Full text of lawsuit against Grant County, Wisconsin’s James E. Kopp, Jan Moravits, and District Attorney Lisa Riniker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CASE: 11cv773

“D” BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, KURTIS B, and JENNIFER B, PLAINTIFFS

v. 

JAMES KOPP (Ind. Cap.),  JAN MORAVITS (Ind. Cap.), and LISA RINIKER (Ind. Cap.),  DEFENDANTS.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DECLARATORY RELIEF & MONETARY DAMAGES

Plaintiffs, “D” by and through KURTIS B., as father and next friend, JENNIFER B. and KURTIS B., by and through undersigned counsel, and complaining of the Defendants, JAMES KOPP, sued in his individual capacity (hereinafter “KOPP”), JAN MORAVITS, sued in her individual capacity (hereinafter “MORAVITS”) and LISA RINIKER, sued in her individual capacity (hereinafter “RINIKER”), state as follows:

NATURE OF COMPLAINT & SYNOPSIS

This is primarily a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action in which a 6 year-old child identified as “D”, joined by his parents, allege violations of their U.S. 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Constitutional rights.

In the Fall of 2010, three children, namely “D” and two other children, each 5 years-old (brother & sister) were playing “Doctor” with their guest, D. Two of the three children, one of which was D, exhibited behavior that according to retained experts, is normal childhood behavior; however, the Grant County District Attorney (Defendant Lisa Riniker), asserts that the behavior was felonious. She charged one of the three children (rather than two), specifically 6 year-old D, with a Class B Felony, namely “1st Degree Sexual Assault.” Defendant-District Attorney Riniker wrote in her opposition and response to efforts by D’s attorney to have the felony charge dismissed because D is 6: “The legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute if it wanted to. The legislature did no such thing.”

“D” suffers from ADHD. He allegedly touched his 5 year-old female companion inappropriately. She is the daughter of a well-known political figure in Grant County, Wisconsin. Although, the political figure’s 5 year-old son (present with his 5 year-old sister), allegedly committed a similar act, the son was not charged. Instead, only “D” was charged. D was investigated by Defendant Moravits of Grant County Social Services, whose regional supervisor (Ms. L) is the political figure’s wife’s sister-in-law, and is defined by the political figure (and by Ms. L) as the aunt of the two aforementioned 5 year-old children (of the political figure). Moravits wrote a scathing report critical of “D” calling for his prosecution and assuring the parents of D that in Grant County, Wisconsin a 6 year-old is and was not immune to criminal prosecution. But as to the other child, the political figure’s son, Moravits did not call for the laying of charges against him.

Until last week, the District Attorney (DA), Defendant Riniker, was (or caused the) addressing and sending mail to 6 year-old D, rather than to the parents, and that the DA refers to the 6 year-old not by his first name but as “Mr._____” (last name redacted because of the child’s age). Furthermore, she sends or causes to be sent to the 6 year-old paperwork that tells him that he could go to jail if he does not show-up for court.

Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to cause the Defendant Riniker to cease and desist from abridging the Parents (Plaintiffs) First Amendment rights by her pressuring the parents of “D” to force “D” to admit guilt when the boy says he did not do the act and, additionally, that the DA is demanding and pressuring the parents to sign a consent decree.

Plaintiffs assert that injunctive relief is necessary if the prosecutorDefendant Riniker will not cease and desist of her own volition, since the public interest favors governmental policies that encourage Prosecutors to act with discretion and to consider the Best Interests of a Child. A Consent Decree that bodes with a process that causes a 6 year-old to appear as a Sex Offender when he attains the age of 18 is not in the public interest. The public–Wisconsin residents especially–favors policies which hold that children can play “doctor” without being labeled as sex offenders or deemed guilty of the Felony known as First Degree Sexual Assault.

As a result of the Class B Felony charge, D has suffered greatly. He has since been diagnosed with various stress disorders. Medical professionals assert that such disorders have been caused by the Defendants’ actions. The harm for the small child includes Pain and Suffering; Fear of jail; Anxiety; Depression; Sleepless Nights; Vomiting; Crying and missed school time. In short, the Defendants have directly caused the dramatic worsening of D’s life.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and1343(a); 28 U.S.C. §2201; 28 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988; the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Pendent jurisdiction is had by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is founded in this judicial Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the acts complained of occurred in this District.

PARTIES

(1) Plaintiff “D” is a minor and suffers from ADHD. He is represented by his “NEXT FRIEND” Kurtis B who is also his father. Kurt B is married to Jennifer B. D resides with his married parents in Grant County, Wisconsin.

(2) Plaintiff Jennifer B is the mother of D. She is the wife of Kurtis B. She is a resident of Grant County, Wisconsin and was harmed by Defendants in Grant County, Wisconsin.

(3) Plaintiff Kurt B. is the father of D. He is a resident of Grant County, Wisconsin and was harmed by Defendants in Grant County, Wisconsin.

(4) Defendant Lisa Riniker is the Grant County District Attorney. Grant County is a municipality for purposes of this Complaint. She is sued in her individual capacities and for duties not within the scope of prosecutorial duties or those duties that are investigatory in nature. She is believed to be a resident of Grant County, Wisconsin. She harmed Plaintiffs in Grant County.

(5) Defendant Jan Moravits is an employee of Grant County Social Services, Juvenile Court Intake. She is sued in her individual capacities. She is believed to be a resident of Grant County, Wisconsin. She harmed Plaintiffs in Grant County.

(6) Defendant James E. Kopp was an investigator and sworn law enforcement officer for Grant County. He is sued in his individual capacities. He is believed to be a resident of Grant County, Wisconsin. He harmed Plaintiffs in Grant County.

FACTS [1]

(1) “D” is 6-year-old child who previous to the alleged criminal act in issue, had medical issues that necessitated rectal examinations by medical personnel.

(2) In the Fall of 2010, “D” was charged by Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker, with 1st Degree Sexual Assault because while playing doctor with a 5 year-old girl and her 5 year-old brother, he (D) allegedly inserted his finger into her anal cavity.

(3) The 5 year-old female and her 5 year-old brother are the children of a significant political figure in Grant County. The 5 year-old children’s mother, who is the wife of the aforementioned political figure, is described by Defendant Kopp as having witnessed the act. See Wisconsin State case no. 2010JV000068.

(4) The brother (not named because of his age) engaged in an act upon “D’s” body; however, he was not charged as was D.

(5) County investigator, Sergeant James Kopp, did not recommend the laying of charges on the “brother” however, he did call for charges against D.

(6) Kopp’s investigation may have been commissioned by the sister-in-law of the wife of the political figure. The sister-in-law considers herself to be the aunt of the 5 year-old girl and her brother (the children of the political figure). The auntsister-in-law is a regional director for numerous County-run Department of Social Service agencies. The auntsister-in-law oversees the Grant County office, hence, she has supervisory power over Defendant Jan Moravits, the employee in the Grant County office who called for the laying of charges against D but not the other male child. Nonetheless, regardless of who may have ordered Kopp to conduct an investigation, he conducted an investigation.

(7) Plaintiffs assert that Kopp’s investigation like the investigation by Moravits, lacked due diligence; was haphazard; biased in favor of the father-political figure because of the father’s political status; and that the investigations were done with intent to interfere with rights and guarantees afforded to Plaintiffs by way of the United States Constitution.

(8) Plaintiffs assert that Sergeant Kopp did not act reasonably in conducting the investigation.

(9) Sergeant Kopp waged a relentless campaign to discredit and embarrass and humiliate 6 year-old D. Kopp, under color of law, was successful in causing the 6 year-old and his family a public negative stigma that will never cease to exist. Sergeant Kopp has since retired from Grant County government.

(10) Sergeant Kopp and the social worker, Jan Moravits, sought to have D charged with crimes and to have him listed as “Sexual Predator” under Wisconsin Law; as well as to have D held in contempt of court in spite of his age.

(11) Sergeant Kopp, in a campaign to harass “D” and his parents, especially because they (Plaintiffs) retained counsel, threatened Plaintiffs with arrest (on baseless allegations unrelated to First Degree Sexual Assault) and caused an addition of charges against D.

(12) On June 21, 2011 Attorney Stephen Eisenberg filed, in the Circuit Court in Grant County, a motion to dismiss the charge of First Degree Sexual Assault against 6 year-old D along with asking the Court to dismiss the additional charge caused by Sergeant Kopp and added by Defendant Riniker.

(13) The Circuit Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.

(14) At this time, the additional charge does not appear on paperwork from Defendant Riniker.

(15) The case as to First Degree Sexual Assault is now pending.

(16) Presently, the Plaintiff asserts that the prosecutor is implying that if the Plaintiff parents do not sign a Consent Decree, she (DA Riniker) will seek removal of the couple’s children, including D, from the family home.

(17) The parents are not prepared to sign a Consent Decree at this time for reasons which include that D denies having done the act for which he is accused by Defendants’ Riniker, Kopp, and Moravits.

(18) The Guardian Ad Litem assigned to the case asserts that the parents (JB and KB) are fit and represent the highest degree of excellent parenting for their two children including D. Other evidence corroborates this position.

(19) Plaintiffs recognize DA Riniker’s Absolute Immunity as well as her Qualified Immunity. The matters for which Plaintiff parents seek liability of DA Riniker, relate to actions taken by the prosecutor not within her prosecutorial function. Other alleged actions by the prosecutor were investigatory in nature; therefore, it is the position of Plaintiffs, that the prosecutor is entitled to argue for qualified immunity not absolute immunity.

COUNT I
42 U.S.C. 1983: FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS BY DEFENDANTS’ MORAVITS & KOPP

(1) Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference, all aforementioned and forthcoming paragraphs, specifically the statements in the FACTS section of this Complaint and, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. The Facts section is to be read as a paragraph in this count.

(2) Plaintiff “D” has a First Amendment right to declare that he is innocent of First Degree Sexual Assault.

(3) Defendant Moravits interfered with D’s right to assert his innocence.

(4) Plaintiffs JB and KB have a First Amendment Right to assert the following (see below) without punishment by State actors and without the intent by State actors to interfere or interrupt Plaintiffs’ exercise of their U.S. Constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted the following and that Defendants’ Moravits and Kopp did interfere and interrupt Plaintiffs’ J and KB’s exercise of their First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for their (parents) having said and expressed: -“D” did not commit a First Degree Sexual Assault.
-“D” did not engage in the acts alleged. -“D” will not admit to a crime that he did not commit. -“D” will not admit to having engaged in acts in which he did not engage. -It would be inappropriate and unconstitutional to charge a child (reference to “D”) with a Felony. -That they (Plaintiff parents) have a right to retain a lawyer. -That they (Plaintiff parents) have a right to secure counsel for “D.”

(5) Defendants, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, under color of law, intended to, and did deprive all Plaintiffs of their First Amendment Right to free speech (and that there was not an exigent circumstance necessitating a departure from U.S. Constitutional requirements). Both Moravits and Kopp acted with Malice and [that] their conduct was unreasonable.

(6) “D” by his Next Friend and his mother, did decline to be interviewed by Social Worker Jan Moravits unless D had legal representation present.

(7) Both Defendant Moravits and Defendant Kopp made unreasonable inferences that “D” was guilty of First Degree Sexual Assault simply because “D” would not admit guilt for the crime of First Degree Sexual Assault; and because D parents insisted that D needed a lawyer.

(8) Both Defendant Moravits and Defendant Kopp made unreasonable inferences that “D” was guilty of First Degree Sexual Assault simply because the Plaintiff parents would not assert that “D” had engaged in the crime of First Degree Sexual Assault; or cause to D to make an admission.

(9) Both Defendant Moravits and Defendant Kopp made unreasonable inferences that “D” was guilty of First Degree Sexual Assault simply because the parents (Plaintiff JB and KB) expressed that the child needed legal representation at an interview convened by a State actor.

(10) Defendant Moravits demanded that “D” make an admission of guilt. Parents expressed that they would not cause such an admission since D did not commit the alleged act.

(11) Plaintiffs’ protected speech was met with allegations by Defendant Moravits that implied that the Plaintiff parents may have been witness tampering; that the parents are unfit (Fit parents would cause a child to admit guilt); that “D” needs to placed on Wisconsin’s Sexual Predator List; that the children in the B home need to be removed from the home; and that “D” is guilty of the acts alleged.

(12) Defendant Moravits unreasonably implied to the District Attorney that the silence of D represented that his parents may have been tampering with witness. Ms. Moravits wrote in part: “At this point in time no one knows what has been relayed to D about the allegations/events or what tampering may or may not have been done to D as a witness. At the conclusion of Attorney DeBauche’s letter, he indicates his willingness to bring D in for an intake conference. This like many of the actions of Mr. and Mrs. B are puzzling to me and appear to be more of a campaign.”

(13) When Defendant Kopp learned that Plaintiffs had retained legal counsel, Defendant Kopp retaliated against Plaintiffs with an amplified campaign of harassment. By example, Defendant Kopp went onto D’s school property, without first contacting D’s parents, seeking D and his school records.

(14) Defendants acted outside of the realm for which they would be entitled to qualified immunity.

(15) Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs and especially to the rights of a small child.

(16) Defendants did harm Plaintiffs and that such harm includes mental stress, pain and suffering; loss of school time for “D”; significant financial loses; attorney’s fees; humiliation and embarrassment.

(17) Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by Defendants.

WHEREFORE, and that there is sought, judgment against all defendants, jointly, for actual, general, special and compensatory damages in the amount of Two Million dollars and further demands judgment against each of said defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney’s fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT II
42 U.S.C. 1983: DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS & ABUSE OF PROCESS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS BY DEFENDANT MORAVITS, KOPP, & RINIKER [in her actions in a investigatory capacity]

(1) Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference, all aforementioned and forthcoming paragraphs, specifically the statements in the FACTS section of this Complaint and, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. The Facts section is to be read as the first paragraph in this count.

(2) Defendant Riniker states she is not prosecuting a criminal action against D; rather, an action by way of Chapter 938.01(2); although, her actions and the actions of the other Defendants show otherwise.

(3) Defendant Riniker has maliciously by-passed the parents of 6 year-old “D” as in contacting D–sending him mail addressed to 6 year-old “D” but not to his parents (his parents are cc’ed).

(4) Defendant Riniker’s choice of form correspondence that she addresses to D and sends to D, shows her intent to cause a criminal process, “or” proceeding, “or” environment for “D” and to cause D Psychological Trauma. The correspondence reads in part [with the first 7 words capitalized and in bold print: “IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AS SUMMONED, you may be held in contempt of court, or a capias may be issued for your arrest.”

(5) Defendant Riniker did send such notice ordering “D” to appear on a school day, November 22, 2010.

(6) Defendant Riniker was informed by competent authority that forcing “D” to appear in court would have a significant, adverse Psychological impact on the child defendant. Defendant Riniker has not been deterred.

(7) Defendant Riniker has maintained a campaign of threats against the Plaintiff parents and child, which include causing the parents to believe that their two children (D included) will be removed from the home unless the parents cease asserting opposition to the Consent Decree and unless they cease their speech of asserting D’s innocence.

(8) By intentionally by-passing the parents and attempting to intimidate a 6 year-old directly, Defendant Riniker has violated D’s Constitutional Rights in both the Civil and Criminal arenas.

(9) “D” has a right [to] not be coerced to speak or write a confession; [he] has a right to counsel; and has a right to remain silent. In re Gault 387 U.S. 1 at 47-49; 87 S. Ct. 1428; 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967). D has such rights, since there is intent by all Defendants to inculpate the child-plaintiff (D) for the crime of First Degree Sexual Assault. (Ibid.; cf. G.O., 191 Ill. 2d 37; 727 N.E.2d 1003 (2000)). [2]

(10) Defendants have undertaken a criminal process or quasi criminal process against D (regardless of their protestations that they have not). They have subjected D to phenomena found in criminal processes; however they argue that “D” is not entitled to Miranda warnings and other U.S. Constitutional rights because they say, in the same contradictory breath, [that] a criminal process is “not” under way.

(11) All Defendants have either denied or sought to deny D 1st, 4th, 5th 6th or 14th Amendment rights simultaneous with threatening the family (Plaintiffs) with criminal prosecution of D and that they will cause a removal of D and his sibling from his parent’s home.

(12) The Social Worker, Defendant Moravits, did not act reasonably when she accused D of being a sexual predator.

(13) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she charged a 6 year-old with a Class B Felony, namely First Degree Sexual Assault.

(14) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she addressed and directed mail to the 6 year-old whom she had charged with a Class B Felony, namely First Degree Sexual Assault.

(15) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she addressed and directed mail to the 6 year-old that contained a threat of going to jail if he failed to appear.

(16) Defendants acted and continue to act outside of the realm for which they would be entitled to qualified immunity.

(17) Defendants acted and continue to act with deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs especially toward a mere child.

(18) Defendants did harm Plaintiffs and that such harm includes mental stress, pain and suffering; loss of school time for “D”; significant financial loses; attorney’s fees; humiliation and embarrassment.

(19) Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by Defendants.

WHEREFORE, and that there is sought, judgment against all defendants, jointly, for actual, general, special and compensatory damages in the amount of Two Million dollars and further demands judgment against each of said defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney’s fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT III
42 U.S.C. 1983: RETALIATION ABUSE OF PROCESS & DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS BY DEFENDANTS’ MORAVITS, KOPP, & RINIKER [in her actions in a investigatory capacity]

(1) Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference, all aforementioned and forthcoming paragraphs, specifically the statements in the FACTS section of this Complaint and, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. The Facts section is to be read as the first paragraph in this count.

(2) Based upon reasonable information and belief, all Defendants, under color of law, initiated baseless actions against “D” since and because the child that “D” allegedly assaulted is the daughter of the popular political figure. Furthermore, the woman who considers herself the aunt of the daughter is the regional supervisor over State run social service facilities including Grant County Social Services (the agency which concluded that “D” is guilty of the acts charged).

(3) Based upon reasonable information and belief, all Defendants, under color of law, retaliated against D and his parents because D asserts that he is innocent; because the parents asserted that they would retain a lawyer; that the parents did retain a lawyer; that parents asserted and continue to assert and express D’s innocence; and because the parents have expressed that they are not prepared at this time to sign a Consent Decree.

(4) All Plaintiffs assert that all Defendants acted maliciously and declined to conduct a reasonable investigation of all matters for reasons which include their acting to appease the political figure. As a result of more than one unreasonable and reckless investigation; although, one other child (the political figure’s son), pursuant to the game of doctor, engaged in behavior that under Wisconsin law is criminal and sexual in nature, D was the only child charged. Based on the interpretation of Chapter 938.01(2) that Defendants have put forth to justify prosecuting D, the second child should have been charged with First Degree Sexual Assault as well–but he was not charged.

(5) The Social Worker, Defendant Moravits, did not act reasonably when she accused D of being a sexual predator.

(6) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she charged a 6 year-old with a Class B Felony, namely First Degree Sexual Assault.

(7) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she addressed and directed mail to the 6 year-old whom she had charged with a Class B Felony, namely First Degree Sexual Assault.

(8) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she addressed and directed mail to the 6 year-old that contained a threat of him going to jail if he failed to appear. D lacks a driver’s license or other means to travel to the court house and that state laws require D’s attendance in school on many days in many months.

(9) Defendants acted and continue to act outside of the realm for which they would be entitled to qualified immunity.

(10) Defendants acted and continue to act with deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs especially toward a mere child.

(11) Defendants did harm Plaintiffs and that such harm includes mental stress, pain and suffering; loss of school time for “D”; significant financial loses; attorney’s fees; humiliation and embarrassment.

(12) Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by Defendants.

WHEREFORE, and that there is sought, judgment against all defendants, jointly, for actual, general, special and compensatory damages in the amount of Two Million dollars and further demands judgment against each of said defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney’s fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT IV
CHAP. 938.01(2) VIOLATES THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §2201

(1) Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference, all aforementioned and forthcoming paragraphs, specifically the statements in the FACTS section of this Complaint and, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. The Facts section is to be read as the first paragraph in this count.

(2) Wisconsin elected officials enacted Chapter 938.01(2).

(3) Such legislation fails to designate an age or ages at which a person, namely a small child can or cannot be charged with violations of Wisconsin Criminal Law. Defendant-District Attorney Riniker wrote in her response to D’s Motion to Dismiss in the State Court because of D’s age: “The legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute if it wanted to. The legislature did no such thing.” (see Page 5 in undated DA Response to D’s Motion to Dismiss).

(4) Under our system of laws, Mens Rea is a necessary element for criminal liability.

(5) Under Chapter 938.01(2), just as Defendant Riniker has charged 6 year-old “D” with the Felony of First Degree Sexual Assault (although, expert testimony obtained shows that it is not emotionally or intellectually possible for a 6 year-old to gain sexual gratification through the alleged type of sexual acts); she could easily use the same rationale and charge a two year-old with Battery for knocking another 2 year-old out of playpen.

(6) 938.01(2) serves no compelling state interest.

WHEREFORE, and that there is sought, a declaration by this Honorable Court that Chapter 938.01(2) is unconstitutional and any relief the Court deems appropriate for a Movant with prevailing party status.

COUNT V
ABUSE OF PROCESS (under Wisconsin Law) BY DEFENDANTS’ MORAVITS, KOPP, & RINIKER [in her actions in a investigatory capacity]

(1) Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference, all aforementioned and forthcoming paragraphs, specifically the statements in the FACTS section of this Complaint and, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. The Facts section is to be read as the first paragraph in this count.

(2) Defendant Riniker states she is not prosecuting a criminal action against D; rather, using Chapter 938.01(2); although, her actions and the actions of the other defendants show otherwise.

(3) Defendant Riniker has maliciously by-passed the parents of 6 year-old “D” as in sending mail addressed to 6 year-old “D” but not to his parents (his parents are cc’ed).

(4) Defendant Riniker not only sends “D” mail that the boy can’t read or understand, additionally, she refers to him in court documents by his last name-as “Mr.________.”

(5) Defendant Riniker’s choice of form correspondence that she addresses and sends to the child, shows her intent to cause a criminal proceeding, process or environment for D. The correspondence reads in part [with the first 7 words capitalized and in bold print: “IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AS SUMMONED, you may be held in contempt of court, or a capias may be issued for your arrest.”

(6) Defendant Riniker did send such notice ordering “D” to appear on a school day, November 22, 2010.

(7) Defendant Riniker was informed that forcing “D” to appear in court proceedings would have significant adverse Psychological impact on the child defendant. Still, she has acted and continues to act with intent to cause Psychological damage to D.

(8) Defendant Riniker has maintained a campaign of threats against the Plaintiff parents and child. Threats include causing the parents to believe that their 2 children (including D) will be removed from the family home unless the parents cease opposition to the Consent decree and unless they cease in asserting D’s innocence.

(9) By intentionally by-passing the parents and attempting to intimidate a 6 year-old directly, Defendant Riniker has violated D’s Constitutional Rights in both the Civil and Criminal arenas.

(10) All Plaintiffs assert that all Defendants acted maliciously and declined to conduct a reasonable investigation of all matters. As a result of unreasonable and reckless investigations; although, one other child (the political figure’s son), pursuant to the game of doctor, engaged in behavior that under Wisconsin law is criminal and sexual in nature, D was the only child charged. Based on the Defendants’ interpretation of 938.01(2), the second child should have been charged with First Degree Sexual Assault as well.

(11) All Defendants have either denied or sought to deny D 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights simultaneous with threatening the family (Plaintiffs) with criminal prosecution of D and that they will cause a removal of D and his sibling from his parent’s home.

(12) The Social Worker, Defendant Moravits, did not act reasonably when she accused D of being a sexual predator.

(13) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she charged a 6 year-old with a Class B Felony, namely First Degree Sexual Assault.

(14) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she addressed and directed mail to the 6 year-old whom she had charged with a Class B Felony, namely First Degree Sexual Assault.

(15) The prosecutor, Defendant Riniker, did not act reasonably when she addressed and directed mail to the 6 year-old that contained a threat of him going to jail if he failed to appear.

(16) Defendants acted and continue to act outside of the realm for which they would be entitled to qualified immunity.

(17) Defendant Riniker has attempted to coerce Plaintiffs’ to sign a consent decree.

(18) Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs.

(19) Defendants did harm Plaintiffs and that such harm includes mental stress, pain and suffering; loss of school time for “D”; significant financial loses; attorney’s fees; humiliation and embarrassment.

(20) Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by Defendants.

WHEREFORE, and that there is sought, judgment against all defendants, jointly, for actual, general, special and compensatory damages in the amount of Two Million dollars and further demands judgment against each of said defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney’s fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT VI
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL STRESS ON PLAINTIFF D (under Wisconsin Law) BY DEFENDANTS’ MORAVITS, KOPP, & RINIKER [in her actions in a investigatory capacity]

(1) Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference, all aforementioned and forthcoming paragraphs, specifically the statements in the FACTS section of this Complaint and, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. The Facts section is to be read as the first paragraph in this count.

(2) The Defendants’ conduct fell below the applicable standard of care when the Defendants pursued a disabled 6 year-old as if he were adult with full faculties.

(3) Because of actions by the Defendants, Plaintiff “D” has suffered severe emotional stress and trauma and continues to suffer such conditions.

(4) “D” now suffers from Depression; Anxiety; Fear of arrest; and Sleeplessness because of the malicious, reckless, knowing, and intentional actions by all Defendants.

(5) The Defendants’ conduct was a cause-in-fact of the Plaintiff D’s injury.

(6) D observed the behavior of the Defendants and was impacted by the behavior of the defendants starting in the Fall of 2010 and such wrongful and behavior by the Defendants continues.

(7) Defendants intended a Mental and Physical affect and effect on 6 year-old “D.”

(8) Defendants acted without consent to cause Mental Stress.

(9) Defendants knew that their actions would cause Mental Stress or knew that there was a substantial certainty that their actions (e.g., charging D with First Degree Sexual Assault; and forcing D to appear in Court under threat of arrest) would cause the child severe Psychological Trauma.

(10) The Behavior of Defendants’ was outrageous and shocks the conscience.

(11) The continued present behavior of the Defendants’ towards D is outrageous and shocks the conscience.

(12) Defendants acted with deliberate indifference as to the foreseeable Psychological Damage they were causing a small child and that they continue to act recklessly and deliberately in this regard.

(13) D has had to seek and receive medical care for the trauma caused by the Defendants. See PF. Ex. A from Dr. Adib Kassas.

(14) D has since been diagnosed with Mental Trauma ailments.

(15) D suffered harm.

(16) Defendants’ are the proximate cause of the harm.

(17) The harm for the small child includes Pain and Suffering; Anxiety; Depression; Fear of being placed in jail; Sleepless Nights; Vomiting; Crying, missed school time, humiliation, and embarrassment.

WHEREFORE, and that there is sought, judgment against all defendants, jointly, for actual, general, special and compensatory damages in the amount of Two Million dollars and further demands judgment against each of said defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney’s fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT VII
42 U.S.C. 1983 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF D

(1) Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference, all aforementioned and forthcoming paragraphs, specifically the statements in the FACTS section of this Complaint and, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. The Facts section is to be read as the first paragraph in this count.

(2) A person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. D was seized in the meaning of the 4th Amendment by both a criminal and judicial process launched by all Defendants.

(3) It was unreasonable to seize a 6 year old child.

(4) It was unreasonable to seize D when a 6 year-old is emotionally and intellectually unable to form Mens Rea for the crime of First Degree Sexual Assault.

(5) D was harmed by the laying of Felony charges against him and the seizure that such action represents.

(6) All Defendants were and are the proximate cause of D’s harm.

WHEREFORE, and that there is sought, judgment against all defendants, jointly, for actual, general, special and compensatory damages in the amount of Two Million dollars and further demands judgment against each of said defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $500,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney’s fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Applies to Defendant Riniker in her official & individual capacities)

Plaintiffs JB & KB Seek that DA Riniker Cease & Desist with Attempts to Coerce Them to Sign a Consent Decree as to Child Plaintiff “D”, in Violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Const.

*Plaintiffs waive their right to move for a TRO. Plaintiffs intend to file their motion (with affidavits) for injunctive relief with a request for a hearing soon after this Complaint has been filed.

(1) Plaintiffs assert through counsel that they can succeed on the merits. Firstly, because the 1st Amendment as it is applied to the states via the 14th Amendment, is relatively clear as to what constitutes free speech.

(2) Second, because “when” the requirements of the 14th Amendment and the Mathews v. Eldridge test (at 424 U.S. 319 (1976)) are applied to the facts in the instant matter, it is clear that Plaintiff parent’s First Amendment right to voice objection to the Consent Decree and to voice opposition to “D” admitting guilt for an act that he says he did not commit, has been abridged.

(3) Plaintiff parents are not prepared, at this time, to sign the Consent Decree in question unless Defendant Riniker allows them to add language that states they are signing under duress caused by Ms. Riniker.

(4) Irreparable harm will result to Plaintiffs without injunctive relief. Plaintiff parents can show that the Consent Decree as written is detrimental to D’s future, reputation, and livelihood.

(5) The balance of harms between Defendant Riniker and the Plaintiffs reveal that Defendant Riniker or the “PEOPLE” will not suffer any harm if Plaintiffs are granted a right to oppose the Consent Decree on First Amendment grounds and to assert D’s innocence on First Amendment grounds.

(6) The impact on the public interest favors governmental policies that encourage Prosecutors to act with discretion and to consider the Best Interests of a Child. A Consent Decree that bodes with the process that causes a 6-year-old to appear as a Sex Offender when he attains the age of 18 is not in the public interest. The public–Wisconsin residents especially–favors plocies that children can play “doctor” without being labeled as sex offenders or deemed guilty of a Felony known as First Degree Sexual Assault.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this honorable court convene a hearing for the purpose of Plaintiff’s presenting evidence in their pursuit of permanent injunctive relief.

* Plaintiffs hereby make aJury Demand.

Respectfully Prepared & Submitted, November 15, 2011
s Christopher Cooper, ESQ., PHD., One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Law Office of Christopher Cooper, INC.
[Illinois, etc….]

____________________________

[Footnotes in original text–CP]

[1] This Facts section is a condensed version of facts for reasons which include that some of the omitted Facts may not be appropriate for a public Complaint but more appropriate to be filed under seal if necessary.

[2] “…. the availability of the privilege’ –Fifth Amendment—‘does not turn upon the type of proceeding’ but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites.” In re Gault at 49. “The ‘privilege’ of ‘self-incrimination’ may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding if the statement is or may be inculpatory.”