Thursday, April 30, 2015

Northbay CopWatch



Know your local domestic security agencies.
This archive contains information about security agencies operating in the San Pablo Bay Area  engaging in human rights abuse, surveillance and harassment against people of lower-income, members of captive nations, and against individuals based on their political or religious beliefs. This list is woefully incomplete.
Note: All [links] go to a page on the Northbay Copwatch archive, and do not connect to the websites of the agency described.
Read: "7 Examples of a “Police State,” and How They Are Appearing in the U.S." [link].

Municipal and County security agencies:

** All security agencies are deputized against dissidents through the DHS Fusion Centers [link]
** See the weapons, vehicles, and other equipment police in your area have acquired from the military. Searchable by state and county. [bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=36701000b255adcfe6ca4b13a8a4]
** By Government Code Section 3307, Peace Officers cannot be required to take polygraph examinations, a privilege that does not exist for State or Federal employees of the FBI, CIA, or many other public-sector security agencies.
** Police hiring policies legally discriminate against high IQ applicants, court ruling [link]
Also see: Judicial Corruption [link]

Solano County -
* Solano County Sheriff's Department
* Vallejo Police Department
[link]
* Vacaville Police Department
* Dixon Police Department
* Fairfield Police Department
* Benicia Police Department
* Suisun Police Department

Napa County -
* Napa County Sheriff's Department
* Napa City Police Department
* American Canyon Police Department
* Calistoga Police Department
* St. Helena Police Department
* Yountville Police Department


Contra Costa County -
* Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department

* Antioch Police Department [link]
* Richmond Police Department
* Concord Police Department
* Walnut Creek Police Department
* Martinez Police Department
* Alamo Police Department


Sonoma County -
Sonoma County Sheriff's Department [link]
* Sonoma City
Police Department
* Rohnert Park
Police Department
* Sebastopol
Police Department
* Santa Rosa
Police Department
* Petaluma
Police Department
Also see:
* "Police Brutality is on the Rise: 17 local case histories" (Sonoma County), published 2000 [link]

* Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Dept., sharing visual and meta-data about human-rights advocates riding the BART train.

California State security agencies:
* California Highway Patrol (CHP)
* California State Military Department [link]
* California Governor's Office of Emergency Services

Federal security agencies:
* The Federal Intelligence Community (IC) [link], centralizing 17 public-sector security agencies.
* Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) [link], an agency which is used against domestic dissent.
* California National Guard (a Federal agency) and suppression of dissent in eastern Europe [link]
* Suspicious Activity Reporting program [link]
* Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) [link]
* Transportation Security Administration (TSA) [link]
* United States Department of Veterans Affairs Police
* Air Force Security Forces, an agency which monitors peace activists.
National Security Agency (NSA) [link]
* DHS Office for State and Local Law Enforcement [link]
* National Fusion Center Coordination Group
* DHS Citizen Corps Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) & USAonWatch
* Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC)
* "Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative (Bay Area UASI)", administered at the federal level by DHS. Part of the "Cytel, LLC/Urban Shield" scandal (2014) [link].
 * National Counterterrorism Center, "for tracking individuals with suspected links to international terrorism", including donation-based medical & children's aid, for the purpose of targeted surveillance, harassment, and kidnapping.
* Directorate of Terrorist Identities (DTI), and their Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), including the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) [link]

Analysis:
* How We Got From 9/11 to Massive NSA Spying on Americans: A Timeline, 2001 to 2013 [link]

Also see:
JTRIG tools and techniques (updated 2012-07-05) [archive.today/fVXir]

Other domestic security operatives:
* Grand Jury investigations [link]

Transnational security agencies:
The objective of allowing transnational security agencies to operate within the USA against dissidents is to maintain collective security for USA allies. Networks, best described as Public-sector Transnational ICs, are listed here. Their Private-sector entities are too numerous to list.
* "Five Eyes" (USA, UKGB, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) [link]
Republic of (South) Korea security agencies, including the Korean CIA
* State of Israel [link]: Beginning 2003, Israeli police forces and associated Israeli funded agencies have organized law enforcement trainings with Federal, municipal and state security agencies, with live trainings in Israel, by Israeli police and counter-terrorism units. These trainings are to normalize the use of "counter-terrorism" tactics against all suspects, especially against political protesters!!
For example, Los Angeles Police Officers attack human-rights activist who shows solidarity with the People of Palestine (2014-07-08) [link]
* Republic of Colombia: Targeting and disrupting "Latin American leftists"
* United States of Mexico: Targeting and disrupting "Mexican American leftists"

Private sector security agencies: 
* Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force [link]
* INFRAGARD: The FBI's private union with "Wall Street" security agencies
GEOCOP, a private software program for monitoring openly available online messages. See: "Huntsville student explains tweets that led to spying on students" (2014-09-25) [al.com link] [archive.today]
* Chevron
* Union Pacific Police Department [link]
* Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)
* Law Enforcement intelligence Unit (LEIU)
* International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
[TheIACP.org]
* National Sheriff's Association
* Private Patrols used to supplement Police presence
[link]
* Police SWAT teams, overseen by Law Enforcement Councils (LEC), are incorporating as private entities with no public oversight [link]
* TrapWire [link]
* Media journalists providing information to police about political activities [link]
* "Anarchists", funded by security agencies both public and private... [link]
Beware, also, of private professional clandestine agents, who, as individuals for hire, infiltrate and disrupt democratic campaigns for dignity and human rights, oftentimes sharing their privately collected intelligence to public sector security agencies, including municipal police departments.


Security agencies conduct operations against political opposition:
Domestic security agencies are targeting non-violent advocates for peace, justice, and freedom in the San Pablo bay area and neighboring regions, under the definition of what constitutes terrorism, not because of any violent actions, but to stifle dissent. Although there is no universal definition of terrorism, Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
A war against dissent. Former NSA Director Keith Alexander privately receives up to a million dollars a month, due to a cyber-surveillance technique he and his partners at his new security firm IronNet Cybersecurity have developed, and he is slated to head a 'cyber-war council' backed by Wall Street against domestic and foreign resistance to corporate policies. [www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/29/former-nsa-chief-why-im-worth-1-million-month-wall-street]
Brazil, 1979 to 1985, a regime of public and private sector security agencies acting in collusion against Labor Unions and Human Rights advocates [link].

Analysis:
* Security agencies fabricate incidents to justify their actions against advocates for Peace, Justice and Freedom [link]
* Collective Coercion in the USA is similar to how its done in China [link]
* Disruption of human-rights gathering at Port of Oakland (2014-08-01) [link]
* United Farm Workers (UFW) union email service hit by systemwide stoppage (2014-07-25) [link]
* Recent visits with political activists by FBI in San Francisco, New York city, Chicago (2014-07-02) [link]
* "Surveillance of American Muslims Underscores Lack of Safeguards" [link]
* Security agency intimidation tactics [link]
* Solidarity with Cyndi Mitchell, advocate of Justice for her brother Mario Romero [link], under threat by Vallejo PD and their allies (updated February, 2014).
* Northbay MDS: Disruptions and other strange things (work in progress) [link]
* Oakland Police provide political affiliation information to private business for purpose of intimidating targeted dissidents (reported October, 2013) [link].
* On October 29, 2013, UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz police filmed union members striking.
* Oakland Police use military methods to terrorize and torture anti-war protesters, April 7th, 2003.
* Our neighbor, an anti-racist, white-American, named Linda L R Roberts of Sacramento, writes Nov. 9th, 2013: "So, neighbors were told to do a citizens arrest on the large group of thugs on 10th Avenue near me. Today at the anti police brutality demo, there were 7 cops sitting around for about an hour." David A. of Sacramento adds: "+ 2 snipers on the 2nd floor parking garage and the cop with subdued patch on orange motorcycle. What a waste of all that money and resources, so they can harass people who are grieving."

* “Banners will keep me away” letter from Miriam Schidfman, Alameda to the editor of “San Francisco Chronicle”, January 20th, 2014 [sfgate.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/Letters-to-the-editor-Jan-20-5158062.php]: Banners hung in San Francisco streets with an antiabortion (and incorrect) message (City Insider Jan. 15) lead me to believe that the city officially agrees with the message. These, plus the fact that police were photographing pro-choice protesters on the sidelines (myself included) along the Embarcadero during one of the antiabortion marches, are the reasons I will not be visiting San Francisco so long as those banners are up.   
** “War on Terror Witchhunt: Protest FBI Raids on Leftists, Union Activists!", 2010-10-08 from "Worker's Vanguard" [ICL-FI.org/english/wv/966/raids.html]: The June Supreme Court ruling expanded what constitutes “material support” to include the exercise of the rights of speech and association, which are supposedly protected by the First Amendment. The ruling was in response to a case brought by the Humanitarian Law Project and other groups and individuals who wanted to advise the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) on how to appeal to the United Nations for peaceful resolution of their struggles. The LTTE and PKK had long been targets of the wars waged by the U.S.-supported Sri Lankan and Turkish governments against the oppressed Tamil and Kurdish national minorities. The Court’s decision essentially criminalized any activity that is considered as giving legitimacy to “terrorists.” This could include anything from donating money to Muslim charities to interviewing a guerrilla fighter for the press. The secular nationalist LTTE and PKK had made it onto the State Department hit list because they fought a desperate struggle against regimes allied with the U.S. In ruling against the Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court declared outright: “Providing foreign terrorist groups with material support in any form also furthers terrorism by straining the United States’ relationships with its allies.” A mere three months later, the Feds launched their attack against leftist activists.
** CHP and Eureka police torture, terrorize, attempt to kill senior citizens advocating for preservation of Redwoods (2011-02) [link]
** How one snitch could bring national media attention to your campaign (2008) [link]


Police State Fascism
Killed by Police [http://killedbypolice.net/], a database of extrajudicial murder and officer involved fatalities, updated constantly.
* More Police In Schools Leads to More Students Under Arrest [link]
* "Fees, Fines, and Debt: How Governments and Companies are Jailing Poor People to Make a Buck" [link]
* War against Dissent by private clandestine services [link]
Reform addressing human and civil-rights abuses by Clandestine Agencies is a facade [link]


Police State Technology
* Automated License Plate Readers [link]
* Saturation coverage of surveillance drones [link]
* Stingray device [link]
* Organized Stalking and Electronic Harassment: [link]
* Online Slander campaign [link]
* Security agencies routinely infiltrate social media to monitor and direct online discourse, engage in smear campaigns against targeted victims [link]
* Google is an extension of Military and Clandestine agencies [link]
* Indications that Facebook monitors and interferes with dissidents [link]
* "Meet the Data Brokers Who Help Corporations Sell Your Digital Life" [link]
* Pattern of cyber-attacks against "leftist" populist news journals [link]
* US Military study social media trends for use against democracy campaigns [link]
* Facebook.com manipulates targeted user pages to influence long-term moods [link]
* Federally Mandated Internet Snooping [link]

Organized cover-ups of the "Thin Blue Line"
* The case of Vallejo Police Officer Jim Capoot [link]
* A blatant example of the methods for covering up systematic terror by security agencies, read the story behind the campaign for Justice for Aloni, innocent victim of police torture (Los Angeles, 2013-03) [link]. This story is amazing! The California Highway Patrol, District Attorneys, even nurses continue to try to justify the actions of Officer Jose A. Ramirez, B# 17598. This abuse of power is a huge mistake that creates a bigger gap of mistrust between law enforcement and the community. The criminal "injustice" system in place sends a clear message to people who suffer police violence: THE STATE PROTECTS OFFICERS.
* Successful Cover-Up: Victor White [link]
* Also see the "Thin Red Line" of the firefighters [link]


Know Your Rights!
* "Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters" [link]
* "10 Ways to Outfox Cops That Are Abusing Their Powers to Trick You" article [link]
* "10 Rules for Dealing with Police" video information [link]
* Advice from "Stop Mass Incarceration Network" [link]
* Advice from "Flex Your Rights" [link]
* You Have the Right to Remain Silent: NLG Guide to Law Enforcement Encounters [link]
* The "Right to Remain Silent" [link] is admissible only after you are read your "Miranda Rights" during an arrest, and your silence can be used against you in a court of law.
* National Lawyer's Guild (NLG) National Hotline for activists contacted by the FBI: 888-654-3265 
* Tips for Activists dealing with Police disruption [link]
* The Bay Area Committee to Resist Political Repression (BACRPR) [grandjuryresistance.org]
* "Protect Yourself from FBI Manipulation" (w/ attorney Harvey Silverglate) [link]
* Social Media Security: How to turn off commercial spying on your Facebook account [link]


Start a community watch network!
* Copwatch listings [link]
* Copwatch newswires [link]
* "Police the Police" [www.facebook.com/PoliceThePoliceCP]


"Community Control of the Police!"
The Other Side of the COIN: Counterinsurgency and Community Policing [link]
* REPLACE the Police, defeat Fascism and it's occupational army!! [link]
* Alternatives to Police [link]
(graphic art by Emory Douglass, of the Black Panther Party, April 4th, 1971)

Friday, February 27, 2015

Glenn Swindell (died May 17, 2014 in Santa Rosa after 12-hour Police Siege)

Campaign updates at [https://www.facebook.com/SeekingTruthForGlenn]

"Federal Suit charges Sonoma County SWAT with use of Toxic Gas Cocktail & 12-hour Armored Siege causing wrongful death of father of four" press release (2015-03-02), the unedited text of the complaint filed on Feb. 27th is posted after the press release:
On the morning of Friday, Feb. 27th, the Swindell family filed a Federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California in San Francisco, charging law enforcement and Sonoma County with having committed the wrongful and egregious death of Glenn in violation of express provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California state law while engaging in an orchestrated 12-hour military siege on the home of Glen Swindell on May 17, 1014.
At virtually the same hour of the morning eight months ago on May 17th, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department proclaimed Glenn Swindell – Santa Rosa family man, loving son and brother, devoted husband, steady employee at Safeway for almost 20 years, devoted father of four – to be dead after a 12-hour siege of the Swindell home in northern Santa Rosa.
While Sonoma County has been plagued by Officer Involved Fatalities – 69 since the Department of Justice visited the County in 2000 in response to anti-policeviolence protests – Glenn’s death stands out for its calculating brutality, total disregard for a family’s lives and well-being, level of overkill by close to 50 militarily armed SWAT officers with high-powered sniper rifles, the use of a toxic chemical cocktail of Oleoresin Capasicum (OC gas), pepper spray, CS gas and tear gas to torture and mentally and physically punish Glenn while he was confined in a closed attic, the outright violation of Glenn’s free speech rights by using his Facebook Page to incentivize the police on the scene to violentlyretaliate against Glenn who was “one of them” (see official police transcript attached to media kit), violation of Glenn’s due process rights by, among other actions, utilizing an armored personal carrier to bash down the garage door of the Swindell home and pump a toxic gas cocktail into an enclosed space where Glenn had taken refuge, and using the pretext of Glenn’s legal ownership of two registered guns for home self-defense to illegally, and in blatant disregard for the 2nd Amendment, lay siege and attack Glenn’s home.
The Feb. 27th Complaint also charges a SWAT supervisor with expressly declaring his intent to kill Glenn upon arriving at the siege, “Why don’t you just kill the fucker?” In furtherance of Law Enforcement’s intent to silence a law abiding citizen who had done no wrong, the following chilling words went out over the police radio at the beginning of the siege, “All units … [Swindell’s] FB [Facebook] indicates that this subj [subject] is... making ANTI LAW ENF [enforcement] HATE STYLE VERBAGE AND STATEMENTS …” (see attachment to media kit). That calculated and inflammatory mischaracterization of Glenn’s Facebook postings constituted a declaration of war by Sonoma County and 50 SWAT officers vs. Glenn Swindell – U.S. citizen who had committed no illegal act!
Some have asked, “Why didn’t Glenn just come out as the police demanded” every few minutes for 12-hours on their bullhorn while firing concussion grenades andlobbing gas canisters through EVERY window in the family’s home. As Glenn told his mother Debby Ann on the phone from the attic during the siege in response to her pleas to give up to the police as, in her words, they were just there to “Serve and Protect”, “Mom – you don’t know Sonoma County. I have done nothing wrong, but if I come out they will kill me like they did that little boy who had a toy gun [Andy Lopez]. Mom – I just want the police to go away so I can be with my family in peace.”
After observing law enforcement initiated fatalities of 63 Sonoma County residents in the last 15 years [currently 69], Glenn knew perfectly well what fate would likely befall him if he walked out into an armed siege of sniper bearing SWAT officers. Glenn’s fear was totally reasonable for any Sonoma County resident in a similar position. For that reasonably objective fear – Glenn Swindell died at age 39.
For hours before Glenn’s life ended after the 12-hour siege, he suffered inhumane conditions in an attic gas chamber. The toxic gas cocktail that steadily engulfed him scalded and irritated his lungs, burned his skin as if being attacked by killer ants, stung his eyes, blurring his vision and filling his lungs with chemical particulates’ causing congestion and mucus that made each breath near impossible. Glenn spent hours in a living hell contemplating his future, as it grew worse minute by minute.
Before Glenn had retreated to the illusory safety of his attic, he had fed his two young children bowls of ice cream, as was their bedtime ritual.  Next to the kids’ ice cream bowls the next morning sat a pamphlet Glenn had been reading the night before as police surrounded his house on the Manka Road cul-de-sac. The title read, “Citizens Rule Book”. The pamphlet was a “Jury Handbook” explaining the United States Bill of Rights.
The inscription on the back cover read, “PROCLAIM LIBERTY – Inscribed on our hallowed LIBERTY BELL are these words “PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF.” Hours before his death as the police began arriving at his door; Glenn had been studying his rights under the Bill of Rights. Glenn knew he had committed no wrong and expected to be protected by the Bill of Rights.

(Photo-scan of the copy of the "Jury Handbook on the U.S. Bill of Rights" which Glenn Swindell was reading as SWAT surrounded his house) Unfortunately, Sonoma County Law Enforcement was operating from a different playbook. After almost 12-hours of experiencing inhumane suffering and deprivation, while closeted in an enclosed, dark-attic gas chamber, gasping for air – burning, scared lungs filled with toxic gases, steadily and painfully being asphyxiated - Glenn made a devil’s choice – before walking out into a hail of police bullets – Glenn made the untenable choice to leave his loved ones behind and to end his intolerable misery with a shot to the head.
(Photo-scan of the police communication transcript branding Glenn Swindell as a proponent of "hate style verbiage" against the police on his Facebook page.)


Also see
* "Family sues Sonoma County over standoff that ended in suicide" (2015-02-27, pressdemocrat.com) [https://archive.today/aPeKM]
* "Family questions deputies' tactics in Larkfield standoff that ended in suicide" (2014-05-21, pressdemocrat.com) [https://archive.today/0fNim]
* "SWAT team standoff leads to suicide by husband and father" (2014-05-22, crimevoice.com) [https://archive.today/rYrI6] [begin excerpt]: All indications are that Swindell was a good family man who had become more and more troubled over recent years. Deborah Belka was quoted as saying he was becoming a conspiracy theorist, and harbored a growing fear of the police. After 22 years in the grocery business, she said, he was involved in a car accident, leaving him with severe shoulder pain, and on disability. During his year or more off work, he began following the InfoWars website and theorist/personality Alex Jones. He seemed to have a particular interest in the idea that white contrails from airplanes were not naturally occurring, but chemicals being emitted in a geo-engineering effort by the government, according to posts he made on his Facebook page. Belka also stated that Swindell was not a violent man, but a good outdoorsman who cared about his family. [end excerpt]
Image: Example of the "hate style verbiage" postings to Facebook.com by Glenn Swindell collected by Sonoma County Sheriffs Department.

===*===*===


COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case3:15-cv-00897 Document1 Filed02/27/15

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
2. Substantive Due Process Violation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
3. Freedom of Speech and Expression Violation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
4. Right to Keep and Bear Arms Violation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
5. Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Customs and Practices (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
6. Substantive Due Process Violation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
7. Unreasonable Search and Seizure (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

COME NOW Plaintiffs ESTATE OF GLENN SWINDELL, by and through successors in interest; SARAH SWINDELL, individually and as successor in interest; G.S., a minor, individually and as successor in interest, by and through Sarah Swindell as Guardian ad Litem; M.S., a minor, individually and as successor in interest, by and through Sarah Swindell, as Guardian ad Litem; J.S., a minor, individually and as successor in interest, by and through Deann Macias, as Guardian ad Litem, DEBORAH BELKA, individually and as successor in interest and TYLER SWINDELL, individually and as successor in interest,(hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION -
1. This civil rights action seeks to establish the violations of fundamental civil rights under the United States Constitution in connection with the death of Glenn Swindell on May 17, 2014.
2. Glenn Swindell was a 39-year-old loving husband and father who wanted nothing more in the world than to take care of his family. His death has been a profound and unimaginable loss to his wife, children and mother, the present Plaintiffs.
3. Without reasonable cause, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office undertook a deliberate and intentional course of conduct which led to the death of Glenn Swindell (hereinafter “Glenn”). Glenn had not committed a crime, had not threatened any Sheriff personnel, had not attempted to flee or escape, and had not threatened any bystanders. There was no immediate need to subdue him nor was his death preceded by any imminent emergency or exigent circumstances which called for the storming of his home by overzealous and out-of-control deputies of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department. Yet, the Sheriff’s Office undertook a siege of Glenn’s home, deploying dozens of sheriff deputies and summoning the Special Weapons and Tactics (“SWAT”) unit to intervene to kill Glenn. Without reasonable cause, the Sheriff’s Office and its SWAT unit, gained the unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into Glenn’s home, deployed numerous concussion bombs, and later pumped numerous rounds of chemical agents into the confined attic quarters where Glenn sought refuge. These deliberate, callous and reckless actions of the defendants constituted an unreasonable use of force which created a situation that resulted in Glenn’s death.
4. The violent militarized police force carried out by the present defendants in response to a minor service call was a senseless and unwarranted act of police abuse.

PARTIES -
5. At all relevant times, Glenn Swindell (hereinafter “decedent” or “Glenn”) was an individual residing in Sonoma County, California. The claims made by the ESTATE OF GLENN SWINDELL, are brought by his wife, SARAH SWINDELL, his children, G.S., M.S., J.S., TYLER SWINDELL, and his mother DEBORAH BELKA, the successors in interest to the ESTATE OF GLENN SWINDELL pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32.
6. Plaintiff SARAH SWINDELL (hereinafter “Sarah”) is and was, at all times relevant hereto, a resident of the County of Sonoma, and is the wife of decedent Glenn Swindell.
7. Plaintiff G.S. is a minor, and is and was, at all times relevant hereto, a resident of the County of Sonoma, and was the natural daughter of decedent Glenn Swindell.
8. Plaintiff M.S. is a minor, and is and was, at all times relevant hereto, a resident of the County of Sonoma, and was the natural son of decedent Glenn Swindell.
9. Plaintiff J.S. is a minor, and is and was, at all times relevant hereto, a resident of the County of Sonoma, and was the natural son of decedent Glenn Swindell.
10. Plaintiff TYLER SWINDELL is and was, at all times relevant hereto, a resident of the County of Sonoma, and was the natural son of decedent Glenn Swindell.
11. Plaintiff DEBORAH BELKA is and was the natural mother of decedent Glenn Swindell.
12. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA (hereafter “COUNTY”), is and was, at all times mentioned herein, a public entity, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of California, with the capacity to sue and be sued. Defendant COUNTY is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents and agencies. At all times relevant to the facts alleged herein, Defendant COUNTY was responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its employees complied with the laws and the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California.
13. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter “Sheriff’s Office”) is a subdivision of Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA.
14. At all relevant times, each of DOES 1 through 10 were employees of the Sheriff’s Office. At all times relevant herein, each of DOES 1 through 10 was an employee and/or agent of Defendant COUNTY and he or she acted under color of law, to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant COUNTY and the Sheriff’s Office, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the State of California.
15. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants DOES 1 through 10 was acting within his or her capacity as an employee, agent, representative and/or servant of Defendant COUNTY, and is sued in their individual capacity.
16. On information and belief, at all relevant times, the individually named defendant deputies and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were residents of Sonoma County, California.
17. The true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitious named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and liabilities alleged herein.
18. Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful conduct and resulting by, inter alia, personally participating in the conduct, or acting jointly and in concert with others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing or failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by promulgating policies and procedures pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred; by failing and refusing, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ and decedent’s rights, to initiate and maintain adequate supervision and/or training; and, by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by agents and peace officers under their direction and control. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a Defendant, such allegation and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant individually, jointly and severally. They are sued in their individual and official capacities and in some manner are responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein. Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege such name and responsibility when that information is ascertained. Each of the Defendants is the agent of the other.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First, Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
20. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the COUNTY OF SONOMA, California, which is in the geographic and legal jurisdiction of this court.
21. With respect to Plaintiffs’ supplemental state claims, Plaintiffs request that this court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims as they arise from the same facts and circumstances which underlie the federal claims.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF -
22. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
23. On May 17, 2014, at approximately 8:00 a.m., Glenn Swindell was pronounced dead in the attic of his home after a full-scale militarized assault of his home by Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Deputies and tactical force personnel in response to a minor service call.
24. On the evening of May 16, 2014, Glenn and Sarah had an argument while driving home from a work function. Upon arriving home, Glenn and his two children entered their home as Sarah delayed in exiting the vehicle. Glenn locked the front door. The argument continued as Sarah stood outside the front door.
25. Sarah called 911 and calmly reported the incident, requesting assistance in getting her children. Sarah denied any violence had occurred that evening when questioned by the dispatcher, as none had occurred. A patrol unit operated by Sheriff Deputies was dispatched to the Swindell home. When questioned, Sarah made it unequivocally clear that the incident was nonviolent and that she wanted to get assistance in getting her children.
26. Upon the patrol unit arriving at the Swindell home, Sarah reiterated the preceding facts to the responding Sheriff Deputies and again requested assistance in getting her children.
27. The responding Sheriff Deputies proceeded to make contact with Glenn through the locked front door. The Sheriff Deputies discussed the circumstances with Glenn. In response, and in compliance with the deputies requests, Glenn directed his children out of the home to be with their mother. Glenn remained in the house.
28. Glenn continued to answer the Sheriff Deputies’ questions through the locked front door. During the questioning by the Sheriff Deputies, Glenn demanded that the Deputies identify themselves, and asked that they leave and stop harassing him. Glenn expressed his fear of police to the Sheriff Deputies, and confided that he was afraid that they would shoot him as they shot the 13-year-old boy, Andy Lopez.
29. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors learned that Glenn was the lawful owner of two firearms which were kept in safes. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors searched Glenn’s Facebook page and falsely reported to the other deputies that Glenn “was making anti law [enforcement] hate style verbage [sic] and statements. …over the last couple of days.”
30. Angered and frustrated by Glenn’s assertion of his rights, the Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors undertook a deliberate and intentional plan to wrongfully and unlawfully punish Glenn for asserting his rights not to let them into his home or to talk to them. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors threatened Glenn that if he refused to talk to them, they would arrest him. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors proceeded to wrongfully and negligently declare Glenn a “barricaded suspect” so as to be able to punish him for his insistence that the deputies leave, for his unwillingness to open the door, and for asserting his rights.
31. In violation of Glenn Swindell’s First Amendment Rights, Second Amendment Rights, Fourth Amendment Rights, and Due Process Rights afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors undertook a deliberate and intentional course of conduct which resulted in Glenn Swindell’s death. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors wrongfully and/or negligently declared Glenn to be barricaded and undertook a siege of the Swindell home. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors fabricated evidence and lied about the circumstances related to the incident, including in seeking a search and arrest warrant. These lies and fabrications include:
a) That Glenn Swindell had committed a battery upon Sarah Swindell;
b) That Glenn Swindell had imprisoned Sarah Swindell;
c) That Sarah Swindell felt fearful and intimidated by Glenn Swindell’s actions,
d) That Glenn Swindell had barricaded himself in his home;
e) That Glenn Swindell had cut off communications with Sheriff personnel whom were present at his home and property;
f) That Glenn Swindell had used his firearms in committing a felony; and
g) That Glenn Swindell had committed a public offense.
32. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors wrongfully, negligently and maliciously summoned the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office SWAT. The SWAT unit, in concert with the Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors, undertook a further siege of the Swindell home and property. They learned that Glenn Swindell was afraid of police, that he was not suicidal and that he had not committed any crime for which a full-scale militarized assault of the Swindell home was warranted. Despite this the SWAT unit, in concert with the Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors, undertook plans for such an assault and carried out such plans. They knew or should have known that the ultimate outcome of such a violent confrontation would be that Glenn would be seriously injured or killed.
33. During the evening, Sarah approached the Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors. Sarah requested that the situation be deescalated and expressed her concerns. The Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors wrongfully and/or negligently coerced and threatened Sarah to take her children from her if she failed to cooperate with them.
34. The personnel accompanying the SWAT unit and the Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors numbered more than 50 peace officers all of whom were present at the Swindell home and property. This great militarized police force utilized military equipment, including a military assault vehicle, concussion bombs, and chemical agents to break down the garage door of the Swindell home and wrongfully enter the Swindell home causing damage to the garage, home and contents therein.
35. Upon gaining this unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry of the Swindell home, the SWAT unit learned that Glenn sought refuge in attic of the home. They learned that Glenn had a great fear of police and feared that they would kill him. In response, the Sheriff Deputies and their supervisors deemed Glenn to be an “extremely paranoid” suspect.
36. At no time relevant hereto did Glenn commit any crime, make any threats against personnel from either the Sheriff’s Office or the accompanying tactical force units, or make any statements or commit any actions which indicated that it was his intent to harm members of the tactical force units or the Sheriff’s Office or anyone else. There was no need to arrest him nor did there exist any other emergency or exigent circumstances which required the defendants to enter his house or attic, or to arrest Glenn. Yet, through the concerted efforts of the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the responding SWAT units, a full-scale militarized assault ensued upon Glenn Swindell’s home.
37. The Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the responding SWAT, HNT and EOD units knew that Glenn was trapped in a confined attic and that he had no means of escape. They knew or should have known that there was no pressing danger or urgency which required them to enter the attic. They knew that Glenn would eventually exit the attic and that they could and would take him into custody safely. They knew that all they had to do was wait. Time was not “of the essence” as there was no pending or developing risk to life. There was no reasonable need to use Oleoresin Capsicum (hereafter OC gas or pepper spray) or tear gas or any other chemical agent, as there was no reasonable basis to enter Glenn’s house or attic.
38. Despite this, they formulated a plan for a tactical assault upon Glenn’s attic. They knew that the door to the attic had been locked and/or sealed shut by Glenn. As a result of their wrongful search of the house, they learned that Glenn may have armed himself.
39. Despite this, the SWAT unit and other Sheriff’s Office personnel used a military-style assault vehicle to puncture a hole in the attic and they then proceeded to pump OC gas and tear gas into the confined attic quarters.
40. They knew and intended that such tactics would cause Glenn to suffer great physical and emotional pain and suffering. They knew or should have known that the effect of the concentrated OC and tear gas, under the confined circumstances, would immobilize Glenn and kill him in an agonizing and painful way as the effects of this gas cocktail took effect.
41. They knew that these effects would include eye pain, a burning sensation in the throat and nose, increased nasal secretions, chest tightness, sneezing, coughing, retching, ocular pain, watering and blurred vision, nasal pain, irritation and sneezing, oral pain, ulceration, excessive salivation, throat irritation, burning and pain, respiratory pain, shortness of breath, chest tightness, uncontrollable coughing and wheezing, gastrointestinal pain, discomfort and retching, a loss of consciousness, and skin peeling or rash. They knew that because of the tight and closed quarters Glenn sought refuge in and because of the great fear he expressed of the police, he would likely die from the effects of the gas cocktail.
42. In fact, one of the SWAT supervisors declared his intent to kill Glenn upon arriving at the location by exclaiming, “Why don’t you just kill the fucker!”
43. The Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the responding SWAT unit proceeded to carry out their plan to kill Glenn by pumping the OS and tear gas cocktail into the close-quartered attic knowing that the gases would kill him or that he would kill himself as a result of the extreme pain and anguish that the gases would cause. The expected effects of the gases immediately came to fruition once they were pumped into the attic. Because Glenn suffered great and unbearable physical and mental anguish from the gases and because he was unable to leave the attic which soon became a gas chamber, he took his own life with a single gunshot to his head. The Sheriff’s Office end goal that Glenn would not be bothering anyone was unfortunately achieved.
44. Glenn Swindell was a hard working and dedicated husband, father and son. Glenn’s wife, children and mother, the present Plaintiffs, enjoyed a strong and meaningful relationship with Glenn that was full of love.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Unreasonable Search and Seizure 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against DOE Defendants 1 through 10
45. Plaintiff Estate of Glenn Swindell realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein
46. Defendants’ actions described herein violated Glenn Swindell’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and municipalities by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by subjecting Glenn Swindell to unreasonable searches and seizures of his person and home.
47. At the time of Glenn Swindell’s death, he was not engaging in, nor had he engaged in, any assaultive or threatening conduct. Under the totality of the relevant circumstances that existed, he posed no danger or threat to the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisor, the responding SWAT units, or anyone else. The full-scale militarized assault of the Swindell home, including the unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into the Swindell home, the deployment of concussion bombs and the pumping of numerous rounds of CS and OC chemical agents into the confined attic quarters where Glenn Swindell sought refuge, recklessly created an unconstitutional provocation leading to the death of Glenn Swindell. Such conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances in every respect and was undertaken intentionally and recklessly by the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the responding SWAT unit.
48. These actions violated Glenn Swindell’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
49. During the deployment of the concussion bombs and the numerous rounds of OC and CS gas into the confined attic quarters, Glenn Swindell endured great physical and emotional pain and suffering.
50. The actions of said defendants also caused meaningful and significant damage to Glenn Swindell’s home, furnishings and other possessions contained therein.
51. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
52. The unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into Glenn Swindell’s home, the deployment of concussion bombs and numerous rounds of toxic gases, and the prolonged full-scale militarized assault of the Swindell home was willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Glenn Swindell, and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and responding SWAT units.
53. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against DOE Defendants 1 through 10
54. Plaintiff ESTATE OF GLENN SWINDELL realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
55. The present claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of GLENN SWINDELL’s substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
56. Defendants’ actions described herein violated Glenn Swindell’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by subjecting Glenn Swindell to conduct and circumstances which shock the conscience and exceed the norms of human decency.
57. The full-scale militarized assault of the Swindell home, including the unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into the Swindell home, the deployment of concussion bombs and the pumping of numerous rounds of CS and OC chemical agents into the confined attic quarters where Glenn Swindell sought refuge, recklessly created an unconstitutional provocation leading to the death of Glenn Swindell. Such conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances in every respect and was undertaken intentionally by the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the responding SWAT unit. They deliberately created a gas chamber environment in the confined and enclosed attic, knowing that GLENN SWINDELL would suffer unbearable and tortuous pain, discomfort and suffering that would kill him. Because he was trapped in these unbearable conditions he took his own life to avoid the unbearable pain and suffering. Previous to this, he had an extended conversation with his mother while in the attic. He spoke of his fear of the police and expressed his love for her and his family and made it clear that he was not suicidal.
58. The actions of the present defendants violated Glenn Swindell’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from deliberate governmental conduct which shocks the conscience and which exceeds recognized norms of human decency.
59. During the deployment of the concussion bombs and the numerous rounds of OC and CS gas into the confined attic quarters, Glenn Swindell endured great physical and emotional pain and suffering, and such pain and suffering was the direct and proximate cause of his death at his own hands.
60. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
61. The unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into Glenn Swindell’s home, the deployment of concussion bombs and numerous rounds of toxic gases, and the prolonged full-scale militarized assault of the Swindell home was willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Glenn Swindell, and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to Defendants DOES 1 through 10, consisting of the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and responding SWAT units.
62. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Freedom of Speech and Expression Violation 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against DOE Defendants 1 through 10
63. Plaintiff Estate of Glenn Swindell realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
64. Defendants’ actions described herein violated Glenn Swindell rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and municipalities by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by prohibiting Glenn Swindell from exercising his constitutional right to free speech and expression, and by retaliating against Glenn Swindell for exercising those same rights.
65. The present Plaintiff believes, and hereby alleges, that the violation of Glenn Swindell’s First Amendment rights occurred pursuant to a custom or practice maintained by the Sheriff’s Office and the COUNTY OF SONOMA, of retaliating against private citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights by voicing their opinions pertaining to the militarization of police.
66. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
67. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Right to Keep and Bear Arms Violation 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against DOE Defendants 1 through 10
68. Plaintiff Estate of Glenn Swindell realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
69. Defendants’ actions described herein violated Glenn Swindell’s rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and municipalities by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by retaliating against Glenn Swindell for exercising his constitutional right to keep and bear arms in his home for the purpose self-defense.
70. The present Plaintiff believes, and herein alleges, that the violation of Glenn Swindell’s Second Amendment rights occurred pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by the Sheriff’s Office and the COUNTY OF SONOMA, of retaliating against private citizens who exercised their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms in their homes for the purpose self-defense.
71. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
72. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Customs and Practices 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA
73. Plaintiff Estate of Glenn Swindell realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
74. Based on information and belief, on and before May 17, 2014 and prior to the death of Glenn Swindell resulting from the Sheriff’s Office full-scale militarized assault of his home, Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA and DOES 1 through 10 were aware that the responding Sheriff Deputies and various other Sheriff’s Office personnel, including the responding SWAT unit, had not received proper and necessary training in responding to minor service calls pertaining to domestic disputes and effectively dealing with individuals who are in a crisis, including safely defusing anxious and hostile behavior; deciphering when behavior escalates; reinforcing preventative techniques and practicing the principles of non-harmful physical intervention.
75. Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA and DOES 1 through 10, acting with deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, and of the present Plaintiffs and decedent, and of persons in their class, situation and comparable position, knowingly allowed the Sheriff Deputies and responding SWAT units to respond to minor service calls in the COUNTY OF SONOMA without proper training in the handling of such calls. The Defendants knew that such untrained deputies would escalate minor services calls by creating violent confrontations leading to injury or death.
76. By reason of the aforementioned custom and practice, Glenn Swindell was severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering which ultimately led to his death.
77. Defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA and DOES 1 through 10 had either actual or constructive knowledge of the deficient practice and custom alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as stated above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through actions and inactions thereby ratified such custom and practice. Said defendants also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these customs and practices with respect to the constitutional rights of decedent, Plaintiffs, and other individuals similarly situated.
78. As a further example to contemptuous disregard for the rights of the citizens of Sonoma County, there exists an insidious custom and practice within the Sonoma County Sheriff’s department of interrogating the family members of persons they have killed and extracting from them through lies and subterfuge information which would be only helpful to the defense of a civil case. This custom and practice was utilized in the present case where deputies and/or detectives of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s office interrogated Sarah Swindell at length as to her relationship with her husband while withholding from her that they had killed him.
79. These practices and customs implemented and maintained and still tolerated by Defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA were affirmatively linked to and were a significantly influential force behind the injuries of decedent and Plaintiffs.
80. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Glenn Swindell lost his life and his wife, children and mother, the present Plaintiffs, suffered the loss of his love, affection, society and moral support.
81. Accordingly, Defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA and DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Interference with Familial Integrity Substantive Due Process Violation 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA and DOES 1 through 10
82. Plaintiffs SARAH SWINDELL, individually; DEBORAH BELKA, individually; G.S., a minor, by and through Sarah Swindell as Guardian ad Litem; M.S., a minor, by and through Sarah Swindell, as Guardian ad Litem, J.S., a minor, by and through Deann Macias, and TYLER SWINDELL, individually, reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.
83. The present claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of the right of familial integrity guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
84. As alleged above, the Sheriff’s Deputies, their supervisors and the accompanying SWAT unit wrongfully and/or negligently coerced and threatened Glenn Swindell with arrest and removal of his children from the home if he did not answer their questions, and further wrongfully and/or negligently coerced and threatened Sarah Swindell with removal of her children if she refused to cooperate during the siege.
85. As alleged above, the Sheriff’s Deputies, their supervisors and the accompanying SWAT unit gained the unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into Glenn Swindell’s home, deployed numerous concussion bombs, and pumped numerous rounds of CS and OC chemical agents into the confined attic quarters where Glenn Swindell sought refuge. These deliberate, callous and reckless actions unconstitutionally provoked the death of Glenn Swindell. As such, these acts violated the constitutional limits on the use of a militarized police force, that is, the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unreasonable searches and seizures.
86. At the same time, these acts undertaken by the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the accompanying SWAT unit violated the rights of Plaintiffs SARAH SWINDELL, individually, DEBORAH BELKA, individually, G.S., a minor, M.S., a minor, individually and as successors in interest to decedent GLENN SWINDELL, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, SARAH SWINDELL, JOSHUA SWINDELL, individually, and TYLER SWINDELL, individually, to be free from police interference in their relationship with Glenn Swindell.
87. The unreasonable conduct of the involved Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the accompanying SWAT unit was the direct and proximate cause of the death of Glenn Swindell. As a result of the unreasonable conduct of these Defendants, Plaintiffs lost Glenn Swindell, as well as his love, affection, society and moral support.
88. The unreasonable conduct of these Defendants was willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Glenn Swindell and the present Plaintiffs and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to the involved Sheriff personnel, including the responding Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the members of the accompanying SWAT unit.
89. The unreasonable conduct of these Defendants was willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to the involved Sheriff personnel, including the responding Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the members of the accompanying SWAT unit.
90. Accordingly, Defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA and DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Unreasonable Search and Seizure 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against DOE Defendants 1 through 10
91. Plaintiff Sarah Swindell realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 as if set forth herein
92. Defendants’ actions described herein violated Sarah Swindell’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and municipalities by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by subjecting Sarah Swindell to unreasonable searches of her home and seizures of her person.
93. The full-scale militarized assault of the Swindell home, including the unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into the Swindell home, the deployment of concussion bombs and the pumping of numerous rounds of CS and OC chemical agents into the house constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions against unreasonable searches. Such conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances in every respect and was undertaken intentionally and recklessly by the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and the responding SWAT unit.
94. These actions violated Sarah Swindell’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
95. During the siege upon her home, Sarah Swindell was wrongfully and unlawfully taken into custody by defendants DOES 1 through 10. She was concerned that the incident was growing out of control and that the defendants here were overzealously creating circumstances that were not warranted. She voiced her concerns. As a result, she was not permitted to see her children and they were taken into a portable control post where she could hear them crying. She was threatened with having her children taken from her by the state if she refused to cooperate with them. Fearing for her own safety and the safety of her children, she cooperated with the officers and remained at the location and stayed quite as ordered by the defendants.
96. The actions of said defendants also caused meaningful and significant damage to Glenn Swindell’s home, furnishings and other possessions contained therein.
97. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
98. The unauthorized, unwarranted and reckless entry into Sarah Swindell’s home, the deployment of concussion bombs and numerous rounds of toxic gases, and the prolonged full-scale militarized assault of the Swindell home was willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights of Sarah Swindell, and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to the Sheriff Deputies, their supervisors and responding SWAT units.
99. Accordingly, Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF -
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests entry of judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
A. For compensatory damages, including pre-death pain and suffering damages, general damages and special damages, and statutory damages for violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States in an amount to be determined at trial;
B. For punitive damages against Defendants DOES 1 through 10 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and any other applicable laws or status, in an amount sufficient to deter and make an example of each non-government entity Defendant;
C. For prejudgment interest to be determined at trial;
D. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
E. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: February 27, 2015

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Response from James L. Baker, RE: "Cytel Group, LLC"

"Cytel, LLC / Urban Shield" scandal (2014) [link]

James Baker personally concludes that the numerous contracts by public entities with "Cytel Group, LLC" is to be considered slander if documented by a particular journalist who he is suing for documenting the fraudulent use of the name "Cytel Group, LLC" throughout the preceding few years.

What follows is the unabridged, unedited message, sent 2014-09-23 to news media and public service groups, by James L. Baker of "Cytel Group, LLC" in response to "Threat of lawsuit from James Baker of Cytel Group / Urban Shield" (2014-09-22) [IndyBay.org link] [archive.org] by Lynda Carson. The message CC'd to [Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov] [san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov] [jeanpaul.j.coves@usdoj.gov] [piu@doj.ca.gov] and to community groups and news media who have been contacted by the journalist!
---

All,
I am so sorry for the craziness in which we have all found ourselves immersed in.  For the past week Ms. Carson has run the same information in various news reports on (4) separate days, as well as sending out a number of these group emails, alleging corruption in the fact that Cytel Group has entered into a License Agreement with Alameda County.  I have explained to Ms. Carson that if she read the document in question, of which she has included a small portion in her article, she would find that Cytel Group is listed a total of three times.  Once on Page one, with the incorrect "LLC" following our name.  Cytel Group, "Inc." is correctly used the remaining two times in the agreement, including the page in which the Licensee is listed and the signature page that has all corporate information.  All other information related to Cytel Group, Inc. listed in the agreement is correct including address, etc.  The usage of "LLC" on Page 1 is a minor mistake that will be corrected upon my return from Nairobi Kenya.  Alameda County and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office are aware of the error and are already working to amend the License Agreement to change the "LLC" to "Inc." on Page 1.

As I have provided to Ms. Carson in a number of emails now, Cytel Group, Inc. Has been registered with the State of California since 2010, and has maintained good standing since that time.  There is no benefit to Alameda County, or Cytel Group, Inc. to have the LLC listed.  This is not a devious plot, but was a simple error when the final Agreement was drafted.  Unfortunately it was an error that has gone unnoticed until now, but will be corrected upon my return.

I have also explained to Ms. Carson that I am in Nairobi Kenya conducting training to the first responders (police, ambulance, red cross, emergency managers, etc) in how to properly respond to a critical situation such as the Westgate Mall Massacre, which occurred in Nairobi a year ago yesterday, killing 67 men, women and children and seriously injuring an additional 175 citizens.  I was honored when the U.S. State Department personally reached out to Cytel Group, Inc. to assist them with the serious and important training program.  They stated they wanted Cytel Group involved in the project because of the strong reputation Cytel Group, Inc. has both in the Bay Area and throughout the nation.  Ms. Carson has apparently decided to damage our reputation by running a number of articles and sending out continuous emails slandering Cytel Group, Inc.  She fails to report that Cytel Group, Inc. Is stated in the License Agreement two out of the three times our name is listed.  She has failed to reply to my emails directly so I can answer any questions she may have on a one-to-one basis, and she has failed to provide me with her contact information (phone or mailing address) so my attorney can contact her and provide any information she may desire during my absence.  I have requested Ms. Carson run a retraction publicly stating the facts of the matter, which she refuses to do.  I have told Ms. Carson in my past three emails that if she continues with this constant slander both in news articles and group emails Cytel Group, Inc. will have no option but to move forward with a defamation lawsuit.

Once again, I am so sorry to waste all of your valuable time on these email responses.  However, I cannot remain silent and allow Ms. Carson to push out this slander and miss-information without stating the true facts of the matter.  In all my many years of working with news reporters, I have never experienced anything like this..  

Warm regards,
JIM
--
James L. Baker
Cytel Group, President
M: (925) 354-6893
E: jim@cytelgroup.com

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Reply From Sheriff's Office Regarding Cytel Group, LLC / Urban Shield

"Cytel, LLC / Urban Shield" scandal (2014) [link]

2014-09-18 by Lynda Carson, posted to [http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/09/18/18761770.php] [archive.today/cOgFx]:
Oakland - On June 7, 2011, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to approve an agreement between the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC (Principal: Anne M. Baker) for the individual disaster training exercises and/or programs similar to Alameda County's "Urban Shield", and to authorize the Sheriff to receive a license fee of $10,000 from Cytel Group, LLC as payment for the first year of their use of the Urban Shield marks and materials and for each additional year a fee of one percent of the gross revenues collected by licensee or its affiliates for every individual exercise and/or program conducted by the Cytel Group, LLC. Additionally the vote authorized the Sheriff to deposit all fees collected from this agreement into an approved "Urban Shield" cash fund for the purpose of offsetting costs associated with future Urban Shield exercises.
According to the California Franchise Tax Board, a California limited liability company (LLC) is formed by filing "articles of organization" with the California Secretary of State, prior to conducting business in California.
A search of the public records with the Secretary of State in California, reveals that there is no such entity called Cytel Group, LLC filed on record with the Secretary of State presently, or at the time of June 7, 2011, when the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to approve an agreement with the Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC regarding Urban Shield.
Further search of public records revealed that the status of Cytel Group, LP (Limited Partnership) has been canceled, and that the status of Cytel Group, Inc. is active. Regardless, there are not any records for Cytel Group, LLC on file with the Secretary of State in California.
It appears that the Cytel Group, LLC is a non entity, and does not exist according to the public records with the Secretary of State, despite the fact that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to approve an agreement with the Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC, regarding Urban Shield.
In an effort to track down some information to explain why an agreement was approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors between the Alameda County's Sheriff's Office and the Cytel Group, LLC, an entity that does not exist, I sent out an email to James Lester Baker of the Cytel Group. It was reported in the Oakland Tribune that James Baker claims to be the founder of the Cytel Group, and in the same article it also mentions that the Cytel Group is a woman owned company.
James Baker of the Cytel Group has not responded to my email request regarding questions about the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voting to approve an agreement with the Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC, regarding Urban Shield. However, a copy of the email to James Baker was also sent to Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, the Oakland City Council members, and a number of other individuals.
In total, a copy of the email to James Baker of the Cytel Group went out to around 50 individuals or more, and out of the whole group only Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern responded to my questions about the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voting to approve an agreement with the Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC, regarding Urban Shield. None of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors responed to my email requesting information.
It was my hope that someone involved in the deal from the Cytel Group could explain how this was possible, considering that Cytel Group, LLC was not on file in the public records, or listed as a corporate entity with the Secretary of State, in California.
On September 15, 2014, Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern responded to my email request, and said: Lynda, I see that you cc'd me on this email, so I will cc James Baker as well. I do not believe that you are accurate in many of the accusations in the email.  I think I should respond to you because Mr. Baker may be out of the country for an extended period.
It is my understanding that that Cytel Group, Inc. was registered in the Stat of California in August 2010, and still in good standing.  This group was established nearly eight months prior to the license agreement with Alameda County.  I communicate with Mr. Baker on a regulars basis and he has commented on the work he does to maintain all required documents up to date, and that the group does in fact pay their required taxes.
We have had many conversations about his group making the effort to expand the Urban Shield program to other major areas in the country.  He and his group have worked in Boston, Texas, and the District of Columbia.  In doing so, those areas also required that his group produce the required documents related to the business.
He also has provided me with a copy of his article of Incorporation stamped by the State of California.
Despite my surprise that Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern responded to my request for information from James Baker, I was even further surprised that the Sheriff responded on behalf of James Baker even though this appears to be a conflict of interest. I wanted to know what James Baker had to say about the Cytell Group, LLC, regarding the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voting to approve an agreement with the Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC, involving Urban Shield.
As is, Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern totally avoided my questions about the Cytell Group, LLC, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors have not responded to my request for information regarding the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voting to approve an agreement with the Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC, involving Urban Shield.

Mayor Jean Quan Claims Urban Shield Is No Longer Welcome In Oakland -
In the wake of the nation being horrified by rampant police shootings/killings and the militarization of the police, including the recent militarized police actions in Ferguson, and the notorious police actions that have been taking place in New Mexico, Oakland, and cities all across the nation, in addition to the recent protests against the Urban Shield war games and convention in Oakland recently, on Friday, September 5, 2014, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan announced that Urban Shield will not be back in Oakland next year.
In an announcement, Urban Shield is no longer welcome in Oakland, according to Mayor Jean Quan. According to Mayor Quan, the City Administrator's Office will be asking their agent not to pursue another contract with Urban Shield to have their conference in Oakland.
The recent Urban Shield events in Oakland and the Bay Area took place from September 5, through September 8. It included the largest SWAT training exercise in the world, with 35 SWAT Teams competing. It was a series of militarized war games conducted in a continuous 48 hour exercise hosted by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, with the support of more than 200 local, state, federal, international and private sector partners. Additional support came from the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and Urban Shield was promoted by the Cytel Group.
During the past two years, as a companion to the militarized Urban Shield events, a convention of major arms dealers selling their militarized weapons to local law enforcement agencies for use in urban combat settings have been held twice downtown, at the Oakland Marriott Convention Center. The latest event held in recent days included an exposition of vendors displaying anything from 3-D printable drones, to combat knives, armored vehicles, sniper rifles, unmanned ground vehicles, anti-terrorism tee shirts, and other militarized items.
The massive Urban Shield military arms weapons convention in Oakland that was held to sell military weapons to local law enforcement agencies, is in addition to the Pentagon's 1033 program which also provides militarized weapons to law enforcement agencies. Militarized weapons including grenade launchers, mine resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAPS), assault rifles, helicopters, bayonets, combat knives, night-vision equipment, night-vision sniper scopes, airplanes and other militarized items to be used by local law enforcement agencies, and SWAT Teams across the nation. These are militarized weapons that may be used and displayed by local law enforcement agencies and SWAT Teams when they are busy suppressing local populations that protest at City Hall, or when protesters are out in the streets protesting against trigger happy cops, or the weapons may be in use when our school children are being terrified while their grade school is placed under lock-down.
The Urban Shield event held in Oakland is a $1 million five-day event being paid for by the federal government and the military industrial sponsors of Urban Shield. Sponsors pay as much as $500 to $15,000 for a spot at the conference to highlight and demonstrate their militarized products.
A partial list of Urban Shield's sponsors include the Department of Homeland Security, 3M, CISCO, AirCover Integrated Solutions, Armored Mobility Inc., Benchmade Knive Company, Drakontas (Dragon Force C2), Elephant Hunt Clothing (guns & skulls), First Spear, Franklin Armory, International Armored Group, iRobot (unmanned ground vehicles), Mile High Shooting Accessories (snipers rifles), Motorola Solutions Inc., Patriot Ordance Factory Rifles, Raven Crest Tactical (knives), Revision Military, The Armored Group LLC, Voodoo Tactical, Winchester Ammunition, Adamson Police Products, and many other corporations including the Cytel Group, Inc., that specializes in bringing the Urban Shield Program to government regions throughout the U.S. and abroad.
In response to Urban Shield, hundreds of protesters have taken to the streets and blocked the streets of Oakland in recent days to show their opposition to the military demonstration exposition, police training exercises and the militarization of our nation's police forces that have been taking place. California Partnership which is a statewide coalition of groups advocating for policies and programs to bring an end to poverty, organized the protests against Urban Shield.

The Privatization Of Urban Shield -
It was back on July 31, 2007, that Urban shield was turned into a money making venture when the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to accept cash sponsorship funds from individuals and corporations to support the militarized training event Urban Shield (Agenda Item 48). The profiteers set up a cash fund that was authorized for the purpose of depositing donations and fees used to offset the costs associated with the militarized training event and war games. The success of the profit making venture resulted in additional militarized Urban Shield events being held and hosted by the Sheriff's Office each year since 2007 in Oakland, and the Bay Area. Additional militarized Urban Shield events are also being held annually in Austin, Texas, Boston, New Orleans and abroad, as a direct result of the actions by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
After the militarized Urban Shield event was proven to be a money maker by using publicly owned assets in the Bay Area for its militarized war games and events, on February 24, 2009, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to enter into an agreement (Agenda Item 30) with BAE Systems, Inc. for the sole purpose of expanding the militarized Urban Shield events in other states across the nation, and abroad. As things turned out, on July 8, 2010 the expanded Urban Shield agreement with BAE Systems, Inc. was terminated by mutual consent because BAE Systems, Inc. was unable to meet the material obligations of the agreement.
Currently, Jerry DeMuro is the CEO of BAE Systems, Inc., formerly known as BAE Systems North America, which is a major subsidiary of the British defense and aerospace company BAE Systems plc, a global defense, security and aerospace company with sales of $14.4 billion during 2011.
After the expanded militarized Urban Shield agreement with BAE Systems, Inc. was terminated on July 8, 2010, on May 24, 2011, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office requested authorization from the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to authorize Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern to enter into an agreement with Anne M. Baker, CEO, of the Cytel Group, LLC for the development of individual disaster training excercises and programs similar to Alameda County's "Urban Shield".
The Sheriff's Office asked the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to authorize the Sheriff to receive a license fee of $10,000 from the Cytel Group, LLC as payment for the first year of their limited use of the Urban Shield marks and materials, including for each additional year a fee of one percent (1%) of the gross revenues being collected by licensee or affiliates for each and every individual excercise and/or program conducted by the Cytel Group.
On June 7, 2011 the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to approve the agreement with the Cytel Group, LLC and authorized the Sheriff to deposit all fees collected from the agreement with the Cytel Group, LLC into an approved "Urban Shield" cash fund (Fund 84624, Org 900000, Account 499990) to help offset the costs associated with future militarized Urban Shield events and exercises.
A search of the public records with the Secretary of State in California, reveals that there is no such entity called Cytel Group, LLC filed on record with the Secretary of State presently, or at the time of June 7, 2011, when the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to approve an agreement with the Sheriff's Office and Cytel Group, LLC regarding Urban Shield.
According to the California Franchise Tax Board, a California limited liability company (LLC) is formed by filing "articles of organization" with the California Secretary of State, prior to conducting business in California.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

"Cytel, LLC / Urban Shield" scandal (2014)

James Lester Baker and his wife Anne Marie Baker have been doing business in the State of California using the name "Cytel Group, LLC", a California limited liability company, involving Urban Shield, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and Bay Area UASI, the latter being , administered at the federal level by DHS. However, according to public records with the Secretary of State in California, the "Cytel Group, LLC" does not exist in the State of California. 
** "The Privatization of Urban Shield by the Cytel Group" [link]
** Alameda County Sheriff's business relationship with Urban Shield and Cytel Group [link]
** "Cytel Group, LLC / Urban Shield", in contract with Alameda County Sheriff's Office, is actually an non-entity, according to state records [link].
** "Threat of lawsuit from James Baker of Cytel Group / Urban Shield" (2014-09-22) [IndyBay.org link] [archive.org]
** Reply From Sheriff's Office Regarding Cytel Group, LLC / Urban Shield (2014-09-18) [link]
** Response from James L. Baker, RE: "Cytel Group, LLC" (2014-09-23) [link]

"Cytel, LLC / Urban Shield" is an ideologically-driven, "anti-liberal", profit-making entity hostile to human rights, democracy, and even the People at-large.
** Alameda Sheriff censors the media, ejecting journalist for taking photos of Urban Shield convention vendors [link]
** To alleviate public concern for militerized training for civilian law enforcement, Oakland Mayor draws Alameda Co. Sheriff scorn by forbidding Urban Shield from setting up shop in Oakland [link]