.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    475.      The Defendants, through a malicious and deliberate misuse of the court process to harass and unlawfully punish the Plaintiffs and by a perversion of regularly issued official court summons or other notices issued from a court through falsely arresting the Plaintiffs without any probable cause and without any lawful justification and as a result, forcing the Plaintiffs to have to appear in court in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights was without any lawful or legal grounds;
    476.      The Defendants actions were motivated by their interest to accomplish the improper purpose and use of the court process to harass, intimidate, deter, and chill the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights to their religious free speech through unjustified and false arrest without any probable cause;
    477.      The Defendant  (Defendants) through a malicious and deliberate misuse of the court process and a perversion of regularly issued official court summons or other notices issued from a court and by unfounded and unjustified criminal prosecutions that repeatedly forced the Plaintiffs to appear in court to defend themselves in retaliation for the Plaintiffs exercise of their rights to their religious free speech and petitioning the Federal courts in a 42 USC 12983 civil rights lawsuit against the Escambia Sheriff’s Office for their retaliatory acts against the Plaintiffs;
    478.      The Defendant ’s (Defendants) actions were motivated by their interest to accomplish the improper purpose and use of the court process to harass, intimidate, deter, and chill the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights to their religious free speech and petitioning the Federal courts in a 42 USC 12983 civil rights lawsuit against the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office through unfounded and unjustified criminal prosecutions without any probable cause;
    479.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    480.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XXIII
    VIOLATION: EIGHTH AMENDMENT
    481.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    482.      The Defendants, through a malicious and deliberate misuse of the court process to harass and unlawfully punish the Plaintiffs without any probable cause and without any lawful justification, falsely arrested the Plaintiffs;
    483.      The Defendant Deputy Sheriffs, after falsely arresting the Plaintiffs and assaulting the Plaintiffs’ children in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their free religious speech on the public property in Escambia County Florida, then the Defendants intentionally and falsely charged the Plaintiffs with “child neglect”;
    484.      The Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Plaintiff Glynis Bethel, were denied by the Defendants Deputy Sheriffs and State Attorney’s Office their right to exercise their First Amendment rights while on public sidewalks, right-of-ways and medians through false arrest and prosecution; and then denied by the Defendant Judge Terry Terrell the right to a speedy trial through an unconstitutional process of a Faretta hearing; and then were denied their right by Public Defender Chris Ross to effective assistance of counsel to protect and raise the Plaintiffs constitutional rights that were violated and were further not allowed to confront witnesses against them through depositions and to have a compulsory process to obtain witnesses in their favor by both Defendants Judge Terry Terrell and Public Defender Chris Ross which was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights;
    485.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    486.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XXIV
    VIOLATION: ENTRAPMENT (LOCAL RULE 16.12)
    487.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    488.      The Defendants actions on September 29, 2005 egregiously exceeded all reasonable and justifiable investigative procedures without any probable cause, and the Defendants through their own actions unlawfully instigated and induced the Plaintiffs false arrest to created a crime against the Plaintiffs in retaliation of the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their protected First Amendment rights;
    489.       The Defendants actions were without any probable cause and were egregiously instigated to unlawfully induced criminal charges against the Plaintiffs knowing that the Plaintiffs are fire and brimstone preachers who are “unusually determined” to persist in their protected free speech activity as a direct result of the HOLY SPIRIT’S (GOD’S) instructions to go into all of the world to preach to EVERY creature;
    490.      The actions of the Defendants, as stated herein, were entrapment and designed and intended to intimidate Plaintiffs and to induce the Plaintiffs in committing a crime, in which the Plaintiffs were not pre-disposed to commit, by the Plaintiffs allowing their children to participate with them in passing out free religious literature and receiving donations from motorist at a stop light and not ceasing the upon an unlawful order of the Defendant Deputy Sheriffs who were acting without any probable cause except to discourage the Plaintiffs from present and future expression of unpopular Religious speech;
    491.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    492.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XXV
    VIOLATION: FOURTH AMENDMENT (EXCESSIVE FORCE)
    493.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    494.      The Defendant  (Defendants) who was not faced with any immediate physical threat of his personal safety or the safety of others, but with intent to cause physical injury to next friend Zoe Bethel did cause physical injury to Zoe Bethel by purposely clawing (putting his finger nails into her skin) and causing her physical pain; Defendant‘s unlawful actions were not provoked, unjustified and were without probable cause and constitutes excessive force against the minor child;
    495.      Defendant Ronald Busbee who was not faced with any immediate physical threat of his personal safety or the safety of others, but with intent to cause physical injury to the Plaintiff Kezia Bethel did cause physical injury to Kezia Bethel by jerking and kicking the Plaintiff’s legs and pushing the Plaintiff to the ground and twisting her arms (Exhibit A video taped evidence) on her legs and causing her physical pain to her legs. Her legs were hurting while she was at the Deputy Sheriff station and Kezia Bethel had to be carried on her sister’s back because of the pain in her legs. Defendant Ronald Busbee’s unlawful actions were unreasonable, unjustified and unlawful and were not provoked, but were without probable cause and constitutes excessive force against the minor child;
    496.      The Defendant (unidentified Deputy Sheriff) who was not faced with any immediate physical threat of his personal safety or the safety of others, but with intent to cause physical injury to the next friend Zion Bethel, did grab Zion Bethel’s arm and twisted it around his back causing Zion Bethel pain and with the intent to cause physical injury to next friend Zion Bethel did cause physical injury to Zion Bethel by choking Zion Bethel around his neck and jumped full body on top of Zion Bethel’s back and caused Zion pain in your chest area and legs. The unlawful actions by the Defendants were unreasonable, unjustified and unlawful actions and were not provoked, but were without probable cause and constitutes excessive force against the minor child;
    497.      Plaintiffs Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel were physically assaulted through unwanted physical contact as the handcuffs were placed on the Plaintiffs as a result of the false arrest by the Defendants;
    498.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    499.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    COUNT XXVI
    VIOLATION: DEPUTY SHERIFF MISCONDUCT
    500.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    501.      The Plaintiffs have already exhausted all administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and are therefore entitled to file this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 37829d(c); (Exhibit     Letters to the FBI and from FBI/ DOJ)
    502.      The Defendants   actions against the Plaintiffs on September 29, 2005 in the Escambia County Public sidewalk, right-of-way and median (public property) egregiously exceeded all reasonable and justifiable protected functions within the scope and authority of the Defendants’ lawful duties for which a reasonable Deputy Sheriff would know and therefore they are liable for the following unlawful acts committed against the Plaintiffs;
    503.      The Defendant  (Defendants) who was not faced with any immediate physical threat of his personal safety or the safety of others, but with intent to cause physical injury to next friend Zoe Bethel did cause physical injury to Zoe Bethel by purposely clawing (putting his finger nails into her skin) and causing her physical pain; Defendant‘s unlawful actions were not provoked, unjustified and were without probable cause and constitutes excessive force against the minor child;
    504.      Defendant Ronald Busbee who was not faced with any immediate physical threat of his personal safety or the safety of others, but with intent to cause physical injury to the Plaintiff Kezia Bethel did cause physical injury to Kezia Bethel by jerking and kicking the Plaintiff’s legs and pushing the Plaintiff to the ground and twisting her arms (Exhibit A video taped evidence) on her legs and causing her physical pain to her legs. Her legs were hurting while she was at the Deputy Sheriff station and Kezia Bethel had to be carried on her sister’s back because of the pain in her legs. Defendant Ronald Busbee’s unlawful actions were unreasonable, unjustified and unlawful and were not provoked, but were without probable cause and constitutes excessive force against the minor child;
    505.      The Defendant (unidentified Deputy Sheriff) who was not faced with any immediate physical threat of his personal safety or the safety of others, but with intent to cause physical injury to the next friend Zion Bethel, did grab Zion Bethel’s arm and twisted it around his back causing Zion Bethel pain and with the intent to cause physical injury to next friend Zion Bethel did cause physical injury to Zion Bethel by choking Zion Bethel around his neck and jumped full body on top of Zion Bethel’s back and caused Zion pain in your chest area and legs. The unlawful actions by the Defendants were unreasonable, unjustified and unlawful actions and were not provoked, but were without probable cause and constitutes excessive force against the minor child;
    506.      Defendants’ actions in arresting, physically restraining, handcuffing, transporting to jail, and incarcerating the Plaintiffs were intentional, discriminatory and unlawful and further egregiously exceeded all reasonable and justifiable protected functions within the scope and authority of the Defendants’ lawful duties for which a reasonable Deputy Sheriff officer would know because there was no probable cause of any criminal acts on behalf of the Plaintiffs;
    507.      The Defendants   actions egregiously exceeded all reasonable and justifiable protected functions of the Defendants’ lawful duties and acted without legal authority by concealing, removing the plaintiffs’ physical evidence of video and audio recordings with the intent to impair it’s use, verity or availability in any and all civil actions in Federal court brought by the Plaintiffs, which clearly constitutes tampering with evidence according to Florida Code and demonstrates retaliatory, bad faith prosecution and bad faith harassment of the Plaintiffs;
    508.      The actions of the Defendants as stated herein, were entrapment and designed and intended to harass and intimidate Plaintiffs and to induce the Plaintiffs into committing a crime by the Plaintiffs not ceasing their protected First Amendment activity the upon an unreasonable, unjustified and unlawful orders of the Defendants without any probable cause and to discourage them from present and future expression of unpopular Religious speech;
    509.      The unreasonable and unjustified actions of the Defendants in confirming and ratifying this unlawful conduct was done to harass and intimidate the Plaintiffs and with the knowledge that the Plaintiffs would suffer great physical and emotional distress, and was undertaken with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to the Plaintiffs;
    510.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    511.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    COUNT XXVII
    VIOLATION: THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT (Involuntary Servitude)
    512.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    513.      The Defendants and actions in criminally conspiring to use force to unlawfully arrest and detain the Plaintiffs without any probable cause and without any lawful justification and as a result, unlawfully forcing the Plaintiffs to have to appear in a bias tribunal (Defendant “judge” Judge Terry Terrell) and through using an improper purpose and use of the court process to harass, intimidate, deter, chill and punish the Plaintiffs for the exercise of their rights to their religious free speech and to cause the Plaintiffs to further suffer possible punishment of serving substantial jail time for crimes that Plaintiffs did not commit constitutes the Involuntary Servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment the Constitution,
    514.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    515.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.
    COUNT XXVIII
    VIOLATION: 28 USC 1443 Deprivation of Civil Rights based on Race
    516.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    517.      Those of the Defendants, who are all considered to be Caucasians, as stated herein, acted together and/or by common design to unlawfully deny and deprive the Plaintiffs, who are considered to be African Americans, of their civil rights through racial and religious discriminatory animus;
    518.      It is the policy, custom and practice of the Defendant Escambia County Florida and it’s Defendant Deputy Sheriff officers of those who are considered to be Caucasians to exclude the Plaintiffs who are considered to be African American from the public facilities and public ways in the Escambia County Florida based on the Plaintiffs’ race and unpopular and despised religious views;
    519.      The Defendants’ actions in ordering the Plaintiffs to leave the public facilities of the Escambia County Public street and arresting the Plaintiffs because of their presence in the public facilities of the Escambia County Public street demonstrates a discriminatory animus against the Plaintiffs because of their race and religion;
    520.      The Defendants allowed other Caucasians who were also similarly situated as the Plaintiffs to exercise their free speech and peaceable assembly in the Escambia County Public sidewalks, right-of-ways and medians (public property) on that day;
    521.      Escambia County Florida Deputy Sheriff Defendant Krystal Jeffcoat who is considered to be Caucasian, discriminatorily with religious animus and without any probable cause of any unlawful activity by the Plaintiffs, initially began to tell the Plaintiffs who are considered to be African Americans, that they needed a permit to engage in their protected First Amendment activity and then after falsely arresting the Plaintiffs for child neglect stated in her arrest report that the Plaintiffs children were not wearing a reflective type vest. As a result of the Defendants’ unconstitutional actions the Plaintiffs’ speech was chilled and quenched;
    522.      All of the unlawful actions stated herein, were intended by the Defendants to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and was done with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs and the acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thereby justifying the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate cause of this conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs were denied their most basic Federally protected rights and were subjected to assault, false imprisonment and false arrest and suffered pain, assault, inconvenience, false imprisonment, anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of reputation in the community;
    523.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    COUNT XXIX
    EXTORTION
    524.      All of the preceding paragraphs of the complaint are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full;
    525.      The Defendants extorted money from the Plaintiffs in requiring the Plaintiffs to pay Court costs, Public Defender and fines imposed upon the Plaintiffs unlawfully without any probable causes;
    526.      Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief against all Defendants as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief;
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    527.      WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
    528.      That this Court issue a Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Defendants’ from enforcing Escambia County Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, and to enjoin the Defendants, Defendants’ officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them, from obstructing Plaintiffs from exercising Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to street preach, evangelize, and hold signs on public right-of-ways without first having to purchase or wear a “vest” and said Preliminary Injunction shall enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them;
    529.      Defendants shall permit Plaintiffs to continue to exercise their right to free speech, assembly and religion in the county and on public right-of-ways in Escambia County without obtaining a written permit;
    530.      Defendants are prohibited from harassing or threatening to arrest Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs engage in preaching and witnessing on public right-of-ways in Escambia County;
    531.      Defendants must provide equal treatment to Plaintiffs in all respects to the treatment Defendants provide to those engaging in other activities in the county and on public sidewalks;
    532.      Escambia County Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, are null and void;
    533.      Defendants will not act in any manner whatsoever to infringe on Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;
    534.      That this Court issue a Permanent Injunction to enjoin Defendants’ from enforcing Escambia County Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, and to enjoin the Defendants, Defendants’ officers, agents, employees and all other persons acting in active concert with them, from obstructing Plaintiffs from exercising Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to street preach, evangelize, and hold signs on public right-of-ways without first obtaining a permit, and said Permanent Injunction shall enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from acting in such a manner against Plaintiffs so that;
    535.      Defendants shall permit Plaintiffs to continue to exercise their right to free speech, assembly and religion in the county and on public right-of-ways in Escambia County without obtaining a written permit;
    536.      Defendants are prohibited from harassing or threatening to arrest Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs engage in preaching and witnessing on public right-of-ways in Escambia County;
    537.      Defendants must provide equal treatment to Plaintiffs in all respects to the treatment Defendants provide to those engaging in other activities in the county and on public sidewalks;
    538.      Escambia County Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, and are null and void;
    539.      Defendants will not act in any manner whatsoever to infringe on Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;
    540.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the rights and other legal relations with the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force and effect of final judgment; declaring Defendants’ actions toward Plaintiffs unconstitutional; that Escambia County Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, are unconstitutional, so that;
    541.      Defendants shall permit Plaintiffs to continue to exercise their right to free speech, assembly and religion in the county and on public right-of-ways in Escambia County without obtaining an “orange,” “yellow,” “red” “vest”;
    542.      Defendants are prohibited from harassing or threatening to arrest Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs engage in preaching and witnessing on public right-of-ways in Escambia County;
    543.      Defendants must provide equal treatment to Plaintiffs in all respects to the treatment Defendants provide to those engaging in other activities in the county and on public sidewalk;
    544.      Escambia County Ordinance 94-131 through 94-132, are null and void;
    545.      Defendants will not act in any manner whatsoever to infringe on Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;
    546.      That this Court award to Plaintiffs such damages as are reasonable and just under the circumstances as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;
    547.      That this Court retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing this Court’s order;
    548.      That this Court grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just under the circumstances;
    549.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the rights and other legal relations with the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the force and effect of final judgment; declaring Defendants’ actions toward Plaintiffs street evangelism on September 29, 2005, as unconstitutional as set out in Plaintiffs’ causes of actions;
    550.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Plaintiffs rights to free speech, press, peaceable assembly and religion practices or “street evangelism” on the county streets, right-of-ways and sidewalks in Escambia County where violated by the Defendants actions of falsely arresting the Plaintiffs, kidnapping the Plaintiffs’ children and stealing the Plaintiffs placards or signs which displayed the Plaintiff’s religious viewpoint, megaphone, and other property of the Plaintiffs chilled the Plaintiffs speech beliefs and messages in which the Plaintiffs were not allowed to convey to their desired audience on September 29, 2005 as a result of the Defendant’s actions;
    551.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants actions were deliberately done to “harass” the Plaintiffs and was done in “bad faith” and no reasonable officer would think that the Plaintiffs street evangelism with their children was a crime of “child abuse” or “child neglect…”;
    552.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants actions were deliberately done to intimidate and in retaliation against the Plaintiffs;
    553.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants actions were deliberately done to Plaintiffs and was based on the Plaintiffs’ speech because the Defendant Deputy Sheriff addressed the Plaintiffs’ speech as being “derogatory” and thus aborted the Plaintiffs’ messages and deprived the Plaintiffs of their preaching and witnessing on public right-of-ways in Escambia County on September 29, 2005 already established and allowed by the Constitution of the United States by the false arrest and imprisonment and the illegal confiscation of the Plaintiffs’ signs;
    554.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants actions were deliberately done to “harass” the Plaintiffs and their children and was done in “bad faith” and did not allow equal treatment to Plaintiffs in all respects to the treatment Defendants have provided to those engaging in other activities on the county right-of-ways and on public sidewalks in Escambia County who enjoy being free from governmental interferences;
    555.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants actions were deliberately done to “harass” the Plaintiff and was done in “bad faith” and that the Defendant acted in a revengeful manner to willfully and vindictively infringe on Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;
    556.      That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants actions in the final policy maker on law enforcement activities for the Escambia County was aware of the violations and ratified his law enforcement conduct and the unconstitutional deprivation of the Plaintiffs and caused the Plaintiff damages and the Defendants were deliberately not trained and as a result more violations of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were accomplished willfully by the Defendants’ dereliction;
    557.      That this Court award to Plaintiff such damages as are reasonable and just under the circumstances as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights;
     
    558.      That this Court award to Plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of One-Million-Dollars ($1,000,000.00) as compensation for pain suffering, embarrassment, anguish, humiliation, loss of reputation and good standing in the community, etc.;
     
    559.      That this Court award to Plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of One-Million-Dollars ($1,000,000.00) as a deterrent from further abuses of authority a deterrent from further abuses under color of law;
     
    560.      All costs and disbursements incurred in this action.
     
    561.      That this Court award Plaintiff the reasonable costs and expenses of this action, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1983;
     
    562.      That this Court retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing this Court’s order;
     
    That this Court grants such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just under the circumstances.
     
    We prayerfully declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing and all of the above statements are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and may subject us to penalties of perjury so help us GOD. We certify that all information submitted is a true and correct copy. We further authenticate any and all exhibits (video and audio tapes photographs and documents) submitted and prayer that all information presented is accepted by this court as officially being entered in as “evidence.” The Plaintiffs have selected the jurisdiction claims at random and do not say that all apply, but are placing as many as possible so as not to leave out a proper claim. This lawsuit is filed in good faith;
     
    _____________________________        Dated: ____day of_________, 2006
    Orlando Bethel (Plaintiff, Pro Se)
     
    _____________________________                          Dated: ____day of__________, 2006
    Glynis Bethel (Plaintiff, Pro Se)
     
    Orlando Bethel (Attorney Pro Se)
    Glynis Bethel (Attorney Pro Se)
    12724-D Hwy 290
    Escambia County, Florida  36551
    Phone/Fax: (251) 2964-292955
     
    (Please pray: Father, GOD in the name of JESUS, I repent for my sins. I believe that JESUS died and rose again for me. Please fill me with the gift of the HOLY GHOST, with the sign of speaking in “new” tongues. I receive JESUS by faith in JESUS’ name. Amen.)
     
     
     
    #3
    Tina
    2 Hot 2B Annoying
    • Total Posts : 6659
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2005/07/18 19:21:13
    • Location: Canada
    • Status: offline
    RE: Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sh 2006/12/02 15:37:30 (permalink)

    Don't dream it.. be it
    #4
    mmorc
    Pain in the Ass
    • Total Posts : 1488
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2005/10/24 08:43:20
    • Location: UK
    • Status: offline
    RE: Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sh 2006/12/04 04:28:32 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Tina



     
     
    Nobody..
     
    With all these False Prophets about Im begining to wonder whether the end might not be close after all.

    "Tastes Delicious"

    "Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old." Bill Hicks
    #5
    ??SnapperDraws!!
    Cranky
    • Total Posts : 57
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2006/12/04 17:17:07
    • Status: offline
    RE: Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sh 2006/12/04 17:37:23 (permalink)
    EAT MY FUCKING POOPIE ASS
    #6
    ldopas
    I Gots People Skills
    • Total Posts : 4555
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2002/11/17 01:20:42
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: Bethel vs. Escambia County Florida's Judges, State Attorneys, Public Defenders, and Sh 2006/12/05 04:51:18 (permalink)
    After watching that ridiculous video you people posted, Im surprised anyone can take you at all seriously.
     
    Unfortunately in our free society we have to tolerate people like you, people who measure your grass to see if it is too high, and people who think their nutso beliefs are the way we should all live. 
     
    You are all people who have one issue that is so unimportant to the rest of us who have an IQ and perspective. In a world where people are dying from Aids, starvation, wars and climate changes. You choose to make asses of yourselves and waste the judicial system's time. For what end, we have no clue? As a by product other people will be denied justice thanks to you.
     
    Your "god" can't be very proud of you. Surely he would want you to spend your time helping and protecting his "creation", if that is what you believe. You need to see the big picture quick I think
    #7
    Jump to:
    © 2014 APG vNext Commercial Version 4.6