IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MILWAUKEE DIVISION

________________________________________
) _______________________________
) Civil Action Case No.
JORDAN W. TURNER,
)
)
GLOBAL CONSERVATION, LCC, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v.
)
Jean Plale, Individually, and in her Capacity as )
the Director of Financial Services for the )
Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions; )
)
Mark Schlei, Individually, and in his former )
Capacity as Assistant Chief Legal Counsel for the )
Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions; COMPLAINT:
)
)
Heather MacKinnon, Individually, and in her
Capacity as Chief Legal Counsel for the )
Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions; )
)
Tim Wacker, Individually, and in his Capacity as )
Detective for the City of Watertown;
)
CITY OF WATERTOWN, )
)
ABC INSURANCE COMPANY )
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )
)

1! of !24
 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, HERE NOW COMES the

Plaintiffs, Jordan W. Turner (hereinafter “Jordan”) and Global Conservation, LLC (hereinafter

“Global”), by and through their attorneys, and for their Complaint alleges and states as follows:

I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a Civil Rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as an action for violations of

state laws arising under the same series of transactions, as a result of Defendants’ wrongful

acts beginning on March 13, 2014 and continuing to escalate thereafter.

2. The individual Defendants are named in individual and official capacities.

3. The Defendant City of Watertown is named as a result of the individual Defendants’

actions within the course and scope of their authority and pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 895.46.

4. This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against

the Plaintiffs and the hundreds of thousands of individuals they represent. Directed by

Defendants, this campaign involves selective prosecution and backroom exhortations with the

goal of depriving the Plaintiffs and its constituents of their First Amendment rights to

vigorously advocate on behalf of animals.

5. The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign includes an

increasing pattern of intimidating Plaintiffs and its supporters both individually and as a whole

over a five-year period. To effect their sweeping agenda, Defendants’ conspired to author a

series of threatening letters to Plaintiffs, issue a broad subpoena that had the clear intent and

purpose of intimidating Plaintiffs, and conspiring with other government agencies in an effort

to interrogate and arrest, without cause, Jordan, while he was back on Christmas Break from

2! of !24
 university in Texas.

6. At the same time, Defendants engaged in back-channel communications to reinforce their

intended purpose. Simply put, Defendants conspired to end the Plaintiff's protected advocacy

efforts through relentless intimidation and seeking to criminally charge Plaintiffs for lawful

activities.

7. As a direct and proximate result of this coercion, Global, Jordan and his family have been

subject to a series of unpleasant and harassing letters penned by the Defendants, including one

which indicated it was going to continue pursuing Plaintiffs because Global’s activities have

“significantly increased.” One of these letters included a double copy—issued both through

regular USPS mail and certified USPS mail. Tellingly, several provisions in the letters bear no

relation to any ostensible regulatory infraction. It is not unlawful for an organization or person

to “significantly increase” exercising their First Amendment rights.

8. Moreover, the Defendants not only sought to chill the Plaintiffs free speech, but they went

further in an effort to intimidate their supporters and staffers. This was accomplished when

they showed up, unannounced, at the home of Jordan’s grandmother wanting to know if she

supported the Plaintiffs. They also tampered with a potential witness when they wrongly told

her that she was Plaintiffs “largest donor” before realizing that she was Jordan’s grandmother.

It is unlikely anyone will support a company or person if they know law enforcement officers

will show up unannounced banging on their front door. The Defendants also placed a call to

one or more of Global’s personnel, excluding the Plaintiffs and Jordan’s grandmother.

9. Plaintiffs endured continuous harassment and were the subject of a series of repeated

unlawful actions by Defendants. These include the Defendants’ willful and intentional use of

3! of !24
 stolen documents to issue overly broad demands for information and to willfully continue and

refer Plaintiffs for frivolous investigations leading to the wrongful arrest of Jordan. This action

seeks to redress under federal and state law for the damages caused by the Defendants’ acting

in concert under color of law, acting willfully, maliciously, and with a deliberate indifference

and with reckless disregard for the natural and probable cause of their acts, without lawful

justification or reason. Such actions were designed to and did intimidate and cause specific

and serious emotional and physical pain and suffering in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as

guaranteed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, including the right to be free from

unreasonable seizure of his person and the right to be free to exercise their lawful use of

speech.

10. The Defendants coordinated campaign against Plaintiffs will continue to damage Global,

Jordan and their members, as well as endanger the free speech and association rights

guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and the State of Wisconsin. It is well-

settled that viewpoint discrimination applied through “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions

and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation” violates the United States

Constitution where, as here, such measures chill protected First Amendment activities.1

Defendants’ de facto censorship scheme cannot survive judicial scrutiny. Nor should it.

__________________
1See, e.g., Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 72 (1963).6.

4! of !24
 II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391

because the events giving rise to this cause of action all occurred within the District.

12. This case presents an actual case in controversy arising under the First, Fourth, Sixth,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This case also arises

under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § § 1983 and 1988.

13. The relief requested is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) (recovery of damages

or equitable relief or any other such relief for the protection of civil rights), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

and 2202 (declaratory and other appropriate relief), and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (awards of attorneys’

fees and costs). Moreover, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 holds that state and local officials can be held liable

for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and

federal laws.”

III.

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Jordan W. Turner is a citizen and resident of the United States, domiciled in

Jefferson County, State of Wisconsin.

15. Plaintiff Global Conservation, LLC, is a Limited Liability Company, registered as such in

the State of Wisconsin and located at 19 Park View Lane, Watertown, WI. 53094.

16. At all times relevant, upon information and belief Defendant Jean Plale was a resident of

5! of !24
Dane County, State of Wisconsin, and was acting in her capacity as the Director of Financial

Services for the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions and was acting under the color

of state law. She is named in both her individual and official capacities.

17. At all times relevant, upon information and belief Defendant Mark Schlei was a resident

of Dane County, State of Wisconsin, and was acting in his capacity as the Assistant Chief Legal

Counsel for the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions and was acting under the color of

state law. He is named in both his individual and official capacities.

18. At all times relevant, upon information and belief Defendant Heather MacKinnon was a

resident of Dane County, State of Wisconsin, and was acting in her capacity as the Chief Legal

Counsel for the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions and was acting under the color of

state law. She is named in both her individual and official capacities.

19. At all times relevant, upon information and belief Defendant Tim Wacker was a resident of

Jefferson County, State of Wisconsin, and was acting in his capacity as Detective for the City of

Watertown and was acting under the color of state law. He is named in both his individual and

official capacities.

20. For all pertinent dates and times, the Defendants Jean Plale, Mark Schlei, and Heather

MacKinnon were employed as the Director of Financial Services, Assistant Chief Legal Counsel

and Chief Legal Counsel, respectively, for the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, a

state corporation and governmental subdivision of the State of Wisconsin, and acted under color

of law and authority of the statutes, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Wisconsin,

and acted within the scope of their employment and under the authority of their positions.

6! of !24
21. For all pertinent dates and times, Defendant Tim Wacker was employed as a Detective for

the City of Watertown, a municipal corporation and governmental subdivision of the State of

Wisconsin, and acted under color of law and authority of the statutes, ordinances, regulations,

customs and usages of the City of Watertown, and State of Wisconsin, and acted within the scope

of his employment and under the authority of his position as a Detective for the City of

Watertown.

22. The City of Watertown is a defendant to this action as an indemnitor to Detective Tim

Wacker, and pursuant to Wis. Stat. §895.46.

23. ABC Insurance Company, an unknown insurance company at this time, is a defendant to

this action as an indemnitor and insurer to Detective Tim Wacker and the City of Watertown.

IV.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Global Conservation: History Of Dedicated Support For Animal Welfare.

24. When Jordan was in eighth grade (2008), he and his father wanted to spend more

time together as father-son and wanted to help animals, which has long been Jordan’s passion.

Together, they formed Global Conservation to advocate on behalf of animals while spending

time together. Early on, this company started to achieve great heights and quickly began to grow

when local, state, national and even international news outlets would start to regularly cover their

work.

7! of !24
 25. Some of the group’s most notable achievements include when Jordan drove down

to Peoria, Illinois in November 2013 to lead his own animal rescue team in an effort to rescue

animals after tornadoes devastated hundreds of homes. Similarly, they did the same thing when

rural areas outside of San Antonio, Texas experienced significant flooding in May 2015.2 Jordan

and his group also rescued stray cats in his community—two of whom they adopted and have to

this day. Plaintiffs also spayed and neutered cats in low-income residential areas by covering all

veterinary costs.

26. Likewise, Plaintiffs went on to halt the cruel treatment of animals by way of

undercover investigations, peaceful demonstrations, disseminating pamphlets, and making

petitions which collectively received well over 500,000 signatures. Moreover, Plaintiff’s

attorneys filed the first-of-its-kind action in a Wisconsin circuit court in 2015 to stop a small

group of individuals in Northern Wisconsin from punching and kicking pigs in the face for fun—

which ultimately resulted in the individuals permanently ceasing the cruelty.3 Similarly, Plaintiffs

accomplished the same result when a different group of individuals were planning to punch and

kick pigs for fun in Stoughton, Wis.4

____________________
2See, e.g., CHANNEL 3000: WATERTOWN GROUP HELPS PETS IN TEXAS FLOODS,
https://www.channel3000.com/news/local-news/watertown-group-helps-pets-in-texas-floods/156320666
3CHICAGO TRIBUNE: ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS SEEK CHARGES AGAINST WIS. PARISH
FOR ‘PIG RASSLE.’, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-pig-rassle-petition-
met-20150723-story.html 3MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL: PARISH CALLS OFF PIG
WRESTLING TRADITION AFTER BACKLASH, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/parish-
calls-off-pig-wrestling-tradition-after-backlash-b99486339z1-300934291.html/ 4CHANNEL 3000:
STOUGHTON FAIR CANCELS PIG WRESTLING EVENT, https://www.channel3000.com/news/local-
news/stoughton-fair-cancels-pig-wrestling-event/155725715

8! of !24
 27. Digital media is a particularly important communications medium for the

Plaintiffs. The company’s online platforms allow them to keep the public informed about what is

happening in their community and around the country—and in some cases, around the world.

This kind of speech is protected, which begs the question why Defendants constantly monitored

the Plaintiffs verified Facebook page and would go so far as sending Jordan letters informing

him of it. A January 5, 2016 letter states that the company’s “Facebook is active, with posts being

made by GCG as recently as December 25, 2015.” As a point of clarification, “GCG” stands for

Global Conservation Group.

B. Defendant Jean Plale’s Vendetta Against Jordan and Global.

28. Jean Plale has an established history of abusing her regulatory power as

demonstrated when the United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin ordered Defendant Plale to

cease “enforcing against Plaintiffs” in WFS Financial Inc. v. Richard L. Dean, Secretary,

Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions; Jean Plale, Director, Licensed Financial

Services Unit, Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, et el. (No. 99-C-0345-C).

29. On March 13, 2014, Jordan’s father received a letter for the first time from

Defendant Plale incorrectly asserting that the organization was “not properly registered.” Plale

further demanded, without cause, that the group turn over thousands of documents “by April 9,

2014.” The documents sought included employee names; supporter names; bank statements;

organization activities and more. Jordan’s father politely responded shortly thereafter attempting

to clarify any perceived misunderstanding on Plale’s part. She then closed the case.

9! of !24
 30. On November 24, 2015, Jordan received another letter from Defendant Plale

stating in part, “It appears GCG activities have increased significantly in the last 18 months. We

have, therefore, reopened our file on GCG.” Plale again went on to demand, without cause,

thousands of private sensitive organization documents, including the names and addresses of

donors. Jordan’s father responded attempting to again clarify Plale’s perceived misunderstanding.

31. On January 5, 2016, Jordan received two identical copies of letters from Plale—one

issued via USPS Certified Mail while the other was sent through regular USPS mail. This letter

sought the same information as before and threatened that, “The Department may issue

subpoenas, conduct investigations and hold hearings, issue a special order requiring forfeiture

not more than $10,000, petition the circuit court for an injunction, and bring an action to

prosecute.” Plale wanted access to the company’s information “by January 29, 2016.” Jordan

respectfully responded in a two-page letter on January 22, 2016 explaining, in detail, that they

are “in compliance with all local, state and federal regulations.” Jordan also went through each of

Plale’s demands and either provided the information sought or explained why it would be

detrimental to release it. This was conveyed when Jordan wrote, “The company has several

individuals associated with it, who do not consent to the release of their names. Further,

providing some of the information you requested may jeopardize company operations, such as

certain undercover investigations into cruelty to animal cases.” (Jordan Turner Letter, ¶ xx;

Exhibit C).

32. On March 4, 2016, Jordan’s 47-year old mother was suddenly diagnosed with

breast cancer. This was also the day that Defendant Mark Schlei, who was then the Assistant

Chief Legal Counsel for the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, issued an extremely

! of !24
10
broad subpoena to Jordan and Global seeking thousands of pages of private company records and

the identities of all those who supported the company. The Platinffs had not wanted to release

those identities in fear that the individuals in government who were campaigning against Jordan

and Global, would intimidate the group’s supporters—and that’s exactly what they did. At the

direction of Defendants, Defendant Tim Wacker used the information obtained by Defendants

Jean Plale and Mark Schlei to show up to the homes of Global’s supporters, unannounced, in an

effort to intimidate them about their support of Plaintiffs. A sworn affidavit asserts that

Defendant Wacker’s questions and statements included: (1) Did you donate to Global

Conservation?, (2) You were the group’s largest donor., (3) Do you know who Jordan Turner is?

This clearly has a chilling effect on the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs and their supporters under

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Affidavit of Andrea Wetmore, ¶ xx;

Exhibit D)

33. In truth, Plale bears deep animus toward Jordan and Global—which has proved

volatile over the course of the last half-decade. For Plale, going after Jordan and Global has been

something she has been trying to do for five years now; the awful and cruel threats she

repeatedly issued to Jordan and his family didn’t work; the subpoena issued when Jordan’s

mother was diagnosed with breast cancer, showed no unlawful activity; the requests that

Defendants Plale and Schlei made to other agencies about investigating and pursuing Plaintiffs

fell on deaf ears; as a last resort, Plale aided in convincing Defendant Tim Wacker, a police

detective, to investigate Jordan and Global.

C. Defendants Barreled Forward Despite The Absence Of Evidence And The

Clear Lack Of Authority.
_______________________________________________________________

! of ! 24
11
 34. The procedures set forth in Wisconsin’s Administrative Procedures and Review

statute (Chapter 227) ensure the regulated community is afforded due process—the right to

adequate notice and a fair hearing. In that vein, imposing regulatory dictates without following

formal rule-making procedures circumvents important Chapter 227 rights of the regulated for

public hearings and comments pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 227.17 and 227.18, economic impact

analysis pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.19, and gubernatorial approval pursuant to Wis. Stat. §

227.185, as well as other safeguards.

35. Plaintiffs attorneys raised their concerns about due process with the Defendants in

2016. (Attorney John Schomish Letter, ¶ xx; Exhibit E). Not a single court filing was made; no

charges have ever been filed; and Jordan had never been arrested prior to the Defendants gross

acts. Yet, the Defendants continued to pursue Jordan and Global for an extraordinary period of

time without cause to do so and without due process.

36. There is an old adage that nice guys finish last. It is well documented that in

litigation, this maxim oftentimes rings true. General William Tecumesh Sherman stated, “War is

Hell!”6 Litigation, some think, is like war. Make your opponent’s life miserable, put them

through hell, and you will eventually defeat your adversary. The Defendants elected to utilize

this malicious approach because it works and frequently goes unpunished.

________________________
6William Tecumseh Sherman, WIKIQUOTE, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Tecum
seh_Sherman (last visited Jan. 5, 2016).

! of !24
12
Indeed, the Defendants drawn-out shakedown-style approach proved to have devastating

consequences for the Plaintiffs by way of incurring tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees

and document production as well as taking a colossal toll on Jordan’s personal life and that of his

family.

37. The Defendants’ actions include trickery7, harassment8 and threats.9 In Prize Energy

Resources, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc., an individual engaged in trickery when he “secured

documents under false pretenses” during discovery.10 In addition to his trickery, the same

individual also engaged in harassment to obtain discovery information.11 For example, he

contacted the opposing party and “continually badgered him to produce documents that had

already been provided,” even after the party obtained counsel.12 Additionally, he threatened the

opposing party with “criminal penalties” if the party failed to comply.13

38. This is precisely what happened to Jordan and Global. The Defendants plethora of letters

and the overly broad subpoena issued in an effort to collect sensitive information was only done

to shutter the rights of the Plaintiff. Moreover, some of the information sought in the letters and

subpoena was already provided. The Defendants essentially admitted as much when they

voluntarily withdrew several items of information in the subpoena that they had originally sought

to obtain. The Defendants also “continually badgered” Jordan for an enormous amount of time

and went on to threaten “criminal penalties” when they simply did not apply, such as prior to the

issuance of the subpoena.

_____________________

7Prize Energy Res., L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc., 345 S.W.3d 537, 573 (Tex. App. 2011). 8Id.; Adelman,
1990 WL 39147, at *2. 9Prize Energy Res., 345 S.W.3d at 573; Florida Bar v. Ratiner, 46 So.3d 35, 37
(Fla. 2010) (per curiam). 10Prize Energy Res., 345 S.W.3d at 577. 11Id. at 573. 12Id. 13Id.

! of !24
13
 D. The Defendants Thrived on Two Frivolous Complaints.

39. When Defendants Plale and Schlei were asked to justify their actions, they

pointed to two meritless complaints—both of these complaints failed to allege any wrongdoing

and both were filed by persons with an ax to grind against Plaintiffs. Defendant Wacker justified

his actions by indicating that the Defendants’ colleagues at the Wisconsin Department of

Financial Institutions had asked him to investigate Jordan and Global. None-the-less, the

Defendants continued to pursue these fatally deficient claims for years.

40. The Defendants were well aware that Plaintiffs exercise of their First Amendment

rights occasionally posed controversy. This would often prove to be true when Jordan and Global

would investigate or review animal mistreatment complaints filed against a law enforcement

officer. This was the case when Global had initiated an inquiry regarding allegations that the

Green County Sheriff’s Office in Wisconsin had refused to take action after concerns over

abused and neglected animals were brought to their attention. As a result, Global launched a

public awareness campaign that was featured on several news outlets, including NBC News

affiliate NBC 15.14 Individual 1 became angry that the sheriff’s office was the subject of criticism

by Jordan and Global and indicated as much in the comments section under the story on the

Facebook page of NBC 15. The comment stated that “The loser comment was from the GCG

Facebook page.”

__________________

14NBC 15: ANIMAL NEGLECT INVESTIGATED. https://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/
Animal-neglect-investigated-242493811.html

! of !24
14
Individual 1 then filed a meritless complaint against Global with Defendant Plale (February 2014

Complaint #233324). While Global’s concerns were eventually substantiated when the owner of

the animals was arrested and charged with one count of animal mistreatment and two counts of

obstruction of justice, Defendant Plale used the complaint of Individual 1 as a license to

intimidate the Plaintiffs for years to come.

41. The second and final complaint (Complaint #229962) was filed by Individual 2, a

former employee who was terminated for illegal conduct and other violations. Shortly thereafter,

Individual 2 had illegally hacked or unlawfully gained access to Global’s computer information

after they were no longer apart of the organization. The Plaintiffs became aware of this when

Individual 2 disseminated the stolen computer information to one or more of Global’s supporters,

who then notified Global that this had occurred. Global then filed a complaint against Individual

2 with the Madison Police Department. The fact that Individual 2 left Global under aggravated

circumstances leads to a presumption of bias.

42. The crux of Individual 2’s complaint comes from the computer information that

they stole after termination—that a cheap camera, some face powder and a box of teeth strips

were purchased. None of this is prohibited by law. A person that appears on television wants to

look their best as a representative of the organization and the camera was used by the

organization’s Cruelty Investigation Department. There were no dates on the documentation and

no authentication of the documents. The documents were fraudulently and illegally obtained and

do not pass judicial muster. They are based on hearsay. Individual 2 also worked at the

Wisconsin Department of Justice, which may give rise as to why the Defendants refused to

acknowledge Individual 2’s clear bias, motive, and unlawful activity.

! of !24
15
 1. The Defendants Regulatory and Law Enforcement Mission.

43. The responsibility of the agency that Defendants Plale and Schlei used to

intimidate Plaintiffs, state that, “The Department of Financial Institutions regulates state-

chartered banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks and credit unions, as well as

various operations of the securities industry.”15 None of these apply to the Plaintiffs, yet the

Defendants acted under color of these responsibilities to shift their focus on something other than

what the agency was intended to do. The Defendants regulatory mandate does not include

restricting the First Amendment or regulating the rescue of animals. Nor does any statute or other

authority empower them to harass and intimidate those they disagree with. In addition, they have

no authority to engage in unlawful viewpoint discrimination.

44. Meanwhile the mission of Defendants Wacker and City of Watertown include

their commitment “to providing excellent service to our city through a partnership with the

community built on trust, teamwork and problem solving.” It goes on to elaborate that “The

degree of faith that the public has in the department to protect citizens basic freedoms is centered

on trust.”16 Yet, the very same Defendants that tout this on their website have lied time and time

again when they emailed Jordan to ask if he can “help on a case I’m working on right now” and

telling Plaintiff’s legal counsel that Jordan “is not a suspect” just one day prior to arresting him

without cause. Later the Defendants would falsely tell Jordan’s grandmother that she was

Global’s “largest donor.”

____________________

15THISIS DFI: AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY, https://www.wdfi.org/this_is_dfi/ 16WATERTOWN
POLICE DEPARTMENT: MISSION, http://watertownpolice.com/

! of !24
16
While Jordan’s grandmother was far from the “largest donor,” Jordan was appreciative of what

she did contribute; Jordan never asked her for a cent, but it was clear that Global does good work

in the community and she wanted to support that.

V.

COUNT 1

VIOLATIONS OF FIRST, FOURTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS

45. Plaintiffs hereby realleges and reasserts the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

A. First Amendment Violation.

46. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states in part, that the government

may not “abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Defendants violated

Plaintiffs First Amendment.

47. In committing the acts complained herein, Defendants acted jointly and under color of

law to deprive Plaintiffs of their clearly established constitutionally protected rights under the

First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States,

including but not limited to freedom from unreasonable seizure; the right to be free from

unreasonable searches; freedom of speech; freedom from deprivation of liberty without due

process of law; freedom from summary punishment; freedom from the prevention of Defendants

acting unlawfully; and freedom from arbitrary governmental activity which shocks the

conscience of a civilized society.

48. The Defendants have targeted Jordan and Global for speaking out about their beliefs.

! of !24
17
This retaliation has serious negative effects: it suppresses a critical viewpoint, silences a crucial

community voice, and chills the speech of the Plaintiffs and all Americans. The First Amendment

prohibits retaliation against individuals for their speech. A core purpose of the First Amendment

is “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression.”

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995). The First Amendment thus

restrains the Defendants from taking adverse actions against individuals as a retaliation for

engaging in constitutionally protected speech, a safeguard that has been extended to nearly all

aspects of government action. The prohibition on retaliatory actions ensures that “the power of

the state…not be used to ‘drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.’”

Wollschlaeger v. Governor, Fla., 848 F.3f 1293, 1327 (11th Cir. 2017) Simon & Schuster, Inc. v.

Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991). The Defendants’ actions

run afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition of selective enforcement, a species of retaliation

claim. The Defendants had and have no legitimate interest in retaliating against the Plaintiffs.

49. Viewpoint discrimination is a particularly “egregious form of content discrimination” in

which the “government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a

subject.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). “The

government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the

opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.” Id. Under the First

Amendment, “the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its

ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). In

this case, there is good reason to believe that the Defendants purpose is retaliation against those

they disagree with as indicated when Defendant Plale stated that the case was going to be

! of !24
18
“reopened” because the Plaintiffs “activities increased significantly.” This outrageous viewpoint

based retaliation offends the core principles of the First Amendment.

50. In 2017, the United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations heavily criticized a

verdict against a human rights activist in Bahrain:

No one anywhere should be prosecuted or imprisoned for exercising their

human rights or fundamental freedoms, including the freedoms of
expression or peaceful assembly. The U.S. Government believes societies
are strengthened, not threatened, by expressions of opinion and dissent, and
that opposition voices can play a vital role in helping societies become
more tolerant and inclusive.17

51. The prohibition of viewpoint discrimination lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s

free speech guarantee. Viewpoint discrimination, Professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs reasoned, “is

the primary free speech clause danger.”18 Viewpoint based discrimination is dangerous because

the government skews “public debate in an explicitly message-sensitive way” by suppressing

particular views.19 Viewpoint based discrimination thus violates any number of values that

animate the First Amendment: It impedes a free search for truth20 and stunts individual self-

fulfillment.21 Moreover, because viewpoint discrimination is often the antagonism toward a

minority view,22 they fail to protect dissent23 and encourage tolerance.24

___________________________
17U.S. Disappointed by the Verdict Sentencing Human Rights Activist Nabeel Rajab, Press
Statement by Heather Nauert, Department Spokesperson, Mission of the United States in
Geneva, Switzerland, July 10, 2017, available at https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/07/11/u-
sdisappointed-by-the-verdict-sentencing-human-rights-activist-nabeel-rajab

18Leslie Gielow Jacobs, Clarifying the Content-Based/Content Neutral and Content/Viewpoint
Determinations, 34 MCGEORGE L. REV. 600 (2003)
19Id. at 598.
20See, Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting) (“The best test of truth
is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”)
21See, e.g., C. Edwin Baker, The Scope of First Amendment Freedom of Speech, 25 UCLA L. REV. 964,
966 (1978).
22Jacobs, supra note 4, at 600.
23See, STEVEN SHIFFRIN, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, DEMOCRACY, AND ROMANCE (1990).
24See, LEE BOLLINGER, THE TOLERANT SOCIETY (1986).

! of !24
19
52. This matter comes down to the Defendants going out of their way in search of a problem

that does not exist so as to target those they may disagree with—all at the expense of the

Plaintiffs. There was no cause for any action executed by the Defendants in this case, yet they

did so in blatant and willful disregard of Plaintiffs rights. None of the actions by the Defendants

should have occurred because there was not a reasonable belief of proving a crime beyond and to

the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. In fact, the only crimes committed, aside from those of

the Defendants, were those of one or both of the complainants as previously alluded to when

they unlawfully seized private company documents, disseminated them and then willfully and

wantonly filed frivolous complaints thereafter.

53. Jordan and Global have respectfully responded to every single communication ever

issued by the Defendants in a good-faith effort to be as cooperative and transparent as possible.

No evidence of wrongdoing has ever been brought forth—that is because the Defendants’ actions

were made with the intent to silence, intimidate and shutter the rights of Plaintiffs.

54. In violating the Plaintiffs rights as set forth above and other rights that will be proven at

trial, Defendants acted under color of law and conducted an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff

and utilized unlawful subpoena power, subsequently resulting in a wrongful arrest.

No. Defendant Wacker’s actions were not objectively reasonable under the circumstances

based on the perspective of a reasonable peace officer.

55. The acts committed by Defendant Wacker occurred in the municipal building of

Defendant City of Watertown. Defendant City of Watertown failed to intervene and prevent the

violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights by Defendant Wacker, thus violating Plaintiffs

constitutional rights.

! of !24
20
56. The Defendants knowingly and deliberately conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil

rights.

57. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Jordan

and Global suffered damaged as indicated below, making them entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

B. Fourth Amendment Violation.

58. Plaintiffs hereby realleges and reasserts the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

59. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states in part, that “The rights

of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Defendants violated Plaintiffs Fourth

Amendment rights.

60. No. In or around January 2016, Defendant City of Watertown attempted to kick Plaintiff

Jordan W. Turner off the ballot after he had collected the necessary number of signatures to be

placed on the ballot for Mayor of the City of Watertown. Defendant indicated to Plaintiff that

they had disqualified a significant portion of the signatures due to an alleged minor technicality

in the dating of the certification of the signatures and provided no resolution to this alleged issue.

Plaintiff then contacted what was then the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board

61. (“GAB”)—now named the Wisconsin Elections Commission, inquiring about resolving

the alleged issue indicated by the Defendant. GAB election attorneys responded indicating that

Plaintiff could simply adjust the alleged error and the signatures should be reinstated. Plaintiff

did so and the signatures were reinstated and Plaintiff was placed on the ballot. Plaintiff

proceeded to win the primary election against a sitting councilperson.

! of !24
21
 C. Sixth Amendment Violation.

62. Plaintiffs hereby realleges and reasserts the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

63. jjdjdajisdjaskdjhaskdjha ksdhkla dlsjhdjk shd hajksdhk dhas kjhdakjshd

kasjhfsdkjfhjksdlhfklasjdklasjdklasjdklasjdklasjdklajsdkjeiowmoiamxoaisjdoiasjdioasjd oiasidj

asoidhj aosidh oiadasdhasdasjkdh. Daishdjkashdkjashd asdasdas dasdnasjkdnjskandjkasnd

akjdsljaskldjaskhdjkashdashjkajhds. Askjhdjkashdkjash

64. Asdhjkashd askjhd asjkhdasuhduah dashd oashdo ashdoiasjfiosjfsodfjsdokfjoiadha s.

D. Eighth Amendment Violation.

65. shfjshf fsdhfjkshf hNo. In or around January 2016, Defendant City of Watertown

attempted to kick Plaintiff Jordan W. Turner off the ballot after he had collected the necessary

number of signatures to be placed on the ballot for Mayor of the City of Watertown. Defendant

indicated to Plaintiff that they had disqualified a significant portion of the signatures due to an

alleged minor technicality in the dating of the certification of the signatures and provided no

resolution to this alleged issue. Plaintiff then contacted what was then the Wisconsin.

66. Government Accountability Board (“GAB”)—now named the Wisconsin Elections

Commission, inquiring about resolving the alleged issue indicated by the Defendant. GAB

election attorneys responded indicating that Plaintiff could simply adjust the alleged error and the

signatures should be reinstated. Plaintiff did so and the signatures were reinstated and Plaintiff

was placed on the ballot. Plaintiff proceeded to win the primary election against a sitting

councilperson.

! of !24
22
 E. Fourteenth Amendment Violation.

67. Plaintiffs hereby realleges and reasserts the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

68. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states in part, that “No state

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The

Defendants violated Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment rights.

69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of

their constitutional rights, entitling them to the relief sought below.

70cp. By reason of the aforementioned speech restriction enforced under color of law,

Defendants have unconstitutionally deprived Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the law

guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in

that Defendants are preventing Plaintiffs from expressing a message based on its viewpoint,

thereby denying the use of a forum to those whose views Defendants personally find

unacceptable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs demand the following relief:

a. Damages in the amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $100.00;

b. Punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial;

c. Emotional damages in the amount to be determined at trial;

d. Reasonable costs and attorneys fees;

! of !24
23
 e. A jury to try this case;

f. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Dated this ___ day of _______, 2019.

! of !24
24