Burgio Gold Buyer lawsuit vs. City of Arnold

7/27/2019 Burgio Gold Buyer lawsuit vs. City of Arnold

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/burgio-gold-buyer-lawsuit-vs-city-of-arnold 1/5

Case: 4:13-cv-01431 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 07/23/13 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 7Case: 4:13-cv-01431-TIA Doc. #: 2 Filed: 07/24/13 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 12



1

STATE OF MISSOURI )) SS.

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF

MISSOURI, AT HILLSBORO, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSOURIDIVISION NO. _______

))

Anthony Burgio, Jr. ))

Plaintiff, ))

vs. ) Cause No._______________________ )

)City of Arnold , Missouri )2101 Jeffco Blvd )Arnold, MO 63010 )

)Defendant. )

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

Comes now Plaintiff, Anthony Burgio, Jr., by his counsel Anthony R. Dorsett and for its

cause of action states as follows:

1. Plaintiff is a person resident in Jefferson County who owns and operates a solely

owned business within the city limits of the city of Arnold, MO.

2. Plaintiff’s business is a lawful business, licensed to operate in the city of Arnold

and which has been operating for the relevant time mentioned in this pleading.

3. Defendant is a municipal corporation, whose entire boundaries are contained

within the county of Jefferson, state of Missouri.

4. Section 42 USCS §1983 of the United States code, provides for relief in part as

follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,

of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any




2

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

5. 42 USC § 1983 has been made applicable to state action in the State of Missouri.

6. Since as early as May 15, 2012 until her election loss, Arnold Ward 1

councilwoman Doris Borgelt, has engaged on behalf of herself and in concert with the city of

Arnold, in a deliberate campaign to harass Plaintiff and his business in deprivation of his civil

rights as protected by the code.

7. She has used her official capacity, in such a manner as to violate the civil rights of

Plaintiff, damaging his business enterprise and reputation.

8. She has harassed him and his employees and customers all to Plaintiff’s financial

loss, repeatedly visiting his place of business, verbally attacking customers.

9. She has used city resources to interfere with the activities of the various

businesses owned by Plaintiff , by directing police officers of the city onto Plaintiff’s property to

attempt to have Plaintiff’s business interfered with and damaged.

10. Doris Borgelt has deliberately interfered with business contracts in which Plaintiff

have been engaged, causing loss of these contracts to the damage of Plaintiff.

11. Between May 15, 2012 through June 6, 2012, there was a continuous and

deliberate effort by Doris Borgelt to harass the shop owned by Plaintiff, and its employees and

patrons about the issue of business licenses, which had all been properly and duly issued by the

city of Arnold.

12. Commencing in October 2012, again at the instance and insistence of Mrs. Doris

Borgelt efforts were made to have the premises inspected, the parking lot measured, and




3

verification of proper street signage solely to badger and harass Plaintiff. Those issues continued

through the end of the month of October.

13. At the end of November 2012 Mrs. Borgelt once again came to the property with

camera in hand and asked a customer to leave. On that day as well Plaintiff was challenged as to

whether he was receiving stolen electronics or drugs as alleged by Mrs. Borgelt in an email to the

chief of police and Mary Holden, knowing these allegations were false.

14. Plaintiff does not conduct his business affairs in violation of the law and

moreover has never knowingly received any stolen electronic devices, nor has he participated in

any drug sales.

15. Plaintiff believes that this is part of conspiratorial actions on behalf of Mrs.

Borgelt to force Plaintiff to close his business through constant stream of harassment and false

allegations.

16. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $25,000.00 as and for the

actions of the city of Arnold, by its agent Doris Borgelt.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays damages against the Defendant, city of Arnold in a reasonable

amount in excess of $25,000.00, his attorney’s fees, prejudgment interest, post judgment interest

and his costs expended.

/S/ Stanley D. Schnaare

_________________________ Stanley D. Schnaare #29382THE SCHNAARE LAW FIRM, P.C.321 Main Street - P.O. Box 440Hillsboro, MO 63050-0440(636) 789-3355 - - (636) 797-3355Attorney for Plaintiff

y:\municipal\burgio city of arnold\burgio petition.docx


Burgio Gold Buyer lawsuit vs. City of Arnold

Documents

Transcript of Burgio Gold Buyer lawsuit vs. City of Arnold