Revised Fed Lawsuit 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

SECOND AMMENDED COMPLAINT
RAYMOND R. SCHWAB
AMELIA D. SCHWAB
TYELER S. ALLISON
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASE NO. 16-CV-4033-DDC-KGS

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(42 U.S.C. 1983)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SAM BROWNBACK in official and individual capacity,

PHYLLIS GILMORE in official and individual capacity,
THERESA FREED in official and individual capacity
KENDRA BAKER in official and individual capacity
RANDY DEBENHAM in official and individual capacity
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
JOHN BOSCH in individual and professional capacity,
BARRY WILKERSON in professional and individual capacity,
BETHANY FIELDS in individual and professional capacity,
RHONDA EISENBAREGER in professional and personal capacity
DEJA JACKSON in personal and professional capacity
RILEY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
CARLA SCHWARTZ in personal and professional capacity
PATHWAYS FAMILY SERVICES, LLC
PAWNEE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
RILEY COUNTY, STATE OF KANSAS
BLAKE ROBINSON in individual and professional capacity,
ANDREW VINDUSKA in individual and professional capacity,
MIRANDA JOHNSON in individual and professional capacity,
LORA INGLES in individual and professional capacity,
KVC A 501c3 Nonprofit Organization,
ST FRANCIS COMMUNITY SERVICES 501c3 non profit entity.
SUNFLOWER CASA PROJECT 501c3 non profit entity
KATHY BOYD in individual and professional capacity,
LAURA PRICE in individual and professional capacity,
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights
1
KAYLEE POSSEN in individual and professional capacity

DOES 1-10 Inclusive,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED SECOND AMMENDED COMPLAINT IN RESPONSE TO MOTION'S TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs, RAYMOND AND AMELIA SCHWAB (THE SCHWAB'S) AND TYLER ALLISON
(TYELER) for their Complaint against the above-named Defendants, respectfully states and alleges as
follows:
JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff 's brings this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Kansas
Tort Claims Act (KTCA, Kansas Stat. Ann. 75-6101, et. Seq.) This is a civil action authorized by
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the
Constitution of the United States. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 1343 (a)
(3). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and 2202. Plaintiffs claims
for injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 2283 & 2284 and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. to redress the deprivation by Defendants, at all times herein acting under color of
state law, of rights, secured to Plaintiff under the Constitution of the United States, including the
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(a)(1) and
(a)(3), which provide for original jurisdiction in this Court of all suits brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1985. Jurisdiction is also conferred by 28 U.S.C. Section 1331(a)
because claims for relief derive from the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the
2
United States.
3. Venue is properly established in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391, in that the events and circumstances herein alleged
occurred in Riley, Dickinson and Shawnee Counties, Kansas, and the most of the defendants reside or
were employed in multiple counties within the State of Kansas.
4. Subject matter Jurisdiction is conferred for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332
which grants the district courts jurisdiction in an action that meets two basic conditions:
Complete diversity requirement. No defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
Amount in controversy requirement. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Whereas both these conditions apply as the DEFENDENT'S are all citizens of Kansas while the
Plaintiff's are citizens of Colorado.
5. Younger Abstention and Domestic Clause (Further Jurisdictional issues): All allegations
of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non moving party.
Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). When a complaint's allegations are capable of
more than one inference, the Court must adopt whichever inference supports a valid claim. Hamilton v.
Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, CAL. PRAC.
GUIDE. FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group), 9:214.4. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 173 L. Ed. 2D 868 (2009) did not change this fundamental tenet of Rule 12(b)(6)
practice.Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 595 (8th Cir. 2009).
6. In addition, the Court is required to read the complaint charitably and must assume that all
general allegations "embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support them." Peloza v.
Capistrano Un?fledSch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994). This rule of liberal construction is
"particularly important in civil rights cases." Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir. 2000).

3
In considering a Rule 1 2(b)(6) motion, this Court does not inquire whether the plaintiff will ultimately
prevail, only whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claims. Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63,
65 (3d Cir. 1996). Therefore, a plaintiff need only allege facts that permit the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable, even if the complaint strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged
is improbable and recovery very remote and unlikely. Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 819 (8th
Cir.2010).
7. The dominant characteristic of federal civil rights actions is that "they belong in court."
Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 148 (1988).
A. The Domestic Relations Exception Does Not Apply to Plaintiffs Section 1983 Claim
8. Defendants are incorrect that this Court lacks "subject matter" jurisdiction. The Supreme
Court has long recognized that, when the relief sought relate primarily to domestic relations, a doctrine
referred to as the domestic relations exception divests federal courts of jurisdiction. Atwood v. Fort
Peck Tribal Court Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2008). However, this doctrine only applies
to cases where jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. 1332. Id. at 945 and 947. Here, Plaintiff alleges
claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and premises subject matter jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. 1331.
9. The Defendants "domestic relations" argument also appears to incorrectly classify Plaintiff's
section 1983 claim as a challenge to the juvenile court's determinations. This is not the claim the
Plaintiff's are making as they understand how that would invoke the domestic relations doctrine and
being unschooled in the law have found a difficulty in properly wording the relief sought which they
believe has now been remedied under leave of the Court.
10. Plaintiff's section 1983 claim challenges Defendant's RCPD, DCF, KVC, ST FRANCIS,
CASA, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, BOYD, PRICE, WILKERSON, INGLES, POSSEN, FIELDS,

4
and SCHWARTZ'S conduct in deceiving the juvenile court, willfully participated in joint action with
state actors to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights through the artifice of deception in the
presentation of evidence to the Juvenile Court. The Claim also seeks relief of the blatant lack of judicial
partiality by BOSCH and violations of the PLAINTIFF'S 4th , 5th and 15th amendment protections while
acting outside of his judicial authority and scope by demanding the plaintiffs be subjected to intrusive
drug testing to enforce the Courts medical decision that they could not use a lawful treatment under a
doctors care (Medical Cannabis), and deprived the Schwab's from their children for this medical
decision if they refused to obey the judges order to cease from such lawful treatment in their home
State of Colorado for almost 10 months therby hindering the State proceedings. Defendant's
BROWNBACK, BAKER, FREED, RILEY COUNTY and GILMORE conspired with the Court to
deny the SCHWAB'S due process by continuing to recommend the children remain in State Custody
after their own reports stated the allegations used to remove the children were unsubstantiated, refused
to review the actions of their subordinate when due process and constitutional violation's were alleged
directly to the defendants by the plaintiff's, refused any administrative relief and continued to speak
with the press to initiate a defamatory smear campaign against the Plaintiff's activism, which was
drawing a lot of scrutiny on the case, by calling them liars in that forum.
11. Defendant's ROBINSON, VINDUSKA, JOHNSON, AND DEBENHAM conspired with the
other defendant's to deny due process, harass and threaten the plaintiffs that if they kept exercising their
right to protest and resist the infringements on their due process they would never see their children
again. They lied to the plaintiffs, and refused to provide adequate representation, refused to present
exculpatory evidence and testimony, refused to file requested motions forcing the plaintiffs to do so and
those motions getting denied with the result being they became more advocates for the state than
representatives of the parent's.

5
12. The parties DCF, BOSCH, INGLES, FIELD'S, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, ST

FRANCIS, KVC, PRICE, BOYD, BOSCH, WILKERSON AND POSSEN also retaliated against
TYELER ALLISON for testifying favorably for the parent's and against the state by denying him
access to his siblings for over a year causing emotional distress, psychological harm, and other harm.
DEFENDANT'S GILMORE, BROWNBACK, JOHNSON, DEBENHAM, VINDUSKA, ROBINSON,
FREED AND BAKER did nothing to counter this retaliation thereby became complicit as complaints
were made to them by Raymond and Amelia Schwab.
13. As relief for these claim's, the Plaintiff's seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief not custody of their children; similarly, there is no request made for a reversal of any juvenile court
decision. Rather, the Plaintiff's section 1983 claim focuses on Defendant's actions, rather than the
outcome of the state court custody proceedings. Therefore, the Plaintiff's section 1983 claim is properly
before this Court.
This Court Should Not Invoke The Younger Doctrine to Dismiss Plaintiffs Section 1983
Claim for Damages and Injunctive Relief
14. The Younger abstention doctrine provides that in certain limited circumstances, federal
courts may refuse to hear a plaintiff's constitutional challenges to underlying and ongoing state
proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Knight v. Ahlin, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987,
3 (9th Cir. Cal. 2013). However, abstention is appropriate only in "carefully defined" circumstances,
and "remains an extraordinary and narrow exception to the general rule" that federal courts must not
decline to exercise their jurisdiction. Knight, supra, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987 at 3.
15. Regardless, application of the Younger doctrine is appropriate only when four requirements
are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state
interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state

6
proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of
doing so. Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. County of Solano, 657 F.3d 876, 882 (9th
24 Cir. Cal. 2011).
16. These requirements are not met here. First, the juvenile court is not vested with authority or
jurisdiction to decide claims arising under section 1983. Juvenile dependency proceedings are part of a
comprehensive statutory scheme geared toward expediency to serve the dependent comprehensive
statutory scheme geared toward expediency to serve the dependent child's best interests. By statute, the
best interests of the child permeates all aspects of dependency proceedings. Weif.& Inst. Code,
202(d). Of the many private and public concerns which collide in a dependency proceeding, time is
among the most important. The fluid nature of dependency proceedings and the paramount need to
protect the well-being of children require these proceedings to move very quickly in response to
alleged changes in circumstances.
17. A rigid rule requiring that constitutional violations challenges during the intentionally fluid
decision-making of a dependency court would inevitably encourage parents to litigate more
aggressively and bring challenges for all even minor - constitutional misconduct while the
proceedings are pending. Such a rule would impair, not aid, the resolution of the questions faced by
juvenile court every day. The application of the Younger doctrine would effectively require a parent to
engage in attacks on the integrity of the social workers, and their collaborators, during the dependency
case itself. Such a requirement would be inconsistent with the special nature of dependency
proceedings and would interfere with the interests served in those proceedings. (See e.g., In re Claudia
E., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at 637 [characterizing the habeas corpus remedy as "a time-consuming
process that is inimical to the expedient processing of cases and one which most likely will be
impractical in the crowded dependency system.
7
Further Argument's: Malicious and Bad Faith Prosecution

18. The Supreme Court has held that Younger does not apply as a rule. In the main, the Court
began, federal courts are obligated to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction. Younger
can overcome this general principle, but only in exceptional circumstances. New Orleans Public
Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans (NOPSI). State entities have argued that Younger was
appropriate whenever an ongoing state judicial proceeding implicates important state interests and
affords the opportunity to raise federal challenges. This scope, the Court has recognized, would extend
Younger to virtually all parallel state and federal proceedings, at least where a party could identify a
plausibly important state interest. . . . That result is irreconcilable with our dominant instruction that,
even in the presence of parallel state proceedings, abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is
the exception, not the rule. Federal courts should always consider whether abstention is mandated
under the principles of equity and comity.
19. Four exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine apply when: (1) the state claim is
brought in bad faith to harass the state defendant;the federal court is asked to enjoin a patently
unconstitutional law; (3) the defendant in the state proceeding is barred on procedural or other grounds
from raising its federal claim;(4) the State or both parties waive Younger abstention.
20. Younger Doctrine should not apply due to bad faith/malicious prosecution. Mr. Schwab has
recently became aware that many of these parties have been involved in litigation, and other
proceeding's,with the Schwab's before where those Defendant's became the losers in the litigation and
thereby initiated these proceedings by the presentation of manufactured evidence and ignoring due
process violations, warrentless seizure of the children contrary to the statutory requirement's, violations
of the Schwab's parental authority by the maternal family, and repressing exculpatory evidence after
conducting zero investigation save for the DCF report which stated the allegations against the Schwab's
8
were unsubstantiated for lack of clear of convincing evidence.

21. In April of 2016 while Mr. Schwab was reviewing the Court documents under the guard of
defendant RCPD, WILKERSON came into the room and in an apparent attempt to harass, intimidate,
provoke, and cause distress upon Mr. Schwab, stated I knew you as a child Raymond. Sorry how your
life turned out. Mr Schwab then began to investigate and realize Mr Wilkerson knew of or participated
in CINC proceedings where Mr. Schwab was the Child In Need of Care and was horribly abused in the
DCF system under the care of many of the defendant's and State Actors who have seized his own
children, including Chief Judge Hon. Merrill Wilson. It is Judge Wilson who was Mr. Schwab's Judge
in the CINC proceeding's he endured as a child and at the end of such proceedings when Mr Schwab
aged out declared, it is believed on the record, that if he ever saw Mr. Schwab again as an adult he
would pay for it. Judge Wilson, who is now Chief Judge, upon a petition to review Judge BOSCH'S
judging his own recusal affidavit and venue change stated he would not grant either despite the conflict
of interest and constitutional issues the lawsuit raised.
21. In 1999 or 2000 Mr Wilkerson attempted to extradite Mr. Schwab, who was incarcerated in
Colorado, for a felony charge. Mr. Schwab filed a motion for speedy trial and despite RCPD being
order to go pick Mr Schwab up, they failed to do so in a timely fashion and the matter was dismissed
WITH PREJUDICE for a violation of Mr Schwab's right to a speedy trial. Mr. Schwab's attorney at the
time, Shelia Hockhouser, informed Mr. Schwab that WILKERSON was chastised by the judge and told
to Get his crap together and when Mr. Wilkerson also brought up another pending criminal charge,
writing bad checks, he was attempting to bring against Mr Schwab, WILKERSON was informed by the
Judge to Go ahead and draw up those charges as they are dismissed as well due to the unprofessional
and vindictive manner Mr. Wilkerson was prosecuting the case. Nevertheless when Mr. Schwab was
released and moved back to Riley County, Mr Wilkerson filed a warrant for Mr. Schwab's arrest. Rather

9
than go through lengthy proceedings for events that had occurred 4 years prior Mr. Schwab agreed to a
plea and had scheduled to go into court to accept the plea. It is believed, through information and
belief, when the Judge who initially instructed WILKERSON not to prosecute Mr. Schwab discovered
WILKERSON was again attempting to pursue Mr Schwab on these charges, he instructed Mr.
WILKERSON to cease and desist and the charges and plea were immediately dropped with no
explanation to Mr. Schwab save these events as related to Mr. Schwab by the current clerk of court at
the time.
22. Again, in 2007, when the SCHWAB'S had traveled to Riley County for a wedding, Mr
Schwab was surrounded by RCPD and D.B. was seized by DCF, RCPD, KVC and under the instruction
of the Court and Mr. Wilkerson. After protesting and going to the media where KVC, the Court, the
Prosecution, and DCF threatened that if Mr. Schwab did not cease from speaking about the seizure on
the radio they would assure the SCHWAB'S would never see their child again they forced Mrs.
SCHWAB to stay in Kansas under threats and intimidation as the SCHWAB's were not as aware of the
nature of their predatory behavior, nor the illegality and unconstitutionality of their actions as they are
now. After 45 days and intense media pressure the case was suddenly dismissed and D.B. immediately
returned with the judge citing lack of Jurisdiction.
23. After VINDUSKA was released as counsel he gave Mr SCHWAB a copy of the police
report where files of the 2007 seizure were used as evidence in the report as to why the children were
seized again in 2015. Mr Schwab realized that Defendant SCHWARTZ and many of the SAME
OFFICERS were responsible in the 2007 case and for the warrentless seizure of all the Schwab
Children and D.B. in the current State proceedings. It is believed that these current proceedings were
initiated as a furtherance of the abuse of power and malicious prosecution that many of the defendant's
seem to wish to inflict upon Mr. Schwab in some personal Vendetta against his family. The evidence

10
points toward this conclusion.

Plaintiffs' Revised Second Amended Complaint States Sufficient Facts to Support a
Section 1983 Claim Against the Defendants
25. By the plain terms of section 1983, two - and only two - allegations are
required in order to state a cause of action. "First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has
deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that
right acted under color of state or territorial law." Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Section
1983 contains no state-of-mind requirement independent of that necessary to state a violation of the
underlying constitutional right. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 534 (U.S. 1981); overruled, in part, on
other grounds in Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-331 (U.S. 1986); see also Board, of the County
Comms. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 40514 (U.S. 1997).
Defendant's Were at All Relevant Times Acting Under Color of State Law
26. Acting "under color of' state law for section 1983 purposes does not require that the
defendant be an officer of the State. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980). Action taken by private
individuals may be "under color of state law"where there is "significant" state involvement in the
action. Howerton v. Gab ica, 708 F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1983). In deciding whether the conduct of
these defendants - who are private parties - amounts to government action, courts are required to
engage in a highly factual inquiry. Id. at 383. This is not the type of inquiry that can be undertaken on a
Motion to Dismiss. While there is no specific formula for defining state action, courts have
traditionally evaluated whether a private actor has engaged in state action by relying on four distinct but not mutually exclusive - tests: (1) the governmental nexus test, (2) the public function test, (3) the
state compulsion test, and (4) the joint action test. Howerton, supra, 708 F.2d 380 at 382-383. It is
sufficient if the Plaintiff meets any one of these tests. Brent -wood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch.
AthleticAss'n, 531 U.S. 288 1 303 (2001). In this case, the test that most reasonably applies to the
11
Defendant's who are not actually agent's of the state is the "joint action" test.
Plaintiffs Sufficiently Alleges Defendants Willfully Participated in Joint Action with State
Actors to Violate Constitutional Rights
27. The "joint action" test is satisfied where a private party is "a willful participant in joint
action with the [s]tate or its agents." Dennis, supra, 449 U.S. At 12 27. Private persons, jointly engaged
with state officials in the challenged action, are acting "under color" of law for purposes of section
1983 actions. Id. at pp. 27-14 28. The "joint action" test is satisfied when the actions of the state and the
private party are intertwined, or when the parties have a symbiotic relationship. BrentwoodAcad.,
supra, 531 U.S. At 298-299.
28. Here it is alleged that KVC, ST FRANCIS, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, BOYD, PRICE,
VINDUSKA, JOHNSON, INGLES, CASA, PAWNEE, POSSEN, PATHWAY'S, ROBINSON , DOES
1-10 INCLUSIVE AND DEBENHAM worked in conjuction with State Actors RCPD, BOSCH, DCF,
WILKERSON, SCHWARTZ, BROWNBACK, GILMORE, FREED, BAKER, FIELDS, RILEY
COUNTY to:
a. Seize the SCHWAB children without warrant or statutory obedience, ignore exculpatory
evidence and initiate a campaign of malicious prosecution and litigation while manufacturing evidence
and lying in the juvenile Court proceedings. Such conduct violated Plaintiffs right to be free from
deception in the presentation of evidence to the Juvenile Court.
b. Deny and Deprive Plaintiff's Amelia and Raymond Schwab due process by ignoring policy
and procedures, constitutional rights and protections, laws, and Statues which regulate such
proceedings while threatening them that if they did not stop resisting the intrusion on those rights and
protections they would lose their children forever.
c. Exploiting the Schwab children in an elaborate Kid's for Cash scheme through the denial of

12
due process to parents, refusal to exercise judicial impartiality, secret meetings and hearings where the
SCHWAB's are not notified nor allowed to see documentation on said meetings and proceedings,
falsely diagnosing children with health conditions or mental health issues, force medicating children,
ignoring The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 privacy laws, slander,
evidence gathering under the guise of Services while twisting the results of those services by
demanding the parents waive their HIPPA protections and combing through protected health
information for claims to use against the parents in court without notifying the parents of the cause of
these privacy intrusions all while falsely claiming to abide by the Kansas Plan for Title IV funding and
receiving Federal monies as a result of their fraud.
d. Refusing adequate representation and/or, as is the case now..refusing any representation to the
Schwab's
e. Retaliating against TYELER ALLISON for testifying favorably for his parents as to the false
nature of the allegations by stripping him of any access to his siblings, even phone calls for over a year
under the Color of Law and best interest of the children.
Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges That the Defendants Engaged in a Conspiracy to Violate
Constitutional Rights
29. The "joint action" test is further satisfied if a "conspiracy" is shown. Howerton, supra, 708
F.2d 380 at 383. A conspiracy to violate a citizen's rights by engaging in deception in the presentation
of evidence to the court is as much a violation of an established constitutional right as the perjury itself.
Baldwin V. Placer County, 418 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005). Whether Defendants were involved
in an unlawful conspiracy is generally a factual issue and should be resolved by the jury - not on a
Motion to Dismiss. Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v.Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1301 (9th Cir. Cal.
1999). Each participant in a conspiracy need not know the exact details of the plan, Each participant in
a conspiracy need not know the exact details of the plan, but each participant must at least share the
13
common objective of the conspiracy. Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 445 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002). Such an
agreement need not be overt, and may be inferred on the basis of circumstantial evidence such as the
actions of the defendants. Mendocino Envtl. Or, supra, 192 F.3d at 1301. For example, an act that is
unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement supports the inference that a conspiracy exists.
Ibid.
30. Defendant's RILEY COUNTY, RCPD, SCHWARTZ, WILERSON, FIELDS, DCF,
BOSCH, KVC, CASA, JACKSON, AND EISENBARGER initiated a warrantless and without cause
seizure of the SCHWAB's children by manufacturing evidence, ignoring exculpatory evidence, not
following ANY investigative procedure or statuary and legal requirement, ignoring the maternal
families abduction of the children, lying in court and on documents, interrogating the children without
contacting the parents or having the parents present, having a temporary custody hearing without
notifying the parents to secure their seizure, and demanding the SCHWAB'S waive their Constitutional
protections and right to due process or lose the right to even see or talk to their children before ever
even steeping foot in a court as an attempt to evidence gather against the Schwabs ex post facto.
31. DEFENDANTS ROBINSON, INGLES, JOHNSON, VINDUSKA, DEBENHAM AND
BOSCH conspired with the above events by continuing the false record and manufactured evidence
despite, refusing to allow the SCHWAB'S access to any documents even after they were pro se,
refusing the SCHWAB'S adequate representation and now NO representation, issuing void orders
contrary to law or constitutional protections, refusing to display judicial neutrality in any manner,
violating their professional code of ethics repeatedly through the violations of due process and demands
for drug testing contrary to the 4th amendment and threatening the SCHWABS that their demands for
due process and protesting would result in the termination of their parental rights. The Mantra of the
defendant's continued to be that the facts didn't matter and the SCHWAB'S needed to be silent and stop

14
protesting or they would have their rights terminated in an attempt to strike fear and compliance with
their fraud into the PLAINTIFF'S hearts. VINDUSKA, BLAKE, AND ROBINSON stated at various
times that the SCHWAB's would not win and their children would remain in State care. VINDUSKA
made the same statement during the adjudication hearing before it was even halfway over that BOSCH
would adjudicate indicating some inside knowledge of this due process and fraud upon the taxpayers.
32. BROWNBACK, GILMORE, FREED, BAKER, PATHWAYS, PAWNEE, ST FRANCIS,
BOYD, PRICE, and POSSEN continued the fraud through hiding documents, refusing to follow the
policies of reintegration according to their Kansas Plan for Title IV funding, while collecting funds for
these children based on their fraud. They also contributed to the incarceration of C.S. In a mental health
facility, on more manufactured evidence against C.S., in an attempt, it is alleged through information
and belief, to retaliate against the SCHWAB's and maximize funding on C.S. By labeling him a special
needs child whereas that label increases the amount of funding they can secure. They continue to force
medicate him, under PAWNEE's guidance and PATHWAYS initiation without any recourse, second
opinion option or even allowing the SCHWABs to participate in their children s treatment. Though
reintegration is the Stated goal of the State proceedings absolutely nothing has been procedural
followed to ensure that outcome. Everything has been geared toward the termination of the parents
rights as their threats and assurances have promised. BAKER, FREED, AND GILMORE engaged in a
media smear campaign against the PLAINTIFFS, contacting reporters and saying openly in the media
that the SCHWAB'S were liars culminating in an erroneous Appeals Court Decision where the higher
Court lied on record concerning a fictitious drug test and Mr. Schwab being positive for 5 drugs,
including methamphetamine though no such specimen was ever lab tested and no report in the
possession of the higher Court. All Appellate Judges were appointed by BROWNBACK who has
ignored the SCHWAB'S pleas to intervene and even used the State police to harass and intimidate the

15
plaintiffs to stop protesting on the State Capitol. BROWNBACK, though his agents informed the
SCHWAB'S, after first telling Mr. Schwab personally that if the investigation resulted in an
unsubstantiated finding his children should have been returned, and then refusing to speak with the
SCHWAB'S while telling them what was occurring in DCF was being handled appropriately thereby
giving assent to these egregious actions by the agencies and persons he is tasked to oversee.
33. It is hereby alleged, by information and belief, that these due process deprivations are the
practice, not the exception, all over Kansas and the PLAINTIFF'S fully intend to bring multiple victims
of this abuse into this litigation as witnesses. It is well known that under BROWNBACKS policies
Kansas is suffering horribly economically and it is possible these deprivations are a way to supplement
the State Budget through the fraudulent seizing of children as the SCHWAB's have been made aware of
many, many cases all over Kansas where these violations are occurring daily.
34. All of the above conduct supports the inference that a conspiracy exists between all parties.
This determination should be resolved by the jury.
The Defendants Violated Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights When They Engaged in the
Presentation of False Evidence to the Juvenile Court
35. A fundamental concept of our American system of justice is that those charged
with upholding the law are prohibited from deliberately fabricating evidence and "framing"
individuals for offenses they did not commit. Limone v. Condon, 372 F.3d 39 5 44-45 (1st
Cir. Mass. 2004). Indeed, long ago the United States Supreme Court unequivocally held that
the government's knowing use of false or perjured testimony and/or the deliberate
suppression of exculpatory evidence constitutes a violation of due process. See e.g., Napue
16
v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 2645 269 (1959); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942); Mooney v.
Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935). Nor are these precepts limited to criminal convictions
because such rights are "virtually self evident." Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1075
(9th Cir. 2001). Rather, the Plaintiff enjoys a due process right to be free from deception in
the presentation of evidence in the juvenile court, i.e. false or perjured testimony and/or the
deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence. Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1035
(9th Cir. Or. 2009), vacated on other grounds by Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2036
nil (2011); see also Costanich v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. 627 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir.
2009); see also Toler v. Paulson, 551 F. Supp.2d 1039, 1043 and 1047 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
36. Plaintiff's section 1983 claim challenges Defendant's RCPD, SCHWARTZ, WILERSON,
FILEDS, INGLES, DCF, KVC, ST FRANCIS, PAWNEE, PATHWAYS, EISENBARGER,
JACKSON, BOYD, PRICE, CASAS AND POSSEN'S conduct in deceiving the juvenile court, while
BOSCH, BAKER, GILMORE, BROWNBACK, JOHNSON, ROBISNSON, VINDUSKA,
DEBENHAM AND FREED initiated a pattern of covering up their conduct while willingly engaging in
a conspiracy to slander, defame, attack, harass, place undue burden upon, deny due process and
adequate representation and willingly assent to the Constitutional violations by their attempt to cover it
up and/or refusal to take action upon receiving knowledge of the Plaintiff's claims through the plaintiffs
activism and national media attention. The extent of this complicity is yet to be determined as all
documentation is being withheld, and some hidden, by the defendants in conjunction with each other in
a further attempt to sabotage the State proceedings. Plaintiff's assert that all defendants willfully
participated in joint action with state actors to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights through the artifice
of deception and denial of due process in the presentation of evidence to the Juvenile Court and its
17
subsequent proceedings..
37. Qualified immunity is properly questioned as , qualified immunity applies so long as the official
conduct of the individual defendant "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
(1982). Qualified immunity generally requires an inquiry into (1) whether the plaintiff in the civil
action has demonstrated the violation of a constitutionally protected right and (2) "whether the right is
so 'clearly established' that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that
right." Brennan v. Township of Northville, 78 F.3d 1152, 1154 (6th Cir. 1996).
38. [A] constitutional right may be clearly established by common sense. (DeBoer v.
Pennington 206 F.3d 857, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds by Bellingham v. DeBoer
532 U.S. 992 (2001).) This occurs where conduct is so patently violative of the constitutional right
that reasonable officials would know without guidance from the courts that the action was
unconstitutional.(James v. Rowlands 606 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir. 2010).) The undeniable maxim to
tell the truth is so deeply ingrained in the charter of the United Statess existence that any reasonable
oath-beholden government agent including social workers would know without guidance from the
courts that the use of false or perjured evidence to deprive an individual of their protected liberty
interests is never justified. (See e.g., N. Mariana Islands v Bowie, 243 F.3d 1109, 1124 (9th Cir. Haw.
2001); see also, Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1084 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001) (Kleinfeld, A.,
concurring); [T]hese rules of constitutional law apply not only to police, but also to the social workers,
and to others who act on behalf of the state. Anyone who acts on behalf of the government should know
that a person has a constitutional right not to be framed.].)
39. The plaintiffs claim all defendants are working in unison to deprive PLANTIFF'S of their
Constitutional protections in an organized Kids for Cash type unlawful enterprise for the purpose of

18
defrauding the Federal and State Government's of Medicaid and Title IV Funding , and utilizing the
SCHWAB children as political prisoners in the State of Kansas's prosecution of lawful Cannabis users
outside of its scope and jurisdiction. All parties conspired and participated in a of a pattern of abuse,
under the color of law which has resulted in the deprivation of civil and religious liberties, deprived the
defendants of due process, operating outside the scope of their official capacity and jurisdiction by
attempting to make medical decisions for RAYMOND AND AMELIA SCHWAB under the color of
law.
PARTIES
40. At times relevant to the facts and circumstances in the Complaint, Plaintiff's were resident's
of Shawnee County, Kansas and Larimer County, Colorado. RAYMOND AND AMELIA SCHWAB
(hereinafter collectively, the SCHWAB'S) are the natural mother and father of minors, C.S., A.S., A.S,
E.S, and RAYMOND SCHWAB is the step-father of minor child D.B. While AMELIA is the natural
mother OF ALL FIVE CHILDREN. (hereinafter collectively, the SCHWAB CHILDREN). At the
time the incidents giving rise to the causes of action in this Complaint occurred, D.B was 14 years old
C.S. was 11 years old, A..S. Was 09 years old, A.S. was 6 years old, and E.S. was 4years old, . At all
times relevant herein, prior to the incidents complained of as occurring APRIL 27, 2015, and thereafter
THE SCHWAB'S raised, nurtured, provided guidance, and cared for their children, and enjoyed the
company, companionship, and society of their children, and all other benefits and burdens of her rights
of familial association with their children. Such parental care is a fundamental Constitutional right
protected by the fourteenth amendment, and upheld as so by the United States Supreme Court and
should not be abrogated without due process which the plaintiffs have been denied by all defendants in
concert.
41. At all times applicable herein, Defendant SAM BROWNBACK (BROWNBACK) was
19
an individual residing ,on information and belief, in Shawnee County, Kansas, and is the head of the
Executive Branch and of the Kansas Department of Children and Families (DCF)
formerly known as Kansas Social Rehabilitation Services (SRS)1 and whose acts as alleged
herein were performed in her individual capacity and/or under color of state law. Plaintiffs are informed
and believes that defendant BROWNBACK being head over the Executive Branch had full
supervisory and Executive powers and oversight to supervise his secretaries and subordinates
preventing them from engaging in improper, unlawful, and unconstitutional behavior and actions.
42. At all times applicable herein, Defendant PHYLLIS GILMORE (GILMORE) was an
individual residing ,on information and belief, in Kansas, and Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Children and Families (DCF)and whose acts as alleged herein were performed in her individual
capacity and/or under color of state law. Plaintiff's are informed and believes that defendant
GILMORE being head over the Executive Branch had full supervisory and Executive powers and
oversight to supervise her executive staff and subordinates preventing them from engaging in improper,
unlawful, and unconstitutional behavior and actions.
43. At all times applicable herein, Defendant KENDRA BAKER (BAKER) was an
individual residing ,on information and belief, in Kansas, and Director of Client Services for defendant
DCF, within the office of the secretary and defendant GILMORE and whose acts as alleged herein were
performed in her individual capacity and/or under color of state law. Plaintiff's are informed and
believes that defendant BAKER being Director of Client Services had full supervisory responsibility
and oversight to supervise her executive staff and subordinates preventing them from engaging in
improper, unlawful, and unconstitutional behavior and actions.
44. At all times applicable herein, Defendant THERESA FREED (FREED) was an individual
residing ,on information and belief, in Kansas, and Communications Director for defendant DCF

20
within the office of the secretary and defendant GILMORE and whose acts as alleged herein were
performed in her individual capacity and/or under color of state law. Plaintiff's are informed and
believes that defendant FREED being Communications Director had full supervisory responsibility
and oversight to supervise her executive staff and subordinates preventing them from engaging in
improper, unlawful, and unconstitutional behavior and actions, as well as refraining from
communicating confidential, defamatory, or slanderous information to the public.
45. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Department of Children and
Family Services (DCF) is an agency of the Kansas Government whom defendant GILMORE is
Secretary and is under the over site of defendant BROWNBACK. DCFs mission statements is to
strengthen families, and work collaboratively with families to provide services and investigate various
abuse allegations in a lawful and Constitutional fashion. DCF works collaboratively with multiple
private and public agencies and individuals to provide services to families.
46. Defendant STATE OF KANSAS (KANSAS) is withdrawn.
47. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DEPARTMENT) is an agency of

defendant KANSAS. Plaintiff's are informed and believes said agency is tasked with properly
investigating abuse and neglect allegations, and protecting children and families in a lawful and
Constitutional manner. DCF officers, agents and employees are required by Federal Law, Statue and
Policy with also guarding the sacred bond between children and their parents, not to be used as an
instrument to deprive parents of their lawful parental authority whose officers and agents are tasked
with assuring both the children, and the parents rights and Constitutional Protections are guarded and
protected per their own public guidelines. BROWNBACK is head of this organization with GILMORE
as his secretary.

21
48. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant RILEY COUNTY is a
public municipality, part of the Kansas 21st Judicial District whose officers and agents and employees
are tasked with administering the services of said municipality in a lawful, Constitutional, and legal
manner. Defendant RILEY COUNTY's administrative and legal staff, among other duties, are tasked
with assuring all of its agents are operating in a lawful and Constitutional manner within its municipal
functions and scope.
49. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant RILEY COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT (RCPD) is the local law enforcement branch of Riley County, Kansas in
the city of Manhattan. RCPD's mission is to "To reduce crime and improve the quality of life for the
citizens we serve." The Riley County Police Department holds their employees to a high standard of
service to the community and prides themselves on living and working by the following values.
Integrity - Adherence to moral and ethical, and are accredited by the Commission for the Accreditation
of Law Enforcement Agencies. Per Kansas Statue each office takes said, sworn oath for accreditation
On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will
always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the
Constitution, of the United States, and of the State of Kansas, my community, and the agency I serve.
50. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant CARLA SCHWARTZ
(SCHWARTZ) was a detective for defendant RCPD and hereby all descriptions of the mission and
purpose of the RCPD is hereby ascribed to former detective SCHWARTZ. Location is unknown at this
time and service will be rendered to RCPD at 1001 S Seth Child Rd, Manhattan, KS 66502. Plaintiff
further informs and believes said officer is now retired.
51. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant's BARRY
WILKERSON (WILKERSON) and BETHANY FIELDS (FIELDS) are individuals residing in the

22
State of Kansas, in or around Riley County Kansas, on information and belief who work as the Riley
County Attorney (WILKERSON) and Associate Riley County Attorney. Defendant WILKERSON was
elected to office and is tasked with prosecuting crimes in a lawful and constitutional manner. Defendant
FIELDS is appointed as an Assistant Deputy District Attorney to assist in the duties of Prosecution.
Both are subject to Constitutional restrictions and State Statue as to the nature of their Prosecutiorial
activities. Both defendants are required by Oath of office, law and Constitutional precedents to not
utilize their office for personal gain, retribution against citizens under the color of law, neither
participating in the protection or obfuscation of unlawful and unconstitutional activities.
52. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant JOHN F. BOSCH
(BOSCH) was an individual residing or working in 21ST judicial jurisdiction of the defendant
KANSAS, in defendant's RILEY COUNTIES locality. Defendant BOSCH was a judicial appointment
by defendant BROWNBACK for the term 8/31/2012-1/13/2019. Defendant BOSCH is bound by his
judicial oath of office and the Constitution to uphold the law with impartiality and fairness; without
bias, harassment or abuse ensuring citizens the legal right to be heard without external judicial
influences, arbitrary display of power, or negligent oversight of the Constitutional rights and
protections of all citizens within his jurisdiction . Defendant BOSCH was responsible not only for his
conduct but also the conduct of the activities within his courtroom under a color of law, and was
required to direct court activities in a lawful and Constitutional manner ensuring judicial impartiality.
53. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant LORA INGLES
(INGLES) was an individual residing, on information and belief in or around Riley County within the
State of Kansas and was appointed by defendant BOSCH to be Attorney ad litem for the SCHWAB
CHILDREN. Defendant INGLES is an attorney at the Oleen Law Firm 1619 Poyntz Ave, Manhattan,
KS 66502, and was a member in good standing with the Kansas Bar Association subject to all oaths of

23
office including said oath to Solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and bear true allegiance to
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas; that you will neither
delay nor deny the rights of any person through malice, for lucre, or from any unworthy desire; that you
will not knowingly foster or promote, or give your assent to any fraudulent, groundless or unjust suit;
that you will neither do, nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court; and that you will discharge
your duties as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court and all other courts of the State of
Kansas with fidelity both to the Court and to your cause, and to the best of your knowledge and ability.
So help you God. As Attorney ad litem defendant BOSCH tasked defendant INGLES with conducting
an independent investigation of the facts, per Kansas Statue, to best represent the rights and interest of
the children, including all relevant facts, following all law, Constitutional and Statutory, and not
participating in any frivolous, fraudulent, unconstitutional or unlawful behavior in that role.
54. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant BLAKE
ROBINSON (ROBINSON) was an individual residing, on information and belief in or around the
county of Riley, State of Kansas and a member in good standing with the Kansas bar association
subject to all its laws, oaths and regulations both Constitutional and Statutory. Defendant ROBINSON
was a court appointed counsel tasked with providing adequate and effective representation, per the 14th
amendment to plaintiff RAYMOND SCHWAB . Defendant ROBINSON was required by oath and law
to provide competent representation to plaintiff RAYMOND SCHWAB which herein is defined as, In
general, competent legal representation is without errors that would result in the denial of a fair trial.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges ROBSINSON is subject to the same
binding and legal oath of practice per defendant INGLES
55. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant ANDY
VINDUSKA (VINDUSKA) was an individual residing, on information and belief in or around the

24
county of Riley, State of Kansas and a member in good standing with the Kansas bar association
subject to all its laws, oaths and regulations both Constitutional and Statutory. Defendant VINDUSKA
amendment to plaintiff RAYMOND SCHWAB . Defendant VINDUSKA was required by oath and law
to provide competent representation to plaintiff RAYMOND SCHWAB which herein is defined as, In
general, competent legal representation is without errors that would result in the denial of a fair trial.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges defendant VINDUSKA is subject to
the same binding and legal oath of practice per defendant INGLES
56. Plaintiff's are further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant
MIRANDA JOHNSON (JOHNSON) was an individual residing, on information and belief in or
around the county of Riley, State of Kansas and a member in good standing with the Kansas bar
association subject to all its laws, oaths and regulations both Constitutional and Statutory. Defendant
JOHNSON was a court appointed counsel tasked with providing adequate and effective representation,
per the 14th amendment to plaintiff AMELIA SCHWAB . Defendant JOHNSON was required by oath
and law to provide competent representation to plaintiff AMELIA SCHWAB which herein is defined
as, In general, competent legal representation is without errors that would result in the denial of a fair
trial. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges defendant JOHNSON is
subject to the same binding and legal oath of practice per defendant INGLES
57. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant RANDY
DEBENHAM (DEBENHAM) was an individual residing, on information and belief in or around the
county of Shawnee, State of Kansas and a member in good standing with the Kansas bar association
subject to all its laws, oaths and regulations both Constitutional and Statutory. Defendant DEBENHAM

25
amendment to plaintiff RAYMOND SCHWAB . Defendant DEBENHAM was required by oath and
law to provide competent representation to plaintiff RAYMOND SCHWAB which herein is defined as,
In general, competent legal representation is without errors that would result in the denial of a fair trial.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges defendant DEBENHAM is subject
to the same binding and legal oath of practice per defendant INGLES
58. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant Pawnee
Mental Health Services (PAWNEE) is a private, not-for-profit organization licensed by the state of
Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) as a community mental health center,
one of 26 in the state of Kansas. Pawnee is also a licensed by the state of Kansas Department of
Addiction and Prevention Services (AAPS) as a Substance Abuse treatment facility. Plaintiff is further
informed and believes that defendant contracts with DCF, and other agencies under the jurisdiction to
provide services.
59. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant's
BROWNBACK, GILMORE, FREED, BAKER, RCPD, WILKERSON, FIELDS, BOSCH, KANSAS,
RILEY COUNTY, AND DCF instead of properly supervising and overseeing Their subordinates,
agents, and institutions and preventing them from violating Plaintiffs rights as further alleged herein,
Defendant's BROWNBACK, GILMORE, FREED, BAKER, RCPD, WILKERSON, FIELDS,
BOSCH, KANSAS, RILEY COUNTY, AND DCF conspired, aided, assisted, and abetted each of the
other defendants in their efforts to violate Plaintiffs rights and due process either intentionally or
through negligence. On information and belief, plaintiff alleges that Defendant's BROWNBACK,
GILMORE, FREED, BAKER, RCPD, WILKERSON, FIELDS, BOSCH, KANSAS, RILEY
COUNTY, AND DCF knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the
wrongful nature of their subordinates conduct.

26
60. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that Defendant's BROWNBACK,
COUNTY, AND DCF through its agents and policies knew or should have known that the wrongful
conduct of their subordinates, mentioned herein, created a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff's, but
disregarded said risk by expressly approving, implicitly approving, or failing to take adequate action to
prevent the wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant's BROWNBACK,
COUNTY, AND DCF's conduct, or acts of omission, were a substantial factor in causing harm
61. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges ST FRANCIS
COMMUNITY SERVICES, (ST FRANCIS) is a Kansas Not For Profit Corporation, on information
and belief, organized and existing under the laws of Kansas and was qualified to do business in Kansas
as well as Mississippi, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. ST. FRANCIS'S registered office is located at 1813 S.
Ohio Street, Salina, KS and ST FRANCIS can be properly served at said location. On information and
belief, ST FRANCISs principle place of business is in Salina, Kansas, and ST FRANCIS has
additional places of business in other locations within the state of Kansas, including an office located in
Shawnee and defendant RILEY COUNTY, Kansas. ST FRANCIS was awarded a social services
contract by DCF to provide similar services that DCF would otherwise provide.
62. At all times applicable herein, Defendant KATIE POSSON (POSSON) was an individual
residing on information and belief, in defendant Riley County, Kansas, and was a family support
worker, as well as an officer, agent, and employee of ST FRANCIS. Defendant POSSENSS acts as
alleged herein were performed in her individual capacity and/or under color of state law.
63. At all times applicable herein, Defendant LAURA PRICE (PRICE) was an individual
residing on information and belief, in defendant KANSAS, and was a family support worker, as well

27
as an officer, agent, and employee of ST FRANCIS. Defendant PRICESS acts as alleged herein were
performed in her individual capacity and/or under color of state law.
64. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant social worker KATHY
BOYD (BOYD) was an individual residing, on information and belief, in Kansas, and an officer,
agent, and employee of DCF. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such basis alleges that
Defendant BOYD was a Case Managing Supervisor, charged with the duty to supervise her
subordinates and prevent them from engaging in improper or unlawful conduct.
65. Plaintiff 's are further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant
BOYD, instead of properly supervising her case worker subordinates and preventing them
from violating Plaintiffs rights as further alleged herein, Defendant BOYD aided, assisted, and
abetted each of the other social worker defendants in their efforts to violate Plaintiffs rights. On
information and belief, plaintiff alleges that Defendant BOYD knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful nature of her subordinates conduct.
Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that Defendant BOYD knew or should have
known that the wrongful conduct of her subordinates, mentioned herein, created a substantial risk
of harm to Plaintiff, but disregarded said risk by expressly approving, implicitly approving, or
failing to take adequate action to prevent the wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is informed and believes
that Defendant BOYD'S conduct, or acts of omission, were a substantial factor in causing harm to the
Plaintiff's
66. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on such basis alleges KVC (KVC) is a
Kansas Not For Profit Corporation, on information and belief, organized and existing under the laws of
Kansas and was qualified to do business in Kansas as well and other states under the umbrella of KVC
Health Systems. KVC's registered office is located at 21350 W. 153rd Street Olathe, KS 66061-5413

28
and KVC can be properly served at said location. On information and belief, KVCs principle place of
business is in Topeka, Kansas, and KVC has additional places of business in other locations within the
state of Kansas, and United States. KVC was awarded a social services contract by DCF to provide
similar services that DCF would otherwise provide.
67. At all times applicable herein, Defendant DEJA JACKSON (JACKSON) was an
individual residing on information and belief, in defendant , Kansas, and was a family support worker,
as well as an officer, agent, and employee of KVC. Defendant JACKSONSS acts as alleged herein
were performed in her individual capacity and/or under color of state law.
68. At all times applicable herein, on information and belief, Defendant social worker
RHONDA EISENBARGER (EISENBARGER) was an individual residing, on information and
belief, in Kansas, and an officer, agent, and employee of DCF. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on
such basis alleges that Defendant EISENBARGER was a Case Managing Supervisor, charged with the
duty to supervise her subordinates and prevent them from engaging in improper or unlawful conduct.
69. Plaintiff 's are further informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Defendant
EISENBARGER, instead of properly supervising her case worker subordinates and preventing them
from violating Plaintiffs rights as further alleged herein, Defendant EISENBARGER aided, assisted,
and abetted each of the other social worker defendants in their efforts to violate Plaintiffs rights. On
information and belief, plaintiff alleges that Defendant EISNEBARGER knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful nature of her subordinates conduct.
Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that Defendant BOYD knew or should have
known that the wrongful conduct of her subordinates, mentioned herein, created a substantial risk
of harm to Plaintiff, but disregarded said risk by expressly approving, impliedly approving, or
failing to take adequate action to prevent the wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is informed and believes that

29
Defendant EISNEBARGERs conduct, or acts of omission, were a substantial factor in causing harm
70. Throughout this Complaint, Defendant BROWNBACK, Defendant GILMORE,
Defendant FREED, Defendant BAKER, Defendant DCF, Defendant BOSCH, Defendant
WILKERSON, Defendant FIELDS, Defendant EISENBARGER, Defendant JACKSON, Defendant
PATHWAYS, Defendant PAWNEE, Defendant RILEY COUNTY, Defendant KANSAS, Defendant
ROBINSON, Defendant VINDUSKA, Defendant DEBENHAM, Defendant INGLES, Defendant
KVC, Defendant ST FRANCIS, Defendant PRICE, Defendant POSSON, Defendant BOYD, and
Defendants DOES 1-10 are referred to collectively as Defendants. As appropriate throughout, the
termDefendants should be read to refer to all Defendants collectively or to each Defendant
individually. Defendant RCPD, PATHWAYS, PAWNEE and Defendant SCHWARTZ will be
designated as such due to the limited nature of their involvement after the initial unlawful detention and
transfer of custody to Defendants.
71. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on such basis alleges, that each of the named
Defendants was and is the agent, employee, principal, employer and/or co-conspirator of each of
the remaining Defendants and/or vice versa. In addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on
such basis alleges, that the Defendants named hereinabove, and each of them, are responsible in
some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that each of the above-named Defendants
conspired with, and/or sided and/or abetted and/or jointly collaborated with each of the remaining
Defendants and identified persons in committing the acts herein alleged.
72. Plaintiff 's are informed and believes and on such basis alleges that each of the above
named Defendants and settling co-conspirators was acting under color of law in committing the acts
herein alleged, and that in doing the things herein alleged defendants, and each of them, were acting
within the course and scope of their duties as employees or agents of each other.

30
73. Plaintiff's are ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as
DOES 1 through 10, and for that reason have sued such Defendants under such fictitious names.
Plaintiff reserves their rights, and will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify said
Defendants when their identities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants was in some manner liable and legally
responsible, in that their conduct caused the damages and injuries set forth herein.
74. Plaintiff's are informed and believes and on such basis alleges that at all relevant times,
Defendants, and each of them, were the knowing agents and/or alter egos of one another, and that
Defendants directed, ratified, and/or approved the conduct of each of the other Defendants, and
each of their agents or employees, and are therefore vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of
their co-defendants, their agents and employees, as more fully alleged herein. Moreover, all of the
Defendants and identified persons agreed upon, approved, ratified, and/or conspired together to
commit all of the acts and/or omissions alleged in this Complaint.
FACTUALALLEGATIONS
HISTORY:
75. Son's D.B. was born in December of 1999, C.S. July of 2003, A.S., in August of 2005,
A.S. In December 2008 and daughter E.S. was born in October of 2010. THE SCHWAB'S were
married May 28,2003 and RAYMOND AND AMELIA have been the sole caregivers of all children
including D.B. The defendants have refused to acknowledge the parentage of RAYMOND SCHWAB
to D.B. Even though RAYMOND has been the joint caregiver of D.B. Who also acknowledges
RAYMOND as Dad in testimony during the adjudication hearing of the children. Defendants have done
all to sever that parental bond, by not allowing visits, calls, counseling or any other form of
communication with D.B. And instead placed him and attempted to reintegrate D.B's biological father,

31
contrary to the welfare of the child, which led to abuse reports, and an emergency move of the child,
further severing of the bond between D.B and MR SCHWAB by placing D.B. In the care of family who
unlawfully took the children and initiated the Child In Need of Care (CINC) proceedings.
76. April 19, 2015, due to a personal separation between the SCHWABS and safety concerns
with the neighborhood they were in AMELIA SCHWAB met RAYMOND to discuss their marriage and
allow the kids to go with their GRANDMOTHER CINDY BEAR, where Ms. SCHWAB was residing.
Instead of leaving with her mother, MRS. SCHWAB stayed to speak with her husband about the future
of their marriage. MR SCHWAB already had an application to transfer his federal job with the VA to
Colorado. It was agreed that for a period of separation AMELIA SCHWAB would go to Colorado,
where 4 of the Schwab children were born and where the SCHWAB'S had resided for most of their
marriage. They had a residence already in Colorado at 5232 GLADE ROAD, Loveland, Colorado
80538 where MRS. SCHWAB would be residing with herself and the children.
77. Mr. Schwab was an employee with the Department of Veteran affairs and had been applying
for a transfer back to the State of Colorado, where 4 or the SCHWAB CHILDREN were born and
which the SCHWAB'S considered their home. They determined not to tell the family where they were
going, but that they were separating and Amelia and Raymond needed time to pack. C.B. agreed to
keep the children in DICKENSON COUNTY, KS while the SCHWABS packed their home.
78. Between April 19-27, 2015, the maternal family hid the children from the SCHWAB's after
discovering they were moving back to Colorado. Not wanting to get family members arrested for
kidnapping or interference with parental custody AMELIA SCHWAB asked her husband to let her
handle it, and begin to try and locate her children leaving multiple messages with family. Finally the
SCHWABS sent Dickenson County Sheriff Deputy FERRIS to the home in Chapman to tell CINDY
BAER to return the children. At that point Mr. Schwab gave Cindy Baer until Monday the 27th or he

32
would have her placed in jail. Shawnee County, Topeka PD, and Dickinson County refused to assist the
SCHWAB'S stating jurisdictional concerns and that it was a custody issue.
79. Unbeknownst to the Schwab's Maternal Uncle A.A. had been in contact with defendant's
RCPD, and officer CARLA SCHWARTZ, who noting in the police report that the children were safe,
scheduled an appointment with Mr A. to bring the children into the police station on April 27th, without
notifying the SCHWAB's or investigating why the children were being brought. The report also
specifies through various witness interviews that the SCHWAB'S were texting the maternal family
demanding the return of the children.
80. In an unlawful, irresponsible and negligent manner, contrary to the rights of the parents to
maintain custody and control of the children and in facilitation of the crime of kidnapping and
interfering with parental custody the SCHWAB CHILDREN were seized without investigation,
contacting the parents, or examining the parents or home defendants RCPD, SCHWARTZ,
WILKERSON & FIELDS conspired to unlawfully deprive the SCHWAB's of their parental control and
custody. After reviewing the police report Mr. Schwab also noted that defendant RCPD had a snapshot
of his FB page where the plaintiff had shared he was moving back to Colorado to receive access to
Medical Cannabis, which is illegal in Kansas.
81. April 29th, 2015 as the SCHWAB'S were frantically searching for their children they
received a call from an unknown clerk of Riley County Courthouse reminding them they had court at
3pm. It was at this point the SCHWAB'S were notified their children had been placed into police
custody and a temp custody hearing would be held at 3pm. Living in Topeka,KS the SCHWAB' s knew
they could not make it to the hearing and began calling law enforcement defendants DCF, KVC,
JACKSON, EISENBARGER and RCPD and would not even be told why or how the children had been
taken.

33
82. After the Temporary custody hearing was held, without the SCHWAB'S present, it would be
18 days, at what was to be a disposition hearing, where an actual temporary custody hearing would be
held, before the SCHWABS received any legal paperwork as to why their children were in custody.
Both JOHNSON AND RONSINSON refused to return calls and refused to file specific motions
requested by Mr and Mrs Schwab.
83. During the 18 days Defendants KVC, DCF, ESIERNBARGER, AND JACKSON, made
repeated attempts to intrude upon the SCHWABS 4th amendment protections demanding the parents
comply with multitudes of request for drug testing, getting into counseling, and other demands showing
no regard for the illegal manner in which the children were taken, nor showing any interest in
protecting the rights of the parents despite multiple protestations. DEFENDANTS never even went to
the Schwab residence to conduct any investigation. Mr. SCHWAB pleaded with his attorney and
defendant ROBINSON, as did Mrs. Schwab with JOHNSON to intervene on these unlawful intrusions
to which they refused informing the SCHWAB's they better comply or they would lose their children
despite the fraud occurring. Mr. Schwab requested a number of motions for defendant ROBINSON to
file on his behalf due to the reach of laws which had occurred, to which ROBINSON refused.
84. During this 18 day period defendant JOHNSON was not in communication with MRS.
SCHWAB except to advocate for the state and demand MRS SCHWAB comply with every request
whether lawful or not.
85. DEFENDANTS INGLES, WILKERSON, JOHNSON, FILEDS ROBINSON, VINDUSKA
AND DEBEHAM ignored that on the original petition it was marked that the children may be of
Native American Descent, as MRS. SCHWAB Great Grandmother was a member of the Minnesota
Chippewa White Earth Clan, and D.B. Biological father SCOTT BACKMAN descended from the
Blackfoot tribe. No ICWA investigation was initiated by the DEFENDANTS until almost six months

34
later when Mr. SCHWAB was allowed to represent himself and raised the issue on the record.
Defendant JOHNSON informed MRS. SCHWAB that now the children were in state custody ICWA
did not apply and she would not pursue any legal action concerning it.
86. What was previously scheduled to be an adjudication hearing on May 13, was changed into
the temporary custody hearing by a motion filed from defendant ROBINSON. RAYMOND SCHWAB
was late for hearing and upon walking in was demanded by BOSCH, INGLES, WILKERSON,
JOHNSON, ROBSINSON, KVC, DCF, RCPD (Whose officers became the drug testers), KVC,
JACKSON AND EISENBARGER that all parties would submit to breathalyzers and drug urinalysis
testing. This was the first date where any legal paperwork or outline of allegation's was given to the
parents concerning the allegations. Taken from a motion filed Pro Se after defendant ROBSINSON
refused to file said motion challenging defendant BOSCH'S orders;
On May 13th 2015 Raymond R Schwab, being represented by Blake Robinson appeared for a
Temporary Custody Hearing in the Riley Co. Courthouse for the above cases. He was met by
his Attorney Blake Robinson who immediately informed him that the hearing would not be a
full hearing; the defendant was only allotted 30 min, and before any proceedings would occur
Mr. Schwab had to submit to an immediate urinalysis and Breathalyzer test. Mr. Schwabs
children had been in police and DCFS custody, without a mandatory hearing and without proper
notification as mandated by Kansas law, since April 27th and the respondent was being denied
due process until he agreed to submit to this unlawful search violating his 4th amendment rights,
and informed that the time took to comply would negate his hearing time by Attorney Blake
Robinson.The respondent objected to this request to his counsel and asked to see the court
order. When none was provided Mr. Robsinson was asked by Mr. Schwab to be brought into
the courtroom so he could receive the order from the judge on record and object to the
unreasonable search on record. Mr. Robinson went into the courtroom without Mr. Schwab and
made him stand in the hallway. After a short period a man who identified himself as Judge
Bosch came out of a side door to the judges chambers, outside of the courtroom, without any
identification or identifiable attire and stated I am judge Bosch and I am ordering you to give a
UA and BA. This action was done while the respondent was surrounded by police and other
State witnesses potentially hostile to the defendant and instead of giving an opportunity to
object the man asked Any problems with that where Mr. Robinson again did not object, and
the man returned to the office. This appeared to be an attempt to coerce, humiliate and deny Mr.
Schwab any attempt to object, or appeal the judges decision to the appropriate authorities and
within his right of due process.At this point Mr. Robinson looked at Mr. Schwab and stated I
told you so and refused to go in and get the judge to put his order on the record so the
defendant could object. He then told Mr. Schwab if he did not comply, he would not be able to
35
defend Mr. Schwab properly in the hearing and stated My hands will be tied. Being
unlawfully deprived of his children for almost 16 days without a proper hearing; Mr. Schwab,
under duress, coercion and threat of losing his children if he did not comply with this unlawful
search and seizure consented to the UA due to ineffective counsel, coercion and threat of denial
of his due process. Neither was the defendant advised of his right to object or appeal the judges
decision before complying, neither did the judge properly identify himself, issue or show a
proper court order or provide the credentials of the ones performing the test to demonstrate their
professional capacity to administer such test.
87. After Mr. Schwab left the Courthouse to compose himself, rather than defend Mr. Schwab's
right's defendant ROBINSON waived MR SCHWAB'S right to a hearing and told MR. SCHWAB he
no longer had a right to one.
88. DEFENDANTS KVC, JOHNSON, ROBSINSON, JACKSON, INGLES, WILKERSON,
FIELDS, BOSCH, DCF and EISENBARGER informed the Schwab's ,in various phone calls and face
to face interactions, they needed to vacate any plans to move to Colorado, despite the job transfer and
MRS. SCHWAB needed to move into a homeless shelter since the SCHWAB's had given notice and
moved out of 1335 N.W. Jackson. AMELIA SCHWAB left for her home in Colorado despite the
demand, RAYMOND was officially transferred July 27th. The Defendant's refused to return their
children.
89. MR SCHWAB filed a complaint with the Kansas Disciplinary Board concerning defendant
ROBINSON whom subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel which was granted by
Defendant BOSCH. Defendant VINDUSKA was subsequently appointed to represent RAYMOND
SCHWAB. This complaint was due to ROBSINSONS refusal to resist the Courts 4th amendment
violations and engaging in a conspiracy with the other defendants to maintain the manufactured
evidence by telling Mr. Schwab his only option was to waive his rights and protections or Mr.
Robinson couldn't help him and then waiving the custody hearing against Mr Schwab's will.
90. June 16th, 2015 Kansas Office of Disciplinary Review Dismissed Mr. Schwab's complaint.
91. Between 5/13/2015 and 6/11/2015 the plaintiff's attempted to exhaust administrative
36
remedies by contacting DEFENDANTs, attempting to file a criminal complaint with RILEY

COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, who refused to investigate or give Mr. Schwab any documents
stating they would do nothing while a CINC case was open, the County of Riley's Attorney, and other
KANSAS agencies. Furthermore RILEY COUNTY lied to Mr. Schwab as to where to file any
complaint and the Commissioners refused to return calls or assist Mr. Schwab in any investigation
92. No agency within defendant KANSAS responded, nor did any of the DEFENDANT'S
respond to request for the procedure to file complaints toward the violation of their rights or
investigation of the deprivation of their lawful parental authority.
93. June 11, 2015 Mr. SCHWAB represented himself in a motions hearing. Judge BOSCH
claimed due to a report by the Attorney ad litem or District Attorney that MR. SCHWAB's behavior
was concerning, prior to the temporary custody hearing, which is why drug screen were required for
all parties. This contradicts a statement made by defendant BOSCH in the Adjudication hearing that
berated Mr. SCHWAB for being late to every hearing. None of the DEFENDANT'S challenged
BOSCH for this obvious inconsistency. Defendant INGLES repeatedly had to correct the judge and
prosecution acting more in a prosecutorial role rather than a guardianship role. All motions were denied
and Mr. SCHWAB expressly asked for effective counsel. Defendant Vinduska was appointed and when
SCHWAB asked to confer with attorney concerning his rights before submitting to any order from the
bench this request was denied by BOSCH while INGLES and FIELDS claimed in the hallway his
refusal would be counted as a positive drug test.
94. At the 6/11/2015 Motions hearing Mr Schwab objected to the slanderous and defamatory
evidence being manufactured against him, whereas he was arbitrarily ordered to submit to a drug test
which he refused citing his 4th amendment protections. Defendant BOSCH informed him he would be
denied access to his children for that decision. DEFENDANTS in the courtroom did not address this

37
intrusion except to remind Mr. SCHWAB he was going to lose his kids forever if he did not submit to
their unlawful and unconstitutional demands.
95. DEFENDANT'S KVC, JOHNSON, VINDUSKA, INGLES, FIELDS, WILKERSON,
BOSCH, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, AND DCF continued to force the SCHWAB'S to surrender
their fourth amendment protections under threat of termination of their parental rights. Mr. SCHWAB
complied, under duress, in order to visit his children. To date he has not given one positive, properly
administered and verified drug test for any illegal substance. Mrs. SCHWAB was unable to visit the
children due to being moved to Colorado.
96. DEFENDANTS KVC, JOHNSON, VINDUSKA, INGLES, FIELDS, WILKERSON,
BOSCH, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, AND DCF continued to insist the SCHWABS stay within the
jurisdiction of Kansas and threatened to claim abandonment if Mr. SCHWAB transferred his job he had
already accepted with the Veterans Administration. Defendant JOHNSON refused to speak with
AMELIA save to instruct her she needed to move back to Kansas or she would lose her rights forever.
97. The Plaintiff's continued to protest the taking of their children contacting by phone or email
every agency, individual, municipality, including BAKER, RILEY COUNTY, GILMORE,
BROWNBACK, DCF AND KVC to inform them their behavior was unlawful and Unconstitutional.
Defendants repeatedly asked for intervention or the format for filing a formal complaint to investigate.
All their pleas were ignored or they were threatened upon the termination of their rights to be silent and
submit to the activities of the DEFENDANTS or they would move to terminate their rights.
98. Plaintiff's were denied proper case planning per defendants DCF declaration of parental
rights, and planned around forcing AMELIA SCHWAB to return to KANSAS, and RAYMOND
SCHWAB to cancel his scheduled transfer to Denver on July 27th. This was directly contrary to the
Kansas Plan for Title IV funding and the policies and procedures of DCF by which they receive Federal

38
funding, yet it is the PLAINTIFF'S assertion, through information and belief they received funding
based on fraudulently reporting compliance.
99. Mr. SCHWAB refused to sign releases to access confidential medical information about
himself or wife, and did not authorize the DEFENDANTS KVC, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, DCF,
OR INGLES to make any medical or educational decisions for his children. Plaintiff's refused to
participate or comply with any intrusions into their privacy until after he was able to have a court
hearing and was threatened with the terminate his parental rights by the defendants for asserting his
Constitutional rights. The defendant's made said decisions anyways and shared protected and sensitive
health information about the children and parents nevertheless.
100. July 10, 2015 Mr Schwab Attended the Adjudication hearing for the SCHWAB Children.
The same day defendant DCF released its report that the Emotional Abuse allegations lodged against
the SCHWAB;s was unsubstantiated for no CLEAR or CONVINCING evidence (exhibit 1 DCF
REPORT). This was never introduced into the hearing by DEFENDANTS VINDUSKA, INGLES,
FIELDS OR JOHNSON. Defendant Baker informed Mr Schwab the report meant notheing save they
would not be placed on a child abuse registry. Neither was the information about the report being
finished brought to the attention of the SCHWAB's, though it was finalized before the hearing, by
counsel or DCF, KVC, JACKSON, CASA, OR EISENBARGER
101. Plaintiff AMELIA SCHWAB was not physically present due to JOHNSON, FIELDS,
INGLES and VINDUSKA'S assurance she could participate by phone. This never occurred and it was
noted on the record she refused to be present.
102. At the adjudication WILKERSON, FIELDS, AND INGLES produced only one witness
who introduced heresy testimony. Defendant SCHWARTZ reiterated the reasons why she took the
children into custody contrary to Kansas Statue. No other testimony, witnesses or evidence were

39
provided and DEFENDANTS allowed the burden of proof to be shifted to the Plaintiff's rather than the
STATE. BOSCH allowed this violation of due process.
103. During a break in testimony defendant VINDUSKA, in the presence of witnesses assured
MR SCHWAB that defendant BOSCH would adjudicate despite no evidence being produced by the
State indicating some knowledge unknown to the Plaintiff's.
104. Plaintiff's produced witnesses, including D.B., who allegedly wrote a letter given to the
DEFEDANTS by ANTHONY AND MICHELLE ALLISON. D.B. In his testimony contradicted the
alleged letter and never admitted to writing it. Plaintiff TYLER ALLISON also testified against the
allegations.
105. DEFENDANT'S BOSCH, WILKERSON, FIELDS, INGLES, DCF, KVC, ST FRANCIS,
JACKSON, EISENBARGER, POSSEN, BOYD, AND PRICE, under color of law, retaliated and
conspired together against this testimony by not allowing TYLER access to his siblings by any means
of communication or visits for over a year. BOSCH stated on the record visits were for the parents only.
106. Despite the SCHWAB'S providing witnesses, documentation and evidence to counter the
DEFENDANTS accusation's, Defendant BOSCH Adjudicated the SCHWAB CHILDREN in need of
care and to date has refused Mr. SCHWAB any access or communication with D.B. Despite being a
primary caregiver to D.B. For the majority of his life, and being identified as his dad from the stand in
his testimony. It is the assertion, through information and belief, that this isolation was to maintain the
false narrative and turn one child against the parents to justify their unlawful seizure and financial fraud
by GILMORE, BROWNBACK, RILEY COUNTY, BOSCH, DCF, WILKERSON, INGLES, FILEDS,
KVC, ST FRANCIS, PRICE, BOYD, POSSEN, JACKSON, AND EISENBARGER, as D.B. continues
to repeat the defendants manufactured evidence as if it is truth when the record, testimony and evidence
show otherwise. BOSCH, VINDUSKA, JOHNSON, WILKERSON, FIELDS, AND INGLES

40
conspired to keep exculpatory evidence off the record when D.B. admitted, to multiple parties
including his biological father and a school counselor, that he lied and maintained the States false
narrative because he was told he could stay with his aunt. He told his brother TYELER ALLISON it
was to late to go back on what he had done. When Mr. Schwab sought to enter this evidence, through a
motion the defendants met in chambers for over 30 min and then refused to hear the motion or produce
D.B. for testimony.
107. It is herein believed by Plaintiff's this intentional act to sever the parental bond, which had
been carefully and patiently developed with D.B. by Mr Schwab, has been to manage the fraud
imposed on the Plaintiff's and have been promising D.B. to pay for his college and other favors if he
stay's in their custody.
108. July 27th Mr. SCHWAB is relocated by the Dept. of Veteran Affairs to Denver Colorado.
The SCHWAB'S begin to treat their medical conditions legally with medical Cannabis.
DEFENDANTS DCF, BOSCH, INGLES, FIELDS, WILKERSON, KVC, JACKSON,
EISENBARGER, AND BAKER threaten to terminate rights and forbid the SCHWAB'S this lawful
remedy as both are licensed in the State of Colorado to consume and grow cannabis. Repeated
slanderous accusations that the SCHWAB's moved to work on pot farm are raised by the
DEFENDANTS INGLES, DCF AND FIELDS, and the SCHWAB'S were denied access to their
children due to their lawful medical treatment. Cannabis is illegal in Kansas with severe and harsh
penalties, including felony prosecution for Cannabis Possession. In subsequent hearing's defendant
BOSCH, after a year recognized the error of making medical decisions for the SCHWAB'S in
penalizing, harassing and restricting access to their lawful use of Medical cannabis, consented to the
treatment even though in a prior hearing Defendant FIELDS stated on the record the children were
taken because of Medical Cannabis, even though the SCHWAB's did not use medical cannabis within

41
the jurisdiction of Kansas. Though it is known now, through information and belief, that the marijuana
and drug allegations were only a pretense to cloak the fraud under title IV incentives and the unlawful
seizing of the children. It is further alleged that defendants BOSCH, FIELDS, WILKERSON, and
unknown defendants may be engaged in modifying court documents to support their narrative, while
accusing the Plaintiff's of such action to cover their unlawful behavior.
109. Between 8/15/2015 and Oct 29th 2016 the SCHWAB Children were deprived of their
religious faith, holidays and no access is granted for any birthday's in a further assault upon the parental
bond. Placement had numerous safety plan's developed due to taking children to rock concert's, not
respecting the parent's or children;s faith despite repeated attempts to have defendant's RILEY
COUNTY, PAWNEE,PATHWAYS, DCF, ST FRANCIS, INGLES, WILKERSON, FEILDS,
CASA,POSSEN. JACKSON, EISENBARGER, BOYD, PRICE, DOES 1-10 RESPECTIVE
incorporate the parents belief system into any intervention with the children. The SCHWAB children
were notified they no longer had to go to church or pray by placement, and they refused to celebrate the
SCHWAB'S religious holiday's, as they adhered to a Messianic Jewish Faith. This destruction of the
SCHWAB FAMILIES belief system the children were raised in has continued to date of this pleading.
DEFENDANTS ignored every request both on and off record to include the children's faith into their
life to minimize the trauma of being torn from their parents to no avail. DEFENDANT'S informed
THE SCHWAB's they could not force placement to respect their children's religious views and
PLAINTIFFS needed to respect and consent to the PLACEMENT'S secular indoctrination of the
SCHWAB CHILDREN.
110. Between 8/15/2015 and Oct 29th 2016 defendant's BOSCH, INGLES, JOHNSON,
VINDUSKA, FIELD'S AND WILKERSON refused to allow or be heard on record, or even file by
request motions outlining these civil rights violation's. Plaintiff RAYMOND SCHWAB, in desperation

42
began a hunger strike in front of the RILEY COUNTY COURTHOUSE. Due to the exercise of his
right to petition the government for redress of grievances Defendant VINDUSKA attempted to
withdraw which was denied. Defendant BOSCH ordered ICPC home study, but continued to declare if
plaintiff's continued lawful use of Medical Cannabis in their home State they would be denied access to
their children. DEFENDANTS DCF, KVC,INGLES, JACKSON, JOHNSON, VINDUSKA, AND
EISENBARGER refused to obey court orders and policies to assist the SCHWAB's in participating in
case planning, insisted they move back to KANSAS and stated the Plaintiff's were not complying with
a case plan they did not even have.
111. DEFENDANTS DCF, KVC,INGLES, JACKSON, JOHNSON, VINDUSKA, AND
EISENBARGER continued to threaten the Schwab's if they did not silence their protests they would
lose their children forever. No appropriate case planning or services were ever provided by the
DEFENDANTS KVC, DCF, INGLES, BAKER, JACKSON, EISENBARGE and any protestation was
made to defendant's, as to the case planning continuing to revolve around the SCHWAB's returning to
Kansas and the defendant's claim of the plaintiff's not complying due to their refusal to abandon their
house and Job, was ignored by defendant's. It is now alleged, through information and belief the reason
behind the demand's to do services and return to Kansas was the financial incentive's Kansas would
lose, under Title IV, if the SCHWAB's completed their services out of State or out of pocket.
FURTHER COLLUSION AND VIOLATIONS
112. As of January 2016, and after DCF, KVC, CASA, JACKSON, INGLES, FIELDS,
WILKERSON AND EISENBARGER sabotaged the ordered ICPC by contacting the State of
Colorado and slandering the Plaintiff's claiming they were not complying with a case plan the
SCHWAB's did not even have. Not having the case plan done within 60 days was a violation of the
Kansas Plan for Title IV funding that the defendant's were required to follow in order to qualify for

43
Federal money under title IV. These behaviors continued the violation of the SCHWAB'S and their
CHILDREN'S Constitutional protections and Civil rights.
113. Verifiable three, if not all of the SCHWAB Children have been abused sexually and
physically while in care of the DEFENDANT'S. Defendant BOSCH in a recent hearing said the
children are better off in the care of Kansas despite the difficulties, stripping of their religious beliefs
and parental alienation. He also stated that the State of Kansas had done an excellent job of assisting
the SCHWAB's after JACKSON testified in a hearing that ZERO effort was made to comply with
reintegration of the Children and no services had been provided due to case managers negligence.
114. DEFENDANT'S KVC, BAKER, ST FRANCIS, POSSEN, INGLES, FIELD'S, PAWNEE,
PATHWAY'S, WILKERSON, BOSCH, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, PRICE, BOYD, POSSEN have
conspired to case plan without the presence of the parents contrary to policy of DCF, The Kansas Plan
for Title IV funding and Federal regulation restricting access of documents to Mr. and Mrs. SCHWAB
even though they legally are allowed access to those documents due to their forced pro se Status.
(Exhibit 2,3 Email's of secret meeting's/court order violations). Due to the collusion and conspiracy of
all parties to deny the SCHWAB'S their lawful right to their children they are now having court
hearings without any concern for the hardship of the SCHWABS living six hundred miles away and
have even ordered all service providers, such as PAWNEE MENTAL HEALTH AND PATHWAYS to
make medical decisions for the SCHWAB children, even having caseworkers such as DEFENDANT
KAYLEE POSSEN sign medical consent forms to medicate C.S. Despite the SCHWAB'S and their
Power of Attorney over the Children Jennifer Winn expressly declaring it was against their faith and
belief to medicate children unless it was a life threatening emergency. PRICE admitted to the
SCHWAB'S that PAWNEE was ordered by KVC, EISNBARGER, DCF AND JACKSON not to release
any information or documentation to the SCHWAB'S. ST FRANCIS and its agents are force

44
medicating C.S., and telling providers to not give records to the SCHWAB'S, nor answer questions or
give them any information.
115. Defendant's FREED, GILMORE, BAKER AND DCF have spread lies and slanderous
accusations against the SCHWAB'S in the media, while disclosing confidential and protected
information to parties in order to stop the SCHWAB'S from receiving support. DEFENDANT'S
BOSCH, WILKERSON, RILEY COUNTY, DEBENHAM, FIELDS, INGLES, JOHNSON, ST
FRANCIS, BOUD, AND PRICE have conspired to violate AMELIA AND RAYMOND SCHWAB
their due process by declaring in an April 2016 hearing the SCHWAB'S were not able to attend, and
after all continuances were denied for no cause, that AMELIA SCHWAB would no longer get court
appointed counsel and was being forced to represent herself pro se as Mr. Schwab was in a previous
hearing. (Exhibit 4 Miranda Johnson's email)
116. During a 17 day hunger strike on the Kansas Capitol Steps DEFENDANT'S
BROWNBACK, DCF, BAKER, GILMORE, AND FREED harassed, slandered, and impeded the
SCHWAB'S lawful and peaceful petitioning of the Kansas Senate and Legislature by having Mr.
SCHWAB arrested on false allegations, stripping him naked and holding him in a cell covered in urine
and another parties blood for 24 hours trying to force him to end his hunger strike by shoving food
trays through the door. Does 1-10 inclusive within the KANSAS GOVERNMENT raised a $100.00
MUNICIPAL bond to 5000.00, refused to tell plaintiffs wife AMELIA where he was being held, took
him to a hospital to be cleared while in custody and then billed him 2000.000 and then after his story
was reported in the media pushed him out of the SHAWNEE COUNTY JAIL on a PR bond. Shortly
after they arrested AMELIA SCHWAB, the Plaintiff's belief in an attempt to harass and intimidate the
SCHWAB'S.
117. To date of this filing DEFENDANTS DCF, BROWNBACK, GILMORE, BOSCH, ST

45
FRANCIS, INGLES, FIELDS, WILKERSON, BOUD, PRICE, POSSEN, DEBENHAM, PAWNEE,

PATHWAYS AND RCPD being fully aware of the plaintiff's claims due to the SCHWAB'S protest
activities and media attention, have refused to release document's to Mr and Mrs. SCHWAB, despite
his pro se status and have instructed the higher courts to deny access as well, which they have
complied to. Mr. SCHWAB has been ordered that to view any documents he must travel to Kansas, and
under police escort, in the office of the prosecutor review the voluminous files without being given the
ability to record in any fashion hindering his ability to have appropriate due process and harass and
intimidate the SCHWAB'S
118. At one such scheduled appointment to view the records, the records were not fully present
and the court stated the prosecutor had them the prosecutor stated the court had them. When MR.
SCHWAB demanded his right to see the evidence against him he was verbally assaulted by defendant
WILKERSON who stated Mr. SCHWAB would never get his file in the presence of RCPD officers
and other witnesses, and contrary to law.
119. Due to the high visibility of this case, and the fact that the SCHWAB'S hand delivered over
40 letters to legislators, and personally confronted the defendant BROWNBACK three times who
stated if the allegations were unsubstantiated the children would be returned, and when told the
allegations were unsubstantiated six months prior defendant BROWNBACK stated he could not
control the courts the plaintiff's believe all DEFENDANTS are fully aware of their violation of the
SCHWAB'S and SCHWAB CHILDREN'S civil rights and Constitutional protections and have refused
to intervene. BROWNBACK stated through his assistant that he is ok with how the case has been
managed to this point thus indicating his contribution to the conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff's of their
due process and rights. The PLAINTIFF'S have been contacted by numerous families around the State
of Kansas and it is alleged, through information and belief that depriving parents of due process,

46
slander, hiding evidence, threats, malicious prosecution, abuse of power, manipulation of the legal
system, gag orders and jail are all means being used as a standard operating procedure of DCF, ST
FRANCIS AND KVC under the leadership of BROWNBACK AND GILMORE. PLAINTIFF'S fully
intend to bring numerous witness testimonies to corroborate this claim.
120. DEFENDANTS KVC, ST FRANCIS, BOYD, POSSEN, EISENBARGER, BAKER,
FREED, GILMORE, BROWNBACK, JACKSON, PRICE, PATHWAYS, PAWNEE, BOSCH,
JOHNSON, DEBENHAM, UNKNOWN DOES, were aware that C.S. Had been placed in PATHWAYS
under questionable criteria, and force medicated AFTER the secret and unauthorized medicating of
C.S. May have contributed to some of the instances utilized to detain C.S. In a mental health facility
where the child claimed to be in a living hell and was assaulted.
121. Plaintiff's believe this force medicating, and institutionalization was retaliatory to the
SCHWAB'S exposure of the unlawful and unconstitutional behavior of the defendant's. It is
furthermore that force medicating children and depriving parents of right under color of law is also
standard operating procedure for DCF, BROWNBACK, GILMORE, ST FRANCIS, PAWNEE,
PATHWAYS AND DCF as a mean of maximizing their incentives under TITLE IV and other funding
avenues as the State receives higher payments for special needs children and the plaintiff's have seen
cases where children as young as 5 have been placed on powerful drugs in DCF custody, such as Xanex
which is a highly addictive drug, without regard to the safety of the children in order to carry on the
defendant's financial fraud. It is also alleged, through information and belief, DEFENDANTS DCF, ST
FRANCIS, BAKER, BOYD, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, KVC, PATHWAYS AND PAWNEE
refused intentionally and conspiratorially to receive or forward complaints to be filed against said
actions or direct plaintiff's to where they could appeal the decision or initiate a formal complaint in
further trampling of their due process rights. Currently C.S. Has been released after sixty days of

47
incarceration, but is being force medicated again. Plaintiff's believe these actions are an attempt to
defraud medicare and the Federal Government through its title IV incentives increasing the monies
received for special needs children.
122. Due to the violation of the Plaintiff's due process by not granting Mrs. Schwab legal
representation, and obfuscating fact, harassing the Plaintiffs with threats and other punitive actions, and
refusing access to documents the Plaintiff's are lawfully able to receive the Plaintiffs cannot accurately
outline all the offenses and constitutional violation's which have occurred, but reserve the right to seek
leave of the court to amend complaint once unknown does are discovered and the Plaintiff's are allowed
access to all court records that they may accurately and with surety outline the full scope of their
deprivation of civil liberties. It is also alleged, through information and belief that due to the level of
corruption in the Kansas Government and undue pressure and influence by BROWNBACK and his
agent's due process in the higher courts is also being denied. As stated above the Court of Appeal's
denied the appeal of the adjudication and even added to the record through malicious and false
statements. The Kansas Supreme Court has been sitting on the Schwab's Petition for review since May
of 2016 despite the Petition being an expedited case. When Mr. Schwab spoke to the clerk of court he
was informed the Supreme Court can rule whenever it wants and has no time line despite the expedited
status. When Mr. Schwab's appeal attorney, Rachel Hockenbarger was fired by Mr. Schwab and
released by the Kansas Supreme Court, he was informed expedited cases are usually ruled on in a
matter of weeks (exhibit 5 Email from Rachel). They received the petition in May. The Supreme Court
refuses to give reason why they refuse to deny the petition which then would remand it back to the
district Court for further litigation or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or grant it to move the case
forward. It is hereby alleged, through information and belief this is further evidence of the absolute
corruption, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, within the Kansas Government which

48
solely does what it wishes despite the constitution, right's of citizens or law.
(Against Defendants RCPD, RILEY COUNTY, SCHWARTZ, DCF, et. al.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive)
Violation of Plaintiffs Federal Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1983)
(Fourteenth Amendment Familial Association,Warrantless Seizure of Children)
123. Plaintiff's re-alleges, and incorporates herein as if set forth in full, all of the preceding
Paragraphs (1-122) above.
124. Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without
governmental interference. In re L.B., 42 Kan. App. 2d 837, 841-842 (2009), review denied by In the
Interest of LB., 289 Kan. 1278, 2010 Kan. LWXIS 36 (2010) (citing In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155, 159 P.3d
974 (2006)). See also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000);
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 230 Kan. 146, 152, 630 P.2d 1121 (1981), cert denied 455 U.S. 919, 102 S.Ct. 1274,
71 L.Ed.2d 459 (1982). Here, the Schwab's should not have their fundamental right to be with and raise
their children infringed upon on an arbitrary basis. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents
will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies. (Ibid.) This
right to family association requires government officials to obtain prior judicial authorization before
intruding on a parents custody of her child unless they possess information at the time of the seizure
that establishes reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily
injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury. (Ibid.)
125. When law enforcement encounters children and are faced with a decision whether to take them
into police protective custody (meaning they do not have a court order requiring them to take the children
into custody), they are authorized to take said children into custody pursuant to the law, to wit:
K.S.A.38-2231(b) A law enforcement officer shall take a child under 18 years of age into custody

49
when the officer: (1) Reasonably believes the child will be harmed if not immediately removed from the
place or residence where the child has been found.
K.S.A. 38-2232(a)(1) To the extent possible, when any law enforcement officer takes into custody a child
under the age of 18 years without a court order, the child shall forthwith be delivered to the custody of the
childs parent or other custodian unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that such action would not
be in the best interest of the child.
126. With regard to the first statutory option, there is zero testimony in this record that RILEY
COUNTY, RCPD AND SCHWARTZ believed the children would be harmed if they did not immediately
remove them from their grandmothers home where they were found. Indeed, the Court testimony is clear
that the parents had voluntarily placed all the children with the maternal grandmother following a break-in
at their home in Topeka which caused them to fear for the safety of their children. There is not even a hint
in this record that the maternal grandmother was not taking care of the children at the time the law
enforcement officer placed him in police protective custody. As a matter of record the police report notated
that SCHWARTZ believed the children were Safe and therefore scheduled an appointment for the
children to come in and be seized without contacting the parents who by that time were frantically searching
for them as the maternal family had ceased all communication. Parents have the right to make decisions
regarding the custody of their children, without any input from the government. In this case, they made the
decision to place their children with the maternal grandmother several days not allow them to live in Riley
County or be permanently kept for any reason, before law enforcement was called into their lives. When the
law enforcement officer made the decision to place these children in police protective custody, she did so
contrary to the law.
127. With regard to the second statutory option, the law enforcement officer never observed the
parents home, nor did she observe the children in the parents home as was reflected in her court testimony.
(Exhibit 6 Court Record of Schwartz testimony) Additionally, she made no attempt to investigate the

50
allegations or to determine whether there was a parent available prior to placing the children into custody,
as required by statute. There was no emergency that called for immediate action and complete disregard of
the law. The law enforcement officer just heard the relatives version of past events, and placed the children
in custody, ignoring the statutory requirements placed upon her by the legislature to protect the parents
fundamental rights to custody of their children. These actions by the law enforcement officer were contrary
to her duty under K.S.A. 38-2232(a)(1).
128. Commencing on APRIL 27, 2015, and continuing through the date of the filing of
the present action, DEFENDANT'S RCPD, RILEY COUNTY, AND SCHWARTZ were acting under
color of state law when they acted, or knew and agreed and thereby conspired, to unlawfully remove,
detain, question, threaten, examine, investigate, and/or search all five children of THE SCHWAB'S as
stated above without proper justification or authority, and without , exigency, or court order. The
actions of Defendants were taken with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's rights.
129. Defendants RILEY COUNTY, RCPD AND SCHWARTZ, and each of them, voluntarily
collaborated, acted in concert, and maliciously conspired with DEFENDANTS DCF, WILKERSON,
INGLES, FEILDS,BOSCH, JOHNSON, ROBINSON, DEBENHAM, AND VINDUSKA and
contracted agents (KVC, ST FRANCIS, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, POSSEN, PRICE AND BOYD
or those tasked to assure state and municipal employees and contractors were acting constitutionally
and lawfully, NAMELY BAKER, FREED, GILMORE, AND BROWNBACK, to violate the civil
rights of the Plaintiff's either intentionally or through negligence, including violation of Plaintiffs
rights found in the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, by, inter alia, removing the CHILDREN from the care, custody, and control of their
parent's without exigent circumstances and without providing adequate notice or observance of
statutory and legal opportunity to be heard.

51
130. Plaintiff's are informed and believes and on such basis alleges that these Defendants
voluntarily collaborated with and participated in the various actions approved by DCF and other
Defendant's to ensure the warrantless seizure of the SCHWAB CHILDREN of at various times noted
above, and their removal from Plaintiffs care. These Defendants, and each of hem, knew or should
have known that Plaintiffs constitutional rights would be violated, inasmuch
as there was no evidence that Plaintiff's were putting any of the CHILDREN in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury or deathor any other danger for that matter. The acts of these
Defendants, and each of them, were wrongful and unlawful, and Defendants knew it. Indeed, any
government agent faced with similar circumstances would have known that it was wrongful and
unlawful to seize any of the five children of the SCHWAB's, or to wisely cause their seizure, from the
care of Plaintiff under the circumstances then present.
131. Defendants BOSCH, RCPD, DCF, BROWNBACK, GILMORE, WILKERSON, FIELDS,
RILEY COUNTY, KVC, ST FRANCIS, and their case worker's as employees/agents of DCF and
Defendants BOYD, EISENBARGER, JACKSON, POSSEN and PRICE, as employees/agents of
defendant's KVC and ST FRANCIS were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiff s
constitutional rights, including collusion from the agents of the court and law enforcement, including
those arising under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as follows:
a. the policy and/or practice of detaining and/or removing children from their family and homes
without exigent circumstances (imminent danger of serious bodily injury), court order and/or consent
as part of their greater efforts to collaborate with government child welfare agencies in fabricating
evidence to support the governments unlawful detention of children from their parents;
b. the policy and/or practice of conducting medical/psychological examinations of children
without a warrant or court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances, in connection with

52
investigations of child abuse as part of their greater efforts to collaborate with government child
welfare agencies in fabricating evidence to support the governments unlawful detention of children
from their parents;
c. the policy and/or practice of examining children without exigency, court order, or parental
consent, and without the presence and/or consent of their parent or guardian as part of their greater
efforts in fabricating evidence to support the governments unlawful detention of children from their
parents;
d. the policy and/or practice of falsely accusing parents of suffering from other undiagnosed
mental disorders as a basis for removing children from their parents care as part of their greater efforts
to collaborate with government child welfare agencies in fabricating evidence to support the
governments unlawful detention of children from their parents;
e. the policy and/or practice of fabricating evidence against a parent in order to support a
knowingly false referral for child abuse;
f. the policy and/or practice of withholding exculpatory evidence from investigators of child
abuse as part of their greater efforts to collaborate with government agents and child welfare agencies
in fabricating evidence to support the governments unlawful detention of children from their parents;
g. the policy and/or practice of accusing parents of child abuse in order
to intimidate parents to providing consent to perform medical procedures, investigative procedures,
or other invasive and unnecessary examinations of a child; or parent
h. the policy and/or practice of knowingly assisting in the wrongful removal and detention of
children, and continuing to detain them for an unreasonable period after any alleged basis for detention
is negated;
i. by acting with deliberate indifference in implementing a policy of inadequate training and/or

53
supervision, and/or by failing to train and/or supervise its officers, agents, employees and state actors,
in providing the constitutional protections guaranteed to individuals, including those under the
Fourteenth Amendment, when performing actions related to child abuse and dependency type
proceedings.
132. On information and belief, DCF previously contracted out core public functions to
private not for profit corporation's. On information and belief, KVC and ST FRANCIS were charged
with and carried out the policies and procedures as stated above in Paragraph 131 (a-i) and is
Defendants actions under the state action doctrine, in that KVC and ST FRANCIS knew or should
have known that the policies and procedures carried out by its agents/employees violated Plaintiffs
rights as discussed above. And that further denial of plaintiff TYELER ALLISON access to his siblings
was a further tearing and harming of the familial structure, when no allegation was lodged against the
oldest sibling as well as denying his siblings without due process of law and denying access based on
his refusal to have his 4th amendment protections voluntarily waived through random drug testing
without cause.
133. On information and belief, the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of
them, were undertaken knowingly, willfully, and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff's, or
alternatively with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs substantive rights, and did in fact result in
severe harm to Plaintiff in an amount according to proof at trial.
134. As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants violations, and in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985, Plaintiffs civil rights have been violated in that they have
suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, including but not limited to, physical and/or mental
anxiety and anguish, as well as to incur attorneys fees, costs and expenses in the underlying case
and in this matter, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 in an amount not yet ascertained, all of

54
which shall be shown according to proof at trial.

135. The wrongful conduct of all the Defendants, and DOES 1 through 10 as herein
alleged was intentional, done with malice, and with a conscious disregard for the rights of the
Plaintiff. As a result of this despicable conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages
from said Defendants only in an amount commensurate with the nature of the Defendants
wrongful acts and the amount of the individual Defendant's wealth. These punitive damages should be
for deterrent purposes of such action in the future from any agency or individual as well as due to the
mental agony, outrage, distress, anxiety, sleeplessness, loss of income and job, aggravation of
underlying disabling condition of PTSD by Mr. Schwab, worry, undue burden, hardship, oppression,
slander, defamation, harm to reputation, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, abuse of the
children, violations of faith and religion, severing of the child/parent bond, hatred, and injury/harm
from the deprivation of constitutional protections, privacy and civil liberties of the PLAINTIFF'S
COUNT 2
Violation of Plaintiffs Federal Civil Rights and Conspiracy to deny rights,/ Right to Be Free
From Acts of Dishonesty in Juvenile Court Proceedings, i.e. Perjury, Fabrication of Evidence,
Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985)
(Fourteenth Amendment Familial Association)
136. Plaintiff's re-alleges, and incorporate herein as if set forth in full, all of the preceding
Paragraphs (1-135) above.
137. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant
herein, there existed a clearly established due process right not to be subjected to false accusations
on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government, such that a
reasonable agent in Defendants situation would know, or should know, it is unlawful to lie,

55
fabricate evidence, and/or suppress material exculpatory evidence in court reports or any other
document filed with the juvenile court to influence judicial decision making.
138. In fact, Defendants, and each of them, had the affirmative and self-evident duty to
be truthful, accurate, and complete in providing information which they knew, or had reason to
know would be repeated and treated as evidence in petitions, reports, and documents submitted to a
sovereign court with power to adjudicate substantial rights, including parental rights, and to refrain
from using improper and deceptive means to obtain judicial sanction of recommendations
seeking to disparage Plaintiffs liberty interests.
139. Defendants knew or should have known that by presenting false allegations and evidence
to a Court, and conspiring to invent reasons for removing Plaintiffs children from their care, would
lead to the deprivation of Plaintiffs civil rights. Said Defendants, like any reasonable person, knew or
should have known that Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected right not to be lied about in such
consequential judicial proceedings.
140. In doing the things alleged herein above, Defendants, and each of them voluntarily
collaborated, acted in concert, and conspired to violate the above identified rights of the Plaintiff,
including violation of Plaintiff's rights found in the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States constitution by, but not limited to, presenting false allegations,
false or coerced testimony, fabricated evidence, and/or suppress exculpatory evidence, before the
court, thereby violating Plaintiffs rights found in the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and breaching their duty to Plaintiff.
141. In so doing, Defendants, and each of them, were acting under color of state law.
They did these things without proper justification or authority. Further, Defendants actions were
taken with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's due process rights, and in conscious disregard of

56
Plaintiffs right to not be lied about by government agents/employees in any court proceeding
where substantial rights were at stake.
142 .Defendants, and each of them, maliciously conspired to violate the civil rights of
Plaintiff, including violation of Plaintiff's rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution by the use of coercion and duress to obtain evidence and testimony, and by
maliciously falsifying evidence, and presenting fabricated evidence to the court, and maliciously
refusing to provide exculpatory evidence during duration of the dependency proceedings.
143. As the direct and proximate result of the aforementioned actions of Defendant's, each of
them, Plaintiff's have suffered, and will continue to suffer, physical, mental, and emotional injury, all to
an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial. Plaintiff has also incurred, and will continue to
incur, fees, costs and expenses, including those authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to an
extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial.
144. On information and belief, said defendants, and each of them, acted with malice
and with the intent to cause injury to Plaintiff, or acted with a willful and conscious disregard of
the rights of Plaintiff in a despicable, vile, and contemptible manner. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled
to an award of punitive damages for the purpose of punishing Defendants and to deter them and
others from such conduct in the future.
COUNT 3
(Against Defendant's ST FRANCIS, KVC INGLES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive)
Violation of Plaintiffs Federal Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985)
MONELL-Related Claims
145 Plaintiff re alleges, and to the extent applicable, incorporates herein as if set forth in
full, each of the foregoing Paragraphs (1-144) above.

57
146. Defendant's ST FRANCIS AND KVC are non-profit corporation's organized in the State of
Kansas where DCF previously contracted out core public functions to this private not for profit
corporation. ST FRANCIS, KVC and Does 1 through 10 are persons within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, and subject to Monell liability and is known as the Monell Defendants. See
Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
147. When working in joint collaboration with Government to curtail the rights of
Plaintiff, Defendant's ST FRANCIS AND KVC had a duty to Plaintiff at all times, to establish,
implement and follow policies, procedures, customs and/or practices (hereinafter referred to as policy
or policies) which confirm and provide the protections guaranteed Plaintiff under the United States
Constitution, including those under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, to include without
limitation, the protection of the right to familial relations; the right to privacy; the right not to be
defamed or stigmatized; and the right to procedural due process. Said Defendant also had a duty to
use reasonable care to select, assign, supervise, train, control and review the activities of all their
agents, officers, employees and those acting under themincluding Defendants BOYD,
EISENBARGER, JACKSON, POSSEN, AND PRICEso as to protect Plaintiffs constitutional
rights; and to refrain from acting with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff in
order to avoid causing the injuries and damages alleged herein. Based on the duties charged to ST
FRANCIS AND KVC the Monell Defendant, including the nature of their work relating to juvenile
dependency proceedings, DEFENDANT'S knew or should have known of the obvious need to establish
customs, policies, and practices as would be required to protect the aforementioned civil rights of
parents and their children.
148. In collaborating with DCF,RCPD, BROWNBACK, FREED, BAKER, INGLES,
WILKERSON, RILEY COUNTY, BOSCH, JOHNSON, ROBSINSON, VINDUSKA, DEBENHAM,

58
AND RCPD to improperly curtail Plaintiffs constitutional rights, the Monell Defendants, and each of
them, established and/or followed policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices which policies,
procedures, customs, practices and/or usages were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs
constitutional rights, including those arising under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as follows:
a. the policy and/or practice of jointly collaborating with state child
welfare services agencies in detaining and/or removing children from their family and
homes without exigent circumstances (imminent danger of serious bodily injury), court
order and/or consent as part of their greater efforts to collaborate with government child
welfare agencies in fabricating evidence to support the governments unlawful detention of
children from their parents;
b. the policy and/or practice of conducting medical/psychological
examinations of children without a warrant or court order, parental consent, or exigent
circumstances, in connection with investigations of child abuse as part of their greater
efforts to collaborate with government child welfare agencies in fabricating evidence to
support the governments unlawful detention of children from their parents;
c. the policy and/or practice of examining children without exigency,
court order, or parental consent, and without the presence and/or consent of their parent or
guardian as part of their greater efforts to collaborate with government child welfare
agencies in fabricating evidence to support the governments unlawful detention of children
from their parents;
d. the policy and/or practice of falsely accusing parents of suffering
from Bi-Polar and Borderline Personality Disorder, or other undiagnosed mental disorder

59
as a basis for removing children from their parents care as part of their greater efforts to
collaborate with government child welfare agencies in fabricating evidence to support the
governments unlawful detention of children from their parents and fraudulent financial gain in Federal
incentives under Title IV of the Social Security Act;
e. the policy and/or practice of fabricating evidence against a parent in
order to support a knowingly false referral for child abuse;
f. the policy and/or practice of withholding exculpatory evidence from
investigators of child abuse as part of their greater efforts to collaborate with government
child welfare agencies in fabricating evidence to support the governments unlawful
detention of children from their parents;
g. the policy and/or practice of accusing parents of child abuse in order
to intimidate parents to providing consent to perform medical procedures, investigative
procedures, or other invasive and unnecessary examinations of a child, prior to reporting
any instance of child abuse to child welfare services agencies;
h. the policy and/or practice of knowingly assisting in the wrongful
removal and detention of children, and continuing to detain them for an unreasonable
period after any alleged basis for detention is negated;
i. by acting with deliberate indifference in implementing a policy of
inadequate training and/or supervision, and/or by failing to train and/or supervise its
officers, agents, employees and state actors, in providing the constitutional protections
guaranteed to individuals, including those under the Fourteenth Amendment, when
performing actions related to child abuse and dependency type proceedings.
149. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such basis alleges that all of the foregoing

60
customs, policies, practices, and usages of ST FRANCIS AND KVC were promulgated in order to
increase revenues for said agencies, in that each child that is brought within their respective grasp and
processed, in search of a diagnosis of child abuse, (on information and belief) generates a governmentfunded revenue stream, which brings a massive inflow of revenue to DEFENDANT'S under Title IV
Incentives when they wrongfully removes children from their homes. Hence, it benefits KVC AND ST
FRANCIS to voluntarily collaborate with the government, or to act on its own, to generate false
evidence to support over-reaching claims of child abuse when none in fact exists.
150. Monell Defendant'S KVC AND ST FRANCIS, by their workers and other agents breached
its respective duties and obligations to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, failing to establish,
implement and follow the correct and proper Constitutional policies, procedures, customs and
practices; by failing to properly select, supervise, train, control, and review its agents and employees as
to their compliance with Constitutional safeguards; and by deliberately permitting Defendants BOYD,
EISENBARGER, JACKSON, POSSEN, PRICE AND DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, to engage in the
unlawful and unconstitutional conduct as herein alleged with at total indifference to the rights of
affected parents, including Plaintiff herein.
151. Monell Defendant ST FRANCIS AND KVC knew, or should have known, that by
breaching the above mentioned duties and obligations that it was reasonably foreseeable that its agency
policies, practices, customs, and usages would, and did, cause Plaintiff to be injured and damaged by
Monell Defendant's ST FRANCIS AND KVC wrongful policies, or deliberate lack thereof or deliberate
indifference to the need for such policies and/or training, and other acts as alleged herein, and that such
breaches occurred in contravention of public policy and their legal duties and obligations to Plaintiff;
and that such policies were the moving force behind the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights as
alleged herein above.

61
152. These actions, and/or inactions, of Monell Defendant's KVC AND ST FRANCIS are the
moving force behind, and direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries, as alleged herein; and as a
result, Plaintiff has sustained general and special damages, to an extent and in an amount to be proven
at trial. In addition, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys fees, costs and
expenses, including those as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988, to an extent and in an amount subject
to proof at trial.
COUNT 4
(Against All Individual Defendants and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive)
False Light
153. Plaintiff realleges, and to the extent applicable, incorporates herein as if set forth in
154. Plaintiff's have a protected liberty interest in the privacy and integrity of their immediate
family, comprised of Plaintiff and their children as named above. As part of said protected liberty
interest, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the facts concerning the seizure of
her children by DCF and defendant's, the ongoing juvenile dependency proceedings, the childrens
medical history, and others, that were not widely known, and were in fact private.
155. Within the past year, all the individual defendants and each of them, publicized
information or material that showed Plaintiff in a false light, by falsely stating, among others, that
Plaintiff's had abused their children, abandoned their children and were methamphetamine addicts. On
information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the information
entrusted to them was private,confidential, and subject to the adjudicatory process, at the time of each
such publication. On information and belief, said Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have
known each such publication would create a false impression with the listener that Plaintiff abused

62
their children despite the Plaintiff's extraordinary efforts of petitioning for redress due to the egregious
nature of their offenses, including two hunger strikes.
156. Each and every act mentioned hereinabove was carried out intentionally, and with
full knowledge of the probable consequences thereof, or with a reckless disregard of the fact that a
reasonable person in Plaintiff's position would consider its false publicity highly offensive, such
that punitive damages should be imposed against these defendants, and each of them.
157. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants dereliction of duty and invasion
of privacy, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, physical, mental, and emotional
injury, as well as damage to her reputation and consequent harm to her business and profession, all
to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial. Plaintiff has also incurred, and will continue
to incur, attorneys fees, costs and expenses, to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial.
COUNT 5
(Against all Individual Defendants and DOES I through 10, inclusive)
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS/INVASION OF PRIVACY THROUGH
ARBITRARY DRUG TESTING CONTRARY TO 4TH AMMENDMENT PROTECTIONS
158. Plaintiff realleges, and to the extent applicable, incorporates herein as if set forth in
159. Plaintiff has a protected liberty interest in the privacy and integrity of their immediate
family, comprised of Plaintiff 's and their five children as named above. As part of said protected
liberty interest, Plaintiff's had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the facts concerning the
seizure of their children by agents/employees of DCF and other Defendant's , the ongoing juvenile
dependency proceedings, the childrens medical history, and others, that were not widely known,
and were in fact private.

63
160. Within the past year, the individual Defendants and each of them, intruded
upon the privacy of Plaintiff's family by, but not limited to, disclosing to third parties that
THE SCHWAB's were involved in a juvenile dependency proceeding, that their children had to be
taken due to abuse and an active drug addiction of Mr. SCHWAB, and that MRS SCHWAB suffered
from a fictitious mental disorder that resulted in abuse to her children. Plaintiff is informed end
believes and thereon alleges that on each such occasion, these Defendants identified Plaintiff and their
children by their full names. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, knew or should
have known that the information entrusted to them was private and confidential at the time of each such
publication. These event's and disclosures led to the extraordinary attempt's at countering these
disclosures by appealing for redress through various protesting activities whereas DEFENDANT'S
disclosed through the media slanderously, and with the intent to defame and harm the plaintiff's that the
SCHWAB'S were lying and implied they abused their children to various media sources. Various
parties have also unlawfully shared the SCHWAB'S AND THEIR CHILDREN'S protected health
information in violation of Federal law, and without consent of the parents or legal POA for the
children, JENNIFER WINN
161. On information and belief, said intrusions upon the family home and privacy
interests of Plaintiff would be highly offensive to any reasonable person, and was, in fact, highly
offensive to Plaintiff, in that nobody would want the badge or stigma of a child abuse investigation,
or of any medical conditions, or of moving the children to various foster homes, to be the subject
of widespread publicity, particularly when the facts remained to be adjudicated in confidential
proceedings, though the SCHWAB's were forced into the public sphere through the unlawful actions of
the defendant's due to any administrative or legal remedies being denied them causing harm to their
reputation and lives.

64
162. Defendant's KVC, ST FRANCIS, WILKERSON, BOSCH, FIELD'S, JACKSON,

EISENBARGER, POSSEN, DCF, GILMORE, BROWNBACK, INGLES, BOYD AND PRICE
engaged in a relentless campaign to deprive the Plaintiff's of their 4th amendment right to protection
from illegal search and seizure, under the color of law and through an unspoken policy and procedure.
Without cause or warrant they refused to allow plaintiffs access to their children/siblings unless they
voluntarily waived their protections and when the Plaintiff's resisted said intrusions were informed their
refusal would be used against them, threatened they would never get their children back, and told their
exercise of their rights and protections constituted a positive drug test.
163. On information and belief, each and every act of mentioned above was carried out
intentionally, and with full knowledge of the probable consequences thereof, or with a reckless
disregard of the fact that a reasonable person in Plaintiff's position would consider the publicity
highly offensive, such that punitive damages should be imposed against these defendants, and each
of them.
164. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants dereliction of duty and invasion
of privacy, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, physical, mental, and emotional
injury, all to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial. Plaintiff has also incurred, and will
continue to incur, costs and expenses, to an extent and in an amount subject to
proof at trial.
COUNT 6
Slander
165.Plaintiff realleges, and to the extent applicable, incorporates herein as if set forth in
166.Within the past year, the individual Defendants caused to be published false

65
statements of or concerning Plaintiff to third parties.

167. On information and belief, said third parties reasonably understood that the
statements were about Plaintiff, and, further, reasonably took those statements to mean that
Plaintiff's suffered from a mental disorder's, Substance Use Disorders and had abandoned and abused
their children even after the DCF report stated the allegations were unsubstantiated and the SCHWAB's
are not even listed on any child abuse registry. (Exhibit)
168. The statements were false, and, on information and belief, these Defendants knew
or should have known of the falsity thereof at the time published, or failed to use reasonable care to
determine the truth or falsity of the statements.
169. As a consequence of said conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages for harm
suffered to her property, business, trade, profession, or occupation; expenses paid as a result of the
defamatory statements; harm to her reputation; as well as her shame, mortification, and
humiliation.
170. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled assumed damages, because each of these
Defendants knew that the statements published were false or had serious doubts about the truth of
the statements, as well as punitive damages, because these defendants also acted with malice,
oppression, or fraud.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. General damages and special damages according to proof, but in no event less than
$15,000,000
2. Injunction to cease and desist violating defendant's 4th amendment protections through

66
random drug testing without warrant or cause

3. Injunction to require and enjoin Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents in
their official capacities to abide by all policies and procedures contained within the
KANSAS TITLE IV-B CHILD AND SERVICES PLAN, and the DCF POLICY
HANDBOOK which encapsulates that services plan in policy by which they receive
Federal Funding under the Social Security Act title IV due to their compliance with
these policies and procedures .
4. Injunction requiring and enjoing Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents in
their official capacities to cease and desist from denying the PLAINTIFF'S 14th and 5th
amendment rights to due process by refusing to release documents needed for the
defense of their State Civil CINC case not excluding the police reports that the RCPD
are refusing to give to RAYMOND OR AMELIA SCHWAB and release the documents
per Statue, Constitutional right to see evidence being used against them in court
proceedings, and policy, regulations and legal stipulations provided for such release
without harassment or undue burden by traveling to Kansas.
5. Injunction requiring and enjoing the Defendants and their officers, employees, and
agents in their official capacities to cease and desist all harassment, slander, false
allegations, retaliation and attempts to silence the PLAINTIFFS exercise of their
constitutional protected activities through threats, false allegations, media smear
campaigns, and threatening jail and prosecution based on malicious intentions to hinder
this litigation, and using the charges to defame the PLAINTIFFS in the media through
releasing defamatory, incorrect, and confidential information to the media.
6. Requiring and enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents in their

67
official capacities who have been named in the complaint to remove themselves from all
case planning, case management, and court proceedings as a conflict of interest within
the sense they they are able to as it is understood defendant's GILMORE,
BROWNBACK, KVC, and ST FRANCIS will not be able to be thoroughly removed,
but steps may be take to safeguard any competing or conflict of interest. This would also
include the the removal of the venue from RILEY COUNTY to DICKENSON
COUNTY where the majority of the children now currently reside, or where the State
deems appropriate under law and Statue.
7. And finally; requiring and enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and
agents in their official capacities and duties from harassing and retaliating against
exculpatory witness TYELER ALLISON through the denial of his access to his siblings
without due cause or process as his right is to be free from abusive of power and
retaliation. Also to cease and desist from unlawful intrusions into his privacy in violation
of his 4th amendment through arbitrary drug testing without warrant or cause.
8. As against only the individual Defendants punitive damages as allowed by law;

9. Attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and any other appropriate statute; if Plaintiff's
choose to retain counsel.
10. Costs of suit incurred herein; and
11. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
PLACE OF TRIAL
In accord with Local Rule 40.2(a), Plaintiff hereby designates Topeka Kansas as the
place of trial in this matter.

68
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
Signed this 25th day of August 2016

/S/________________________
RAYMOND SCHWAB
In propria persona
/S/________________________
AMELIA SCHWAB
In propria persona
/S/________________________
TYELER ALLISON
In propria persona
5232 Glade Road
Loveland, Co 80538
schwabstrong@gmail.com
970-402-7230

69
REVISED SECOND AMMENDED LIST OF DEFENDANTS: Service required on new defendant's.

Plaintiff's will enact service upon multiple new and re-added defendant's within time limit required .
Governor of Kansas
Sam Brownback
Capitol
300 SW 10th Avenue, Suite 212S
Topeka,KS
66612-1590
Pathways Family Services
4101 SW Martin Dr # C,
Topeka, KS 66609
St Francis Community Services (Corporation and Individuals)
509 E Elm St
Salina ,Ks 67401
St Francis Community Service Workers Manhattan ks.
Kathy Boyd
Laura Price
Kaylee Posson
222 Southwind Rd,
Manhattan, KS
County of Riley KS
Honorable Judge John F. Bosch (In official and individual Capacity)
Division 1
110 Courthouse Plaza
70
Manhattan, Ks 66502
Randy Debenham, Debenham Law Firm
3615 SW 29th St,
Topeka, KS 66614
Pawnee Mental Health (Unkown individuals involved listed as Does 1-10)

437 Houston St,
Manhattan, KS 66502
Riley County Police Dept
1001 S. Seth Childs Road
Manhattan, Ks 66502
CARLA SCHWARTZ (Address Unknown Retired Police offer and agent of RCPD)
Manhattan, Ks 66502
(This includes unknown detectives and officers to be listed in formal lawsuit. Includes retired officer
Carla Swartzt acting as agent of said agency, as well as unknown supervisors who refused to take
criminal complaint from the injured parties to be listed as names become known known as does 1-10)
Riley County Prosecutor
Barry Wilkerson (Official and Personal Capacity)
ADA Bethany Fields (Official and Personal Capacity)
105 County Court Sidewalk
Manhattan Ks 66502
Count Appointed Attorney Blake Robinson (individually and in official capacity)
Court Appointed Attorney Andy Vinduska (individually and in official capacity)
555 Poyntz Ave #225
Manhattan, Ks 66502
Court Appointed Attorney Miranda Johnson (individually and in official capacity)
1001 S Seth Childs Road
Manhattan Kansas 66502
Attorney Guardian Ad Litem Lora Ingles (individually and in official capacity)
1619 Poyntz Ave
Manhattan Ks 66502
71
KVC
235 S Kansas Ave,
Topeka, KS 66603
KVC WORKERS
Deja Jackson (Individual and Official Capacity)
Ronda Eisenbarger
235 S Kansas Ave,
Topeka, KS 66603
Kansas Department for Children and Families
1. Kendra Baker (Individual and Official Capacity)
2. Phyllis Gilmore (Individually and Official Capacity)
3. Theresa Freed: Director of Communications (Individual and Official Capacity)
Service Address:
Office of the Secretary
555 S. Kansas Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66603

72
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 25,2016 I filed electronically with the clerk of
court through email, and have sent notice of electronic filing to the following through the clerk of
court, and by email. Hard copies also sent through U.S. Postal Service.
Corliss Scroggins Lawson esq.

Dept Children of Children and Families
555 S. Kansas Ave., 6th Floor
Topeka, KS 66603
Tel: 785-296-3967
ATTORNEY FOR KANSAS DCF AND PHYLLIS GILMORE
Christopher A. Brackman, Esq.
John G. Shultz, Esq.
FRANKIE, SHULTZ AND MULLEN
7101 College BLVD., ste. 510
Overland Park KS 66210
cbrackman@fsmlawfirm.com
jschultz@fsmlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR ST FRANCIS COMMUUNITY SERVICES AND KATHY BOYD
Timothy J. Finnerty Esq.
Jason Janoski ESQ.
WALLENCE, SAUNDERS, AUSTIN BROWN &ENOCH'S Chtd.
400 O.W. Garvey Center
200 W Douglas
Witchita, KS 67202
Tel: 316-269-2100
Fax: 316-269-2479
tfinnerty@wallacesauders.com
jjanoski@wallacesaunders.com
ATTORNEY FOR ANDY VINDUSKA
73
Stephen O. Phillips, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General
120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor
Topeka, KS 66612
Tel: 785-368-8421
Fax: 785-296-6296
steve.phillips@ag.gov.ks.gov
ATTORNEY FOR JOHN BOSCH
David R. Cooper, Esq.
Seth Aaron Lowry, Esq.
FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER, & SMITH LLP
3550 SW Fifth Street
Topeka, KS 66603
Tel: 785-232-7761
Fax: 785-232-7761
dcooper@fisherpatterson.com
slowry@fisherpatterson.com
ATTORNEY'S FOR SAM BROWNBACK, STATE OF KANSAS, PATHWAYS FAMILY SERVICES
LLC., RILEY COUNTY POLICE DEPT., AND BARRY WILKERSON
J. Steven Pigg, Esq.
FISHER, PATTERSON, & SMITH, LLP
3350 SW Fifth St.
Topeka, KS 66603
TEL: 785-286-6632
FAX: 785-232-6604
spigg@fisherpatterson.com
ATTORNEY FOR BLAKE ROBINSON.
Mimi Doherty
920 Main St, Suite 1900
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel: 816-421-4000
Fax: 816-421-7880
med@deacylaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT LORA INGLES
Michael C. Kirkham
Tracy M. Hayes
SANDERS, WARREN & RUSSELL LLP
40 Corporate Woods
9401 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 1250
Overland Park, KS 66210
PH: 913-234-6100
74
FX: 913-234-6199
m.kirkham@swrllp.com
t.hayes@swrllp.com
ATTORNEYS FOR RILEY COUNTY KS.
JAMES MORROW
8330 Ward Parkway, suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64114
816-382-1382
jmorrow@mklaw.com
Copies were also sent VIA mail to the following list:

Governor of Kansas
Sam Brownback
Capitol
300 SW 10th Avenue, Suite 212S
Topeka,KS
66612-1590
Pathways Family Services
4101 SW Martin Dr # C,
Topeka, KS 66609
St Francis Community Services (Corporation and Individuals)
509 E Elm St
Salina ,Ks 67401
St Francis Community Service Workers Manhattan ks.
Kathy Boyd
Laura Price
75
Kaylee Posson
222 Southwind Rd,
Manhattan, KS
County of Riley KS
105 County Courthouse Sidewalk,
Manhattan, KS 66502
Honorable Judge John F. Bosch (In official and individual Capacity)
Division 1
110 Courthouse Plaza
Manhattan, Ks 66502
Randy Debenham, Debenham Law Firm
3615 SW 29th St,
Topeka, KS 66614
Pawnee Mental Health (Unkown individuals involved listed as Does 1-10)

437 Houston St,
Manhattan, KS 66502
Riley County Police Dept
Manhattan, Ks 66502
CARLA SCHWARTZ (Address Unknown Retired Police offer and agent of RCPD)
Manhattan, Ks 66502
(This includes unknown detectives and officers to be listed in formal lawsuit. Includes retired officer
Carla Swartzt acting as agent of said agency, as well as unknown supervisors who refused to take
criminal complaint from the injured parties to be listed as names become known known as does 1-10)
Riley County Prosecutor
Barry Wilkerson (Official and Personal Capacity)
ADA Bethany Fields (Official and Personal Capacity)
105 County Court Sidewalk
Manhattan Ks 66502
Count Appointed Attorney Blake Robinson (individually and in official capacity)
211 South 4th St
76
Manhattan ks 66502
Court Appointed Attorney Andy Vinduska (individually and in official capacity)
555 Poyntz Ave #225
Manhattan, Ks 66502
Court Appointed Attorney Miranda Johnson (individually and in official capacity)
1001 S Seth Childs Road
Manhattan Kansas 66502
Attorney Guardian Ad Litem Lora Ingles (individually and in official capacity)
1619 Poyntz Ave
Manhattan Ks 66502
KVC
235 S Kansas Ave,
Topeka, KS 66603
KVC WORKERS
Deja Jackson (Individual and Official Capacity)
Ronda Eisenbarger
235 S Kansas Ave,
Topeka, KS 66603
Kansas Department for Children and Families
1. Kendra Baker (Individual and Official Capacity)
2. Phyllis Gilmore (Individually and Official Capacity)
3. Theresa Freed: Director of Communications (Individual and Official Capacity)
Service Address:
Office of the Secretary
555 S. Kansas Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66603

77

Revised Fed Lawsuit 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revised Fed Lawsuit 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CASE NO. 16-CV-4033-DDC-KGS

SAM BROWNBACK in official and individual capacity,

KAYLEE POSSEN in individual and professional capacity

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

12. The parties DCF, BOSCH, INGLES, FIELD'S, JACKSON, EISENBARGER, ST

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Further Argument's: Malicious and Bad Faith Prosecution

were unsubstantiated for lack of clear of convincing evidence.

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

points toward this conclusion.

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

47. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DEPARTMENT) is an agency of

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

remedies by contacting DEFENDANTs, attempting to file a criminal complaint with RILEY

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

FRANCIS, INGLES, FIELDS, WILKERSON, BOUD, PRICE, POSSEN, DEBENHAM, PAWNEE,

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

which shall be shown according to proof at trial.

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights