1

Pinal County, a Political Subdivision, Sheri Cluff, Clerk of the Board, Pinal County Board of Supervisors, Pete Rios, Supervisor, District 1, Bryan Martyn, Supervisor, District 2, David Snider, Supervisor, District 3, 31 N. Pinal Street Building A Florence, AZ 85132; Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Paul Babeu, Sheriff 971 Jason Lopez Circle Building C Florence, AZ 85132; James Walsh, Pinal County Attorney, 30 N. Florence St Building D Florence, AZ 85132 RE: Notice of Claim Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (A) To whom it may concern:

Mark Dixon, undersigned, and referred to hereinafter as (“Claimant/Victim”) hereby

gives his formal Notice of Claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (A).

Claimant/Victim makes the following allegations based on facts, affidavits of witnesses,

and statements made by County employees directly to Claimant/Victim, all of which are

supported by incontrovertible evidence. This matter has been brought before the above named

parties referred to hereinafter collectively as the (“County”), not for any malicious purpose, nor

to harass the County, but solely in the name of Justice. In addition, Claimant/Victim, also gives

formal notice, that the actions, inactions, crimes, and conspiracies, willfully preplanned and

committed against him by sworn officers of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, have

unquestionably resulted in blatant deprivations of the Claimant/Victim’s Civil Rights, which are

2

secured and protected by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteen Amendments of the Constitution of the

United States, the Constitution of Arizona, and other significant State and Federal Laws.

Therefore, the Claimant/Victim, hereby gives notice that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

1985, 1986, 1988, that he is not barred from immediately initiating a Civil Rights action in

Federal District Court which has original Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§1331 and 1343, as

well as the authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the County

and/or its employees, did willfully knowingly, and maliciously failed to provide the

Claimant/Victim equal protection under the law.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On December 1, 2009, at 2:49 p.m., the Claimant/Victim received a telephone call

from an

individual who identified himself as Corporal Clarke, of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.

Clarke informed Claimant/Victim that pursuant to a statement made by Carol Lee Dixon,1 that

the Claimant/Victim was in possession of property belonging to her, (a dog named Shilo) and

that if the Claimant/Victim did not surrender the animal, that the Pinal County Sheriff’s would

arrest the Claimant/Victim for theft.

2. Upon receiving this information, the Claimant/Victim informed Clarke, that the

animal was in fact his property, and that he could produce documentation that proved the

Claimant/Victim’s ownership of the animal. Clarke flatly refused to consider the

1 Carol Lee Dixon, is in fact the ex-wife of the Claimant/Victim. The two were recently divorced in April of 2009, as a result of a divorce petition initiated and filed by Ms. Dixon, said petition was uncontested by the Claimant/Victim. Prior to the divorce, despite positive efforts by the Claimant /Victim to obtain proper medical and psychological care for her condition, Ms. Dixon continued to display erratic and irrational behavior, including a suicide attempt.

3

Claimant/Victim’s side of the story, and ended the conversation with threats that he would

forward a complaint to the Office of the Pinal County Attorney for Criminal Prosecution.

3. As a result of the conversation described in ¶ ¶ 1-2 above, on December 1, 2009, at

3:01 p.m., the Claimant/Victim contacted the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, and asked to speak

to a Supervisor, after taking down his contact information he was advised that “someone” would

call him back.

4. On December 1, 2009, at 3:27 p.m., the Claimant/Victim received a telephone call

from the

Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, from an individual, who identified himself as Sergeant Cody. The

Claimant/Victim advised Cody, of his previous conversation with Clarke, and further advised

Cody, that the animal was in fact his property, and again offered to produce documentation that

proved the Claimant/Victim’s ownership of the animal. This conversation concluded with Cody

stating that he would look into the matter and contact the Claimant/Victim with his findings.

5. On December 1, 2009, at 3:33 p.m., Cody, contacted the Claimant/Victim with his findings, and informed the Claimant/Victim that while he disagreed with the manner in which

Corporal Clarke was handling the matter, it was not within his authority to intervene or interfere

with another Deputy’s investigation.

6. On December 2, 2009, at 1:15 p.m., the Claimant/Victim, along with his dog2 (Shilo),

who has been the Claimant/Victim’s constant “24/7” friend and close companion for the past two

and one half (2 1/2) years, both left from their residence located at 10380 W. Pasadena, in route

2 Because of their longstanding, and close emotional attachment, the Claimant/Victim had gone to the expense of having a “computer chip,” surgically implanted into Shilo by a certified professional Veterinarian, to insure her positive identification by any other Veterinarian or Animal Control Officer, to insure Shilo’s, quick and safe return, should she for any reason become separated from the excellent care, protection, as well as the constant love and affection she is provided by the Claimant/Victim, a single father who has also been awarded custody of both of his two children (one male, and one female) by the Pinal County Superior Court.

4

to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, located in Florence, Arizona, for the sole purpose of

presenting the ownership documents, previously ignored by Deputies of the Pinal County

Sheriff’s Office, as stated in ¶ ¶ 2 and 4 above, to put an end to the matter in controversy once

and for all.

7. The Claimant/Victim, intentionally brought Shilo, confident that the County

Attorney’s Office, would as a matter of due diligence and its duty to insure the

Claimant/Victim’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, would summon a Pinal County

Animal Control Officer, who could, electronically verify Shilo’s ownership, resulting in a

positive identification in favor of the Claimant/Victim, and take proper action, including an

immediate dismissal of any criminal charges that may have been improperly initiated as

threatened by Clarke, as shown in ¶ 2 above, who had refused to assert any due diligence or fair

consideration of the Claimant/Victim’s Civil Rights in his investigation.

8. Upon leaving their residence, as previously identified in ¶ 6 above, Claimant/Victim,

with Shilo in the vehicle as a passenger, proceeded West on Pasadena, and as required by law,

properly “signaled” to indicate his intention to make a right hand turn, after which he made a

complete stop at the intersection of Pasadena and Belaire. The pair then proceeded North on

Belaire, and once again, upon approaching the intersection of Belaire and Woodruff, as required

by law, properly “signaled” to indicate his intention to make a right hand turn, after which he

made a complete stop at the intersection of Belaire and Woodruff. The pair then preceded East

on Woodruff a very short distance when the Claimant/Victim, became aware that a Red Sport

Utility Vehicle (SUV), with flashing lights was close behind him.

9. Quickly making the assumption that the vehicle was a Fire Department, Emergency

Response Vehicle, responding to an emergency, the Claimant/Victim, as required by law

5

immediately signaled to turn right, and pulled off the pavement, onto the right hand shoulder of

Woodruff, and made a complete stop, in a lawful and responsible effort to allow the Emergency

Vehicle to safely pass.

10. Rather than pass, the Red SUV with lights still flashing, came to a stop behind the

Claimant/Victim’s vehicle. The Claimant/Victim, in his rear view mirror, then observed a white

male, dressed in “plain clothes,” exit the Red SUV and approach the Claimant/Victim’s parked

vehicle which contained the Claimant/Victim as well as his companion Shilo.

11. Upon reaching the Claimant/Victim’s vehicle the plain clothed individual walked up

to the “driver side” window of the Claimant/Victim’s vehicle and without making any effort to

properly identify himself to the Claimant/Victim, demanded that the Claimant/Victim hand over

his driver license.3 The Claimant/Victim then inquired as to the reason he had been pulled over?

This individual, later determined to be a Detective Goode of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office,

alleged that the Claimant/Victim had made an illegal right hand turn, and further stated the

Claimant/Victim failed to signal a right hand turn, before preceding East on Woodruff after

stopping at the intersection of Belaire and Woodruff. Upon receiving this questionable

explanation, the Claimant/Victim complied with Goode’s request to examine the

Claimant/Victim’s driver license, at which time Goode, with the Claimant/Victim’s driver

license in his possession, returned to his unmarked vehicle with the Claimant/Victim’s driver

license.

3 The Claimant/Victim’s proof of insurance and registration were never requested as is common procedure in a “routine” traffic stop.

6

12. The Claimant/Victim was then startled by a second “plain clothed” individual,4 later

identified as Sergeant LeBlanc, who appeared outside of the Claimant/Victim’s Driver side

window. LeBlanc, having deliberately “postured” himself immediately outside of the

Claimant/Victim’s vehicle, stood with his “gun hand” readied on his side-arm in a threatening,

calculated manner as if his true intention was to draw his weapon and fire upon Claimant/Victim.

The Claimant/Victim was then startled by an third “plain clothed” individual,5 who also

unexpectedly appeared outside of the Claimant/Victim’s passenger side window, and “postured”

himself in a threatening manner similar to that of LeBlanc.6

13. The Claimant/Victim asked LeBlanc, if his actions were in regards to the

Claimant/Victim’s dog and LeBlanc stated that it was. LeBlanc then asked the Claimant/Victim

if he would surrender Shilo and the Claimant/Victim informed LeBlanc that he would not, and

that he was already in route to the County Attorney’s Office to properly address the pending

Criminal charges, and to provide the County Attorney with documentation to resolve the matter

of Shilo’s true ownership.

14. LeBlanc then informed the Claimant/Victim that his driver’s license was suspended

and he had the authority arrest the Claimant/Victim, as well as impound his vehicle (a significant

tool necessary for the Claimant/Victim to provide a living for himself and his children) for a

minimum of 30 days, if the Claimant/Victim refused to submit to his threats and surrender Shilo.

LeBlanc then implied that he would refrain from such actions if the Claimant/Victim agreed to

surrender Shilo to him. 4 This individual was unquestionably the “Supervising Officer in charge,” who directed the dubious actions of the other Deputies. 5 The identity of this third plain clothed Deputy is yet to be determined.

6 The Claimant/Victim later ascertained that these two individuals had approached his vehicle from an unmarked blue sedan, they had concealed behind the Red SUV driven by Goode.

7

15. Goode then approached from the Red SUV and notified the Claimant/Victim that his

Arizona Driver License was in fact suspended. Faced with the option of being deprived of his

liberty or submitting to the illegal seizure and unconstitutional deprivation of Shilo, the

Claimant/Victim reluctantly agreed to submit to the extortion conspiracy, and surrender his

companion Shilo to LeBlanc.

16. After further discussion LeBlanc agreed to follow the Claimant/Victim back to his

residence so the Claimant/Victim could obtain Shilo’s leash and surrender her. After arriving at

his residence,7 the Claimant/Victim again politely asserted that Shilo legal belonged to him and

assured LeBlanc, that he could produce credible witnesses that could confirm Shilo’s ownership.

LeBlanc then informed the Claimant/Victim that Carol Lee Dixon alleged that Shilo’s computer

chip would confirm she was the legal owner.8

17. The Claimant/Victim’s son James Dixon, having arrived at the residence at the same

time as his father, and the Pinal County Sheriff Officers, also pleaded with LeBlanc to allow him

the opportunity to produce witnesses as well. The Claimant/Victim then produced credible

documentation, including a certificate, that lists the Claimant/Victim as Shilo’s registered owner,

which was issued by the Veterinarian who surgically implanted Shilo’s computer Chip, a License

issued by the Pinal County Animal Care and Control, a Rabies Vaccination Certificate issued by

the Casa Grande Animal Hospital and an invoice issued by the Casa Grande Animal Hospital

receipting that the Claimant/Victim had invested over One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00)9

7 The fact that these three deputies instructed the Claimant/Victim to illegally operate his vehicle with a suspended driver license to obtain a leash for the dog, implies a pre-conceived plan had been made for the sole purpose of obtaining the Claimant/Victim’s dog. 8 No attempt was made to summon an Animal Control Officer to electronically scan the computer chip. 9 See STATE v. HERNANDEZ, 121 Ariz. 544 (App. 1979) A.R.S. Sec. 13-621(A) states: "…A person who, for his own gain . . buys, sells, possesses, conceals or receives personal property, knowing or having reason to believe that the property is stolen . . . is guilty of a felony if the value of the property is one hundred dollars or more…"

8

to ensure Shilo was well and would continue to be healthy. All of these documents provide a

preponderance of incontrovertible evidence establishing that the Claimant/Victim is and

continues to be the legal owner of Shilo (see EXHIBITS 1-4).

18. None of the evidence swayed LeBlanc, in his unrelenting resolve to illegally seize

Shilo from her proper owner. Further, LeBlanc failed to produce any Court issued Warrant,

Writ, Civil Standby Order or any other valid Order signed by a Judge, which would have given

him the authority to seize Shilo from her legal owner.10 LeBlanc, after examining the

Claimant/Victim’s ownership documents, took some written notes and then advised James Dixon

that if he could produce affidavits that proved Shilo belonged to the Claimant/Victim, Shilo

would be returned to James’ father. James Dixon then inquired to LeBlanc as to what he was

going to do with Shilo, and LeBlanc advised him that it was his intention to deliver Shilo to

Carol Lee Dixon.11

19. The Claimant/Victim then surrendered Shilo, leash and all to LeBlanc, who along

with the other Deputies appeared to be vacating the Claimant/Victim’s premises. The Deputies

already heading to their vehicles to leave, suddenly hesitated and after a short conference

between LeBlanc and Goode, that was held out of ear shot of both James Dixon and the

Claimant/Victim, Goode prepared a citation directed against the Claimant/Victim for driving on

a suspended license, which Goode handed to LeBlanc who in turn, handed to the

Claimant/Victim (see Exhibit 5). LeBlanc then further offered threats to the Claimant/Victim, by

10 No reasonable person, nor Judge nor Jury, in good conscience, can deduce that the alleged “illegal right turn” discussed in ¶ 11, constitutes “probable cause” which would legally authorize the Deputies to seize the Claimant/Victim’s property within the scope of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, especially in the absence of any Court issued documents. 11 As suggested by Deputy Cody in ¶ 2 above, this matter was the result of a Criminal investigation proper procedure would be to confiscate and secure the animal as evidence until the matter could be decided by a Judge. LeBlanc’s actions broke the chain of evidence which suggested that Clarke’s alleged criminal investigation was nothing more than a fraudulent unfounded threat.

9

stating that if any of the information he had given to LeBlanc were false, or there were any

“problems,” that LeBlanc would come back and arrest him for driving on a suspended license.12

20. The Claimant/Victim then had his son James Dixon drive him to the Casa Grande

City Court, and after determining that a previous civil traffic matter he previously thought had

been resolved, was still outstanding, paid the required fine. James Dixon then drove the

Claimant/Victim to the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicle Office (DMV). Upon receiving

the required documentation showing that the deficiency, which had resulted in the suspension of

the Claimant/Victim’s Driver License had been resolved (See Exhibit 6), the Claimant/Victim’s

Drivers license was reinstated (See Exhibit 7).

21. On December 3, 2009, at approximately 12:00 p.m. James Dixon, as discussed in ¶

18 above, obtained several affidavits from individuals asserting that Shilo was in fact owned by

the Claimant/Victim (see Exhibits 8-13). As previously instructed by LeBlanc, James delivered

said affidavits to the Pinal County Sheriff Office located at Trekell Road and Cottonwood lane in

Casa Grande. The documents were entrusted to a Sheriff’s Office employee to be given to

LeBlanc, for proper consideration.

22. On December 4, at 8:32 a.m. the Claimant/Victim contacted the Pinal County

Sheriff’s Office and left message requesting LeBlanc to contact him so a meeting could be

arranged to resolve this matter. To date no call has been received, and this inaction has resulted

in the filing of this Notice of Claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (A).

II. POINTS OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW

23. The above statement of facts sadly documents a shocking and repulsive account of an

arrogant abuse of authority perpetrated by the very individuals who have been entrusted by the

12 The Claimant/Victim was in fact never issued a citation or warning for the alleged illegal right hand turn which also implies that the deputies in fact staged the traffic stop, resulting in a brazen criminal scheme, executed in excess of the deputy’s authority.

10

citizens of Pinal County to abide by their solemn oath which pursuant to A.R.S. 38-231 (E),

clearly states that they are required to “… support the Constitution of the United States and the

Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona…”

24. Article II, Section 4, of the Arizona Constitution, definitively states that, “No person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” In addition, Article

II, Section 2, which precedes section 4, definitively states that, “All political power is inherent

in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and

are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Most importantly, Article II, section

1, which precedes all of the Articles of the Arizona Constitution, cited herein, definitively states,

“A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights

and the perpetuity of free government.”

25. There is no question that the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office has the duty to

investigate any matter which is brought to their attention. With this duty also comes the

responsibility to fairly and impartially conduct all investigations in a matter that protects the

Civil Rights of the all of parties being investigated. The Federal Courts have shown that they

have little or no tolerance for State Officials who fail to do so. See SCREWS v. UNITED

STATES, L325 U.S. 91 (1945) at Page 129; with the United States Supreme Court stating:

“…Generally state officials know something of the individual's basic legal rights. If

they do not, they should, for they assume that duty when they assume their office. Ignorance of

the law is no excuse for men in general. It is less an excuse for men whose special duty is to

apply it, and therefore to know and observe it. If their knowledge is not comprehensive, state

officials know or should know when they pass the limits of their authority, so far at any rate that

their action exceeds honest error of judgment and amounts to abuse of their office and its

11

function. When they enter such a domain in dealing with the citizen's rights, they should do so at

their peril, whether that be created by state or federal law. For their sworn oath and their first

duty are to uphold the Constitution, then only the law of the state which too is bound by the

charter…”

The United States Supreme Court further stated:

“…officials who violate it must act in intentional or reckless disregard of individual

rights and cannot be ignorant that they do great wrong. This being true, they must be taken to

act at peril of incurring the penalty placed upon such conduct by the federal law, as they do of

that the state imposes…”

26. As clearly shown in ¶¶ 1-2 above, Clarke, had already “tried and convicted” the

Claimant/Victim before he ever made contact with him. The callus and prejudicial manner in

which he conducted his investigation and phone interview with the Claimant/Victim, implies not

only that he had already established a “questionable alliance” with Carol Lee Dixon, but that he

would also go to any length to enforce his position by offering “threats” in an attempt to

intimidate the Claimant/Victim into surrendering property which the Claimant/Victim could

clearly prove belonged to him (See EXHIBITS 1-4). If Clarke, through his “investigation”, had

obtained evidence deemed sufficient enough to compel the County Attorney’s Office into

seeking a Criminal Indictment, then why didn’t he forward the matter to the County Attorney in

the first place? Why didn’t the Pinal County Sheriff’s Deputies properly refer Carol Lee Dixon

to the Justice Court who has been granted the authority to decide such matters instead of abusing

their limited authority by improperly taking the law into their own hands?

12

27. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1804 A.(5) “…A person commits theft by extortion by

knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain property or services by means of a threat to do in the

future any of the following:

5. Accuse anyone of a crime or bring criminal charges against anyone…”

26. An examination of the facts stated above in ¶12 within the meaning of the simple

language contained in A.R.S. § 13-1804 A.(1) “…A person commits theft by extortion by

knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain property or services by means of a threat to do in the

future any of the following:

1. Cause physical injury to anyone by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument…”

These same facts when considered within the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-1804 C. “…Theft by

extortion as defined in subsection A, paragraph 1 is a class 2 felony. Otherwise, theft by

extortion is a class 4 felony…” A.R.S. § 13-1804 C when examined in the contexts of the facts

unquestionably provides clear and convincing evidence that LeBlanc, and the unidentified

deputy have managed to have effectively taken the present level of corruption, already alleged by

the media and believed by the Public at Large to be particularly prevalent in the Pinal County

Sheriff’s Office, to a disgustingly new low by taking actions that equate to being nothing less

than a class 2 felony within the meaning of A.R.S. § 13-1804 C!

27. Additionally the facts stated above in ¶ ¶ 14 and 19, when considered within the

meaning of the simple language contained in A.R.S. § 13-1804 A.(7), which states that “…A

person commits theft by extortion by knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain property or

services by means of a threat to do in the future any of the following:

13

7. Take or withhold action as a public servant or cause a public servant to take or withhold

action…” the only question left to answer here is who is going end up under the bus, Sergeant

LeBlanc or Carol Lee Dixon?

28. The facts stated above in ¶¶ 1-2, 12,14, and 19 provide a preponderance of

evidence that Corporal Clarke, Carol Lee Dixon, Detective Goode, Sergeant LeBlanc and the

unidentified deputy, all knowingly and willingly committed the crime of theft by extortion within

the meaning of A.R.S. § 13-1804 as defined in subsection A, and set forth in paragraphs 1, 5,

and 7.

29. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1003A. “… A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent

to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons

that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and

one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense…” The facts as examined in

¶¶ 26-29 above leave no question that the individuals listed in ¶ 29 above, willingly and

intentionally conspired to commit the crime of theft by extortion as evidenced by the fact that

Shilo was unlawfully seized from her true owner as shown in ¶ 17 above, and further made

evident through (EXHIBITS 1-4).

30. As is the case with A.R.S. § 13-1003A, similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) states “…If

two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on

the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or

class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under

the laws…”

In addition 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) further provides:

14

“…in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged

therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby

another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or

privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action

for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more

of the conspirators…” Why is it that a federal law designed to combat and quash the Ku Klux

Klan after the civil war now can be applied to the actions of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office?

31. A.R.S. § 13-1003B. further states that “…If a person guilty of conspiracy, as

defined in subsection A of this section, knows or has reason to know that a person with whom

such person conspires to commit an offense has conspired with another person or persons to

commit the same offense, such person is guilty of conspiring to commit the offense with such

other person or persons, whether or not such person knows their identity…” Therefore it must

follow that Sergeant Cody, named in ¶¶ 4 and 5 above, while appearing to be an “unwilling

participant” in this Conspiracy, may also be guilty of the crime of theft by extortion as stated in ¶

29 above.

32. The federal question of Sergeant Cody’s guilt is easily answered by 42 U.S.C. §

1986 which definitively states, “… Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs

conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and

having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so

to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal

representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable

diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;

15

and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as

defendants in the action…”

33. There is no question that Sergeant Cody has the duty to abide by conform to the

solemn oath as discussed in ¶ 23, and to adhere to the principles stated in ¶ 24 and to properly

apply the laws as discussed in ¶ 24.

34. As provided by A.R.S. § 13-1003 C. “… A person who conspires to commit a

number of offenses is guilty of only one conspiracy if the multiple offenses are the object of the

same agreement or relationship and the degree of the conspiracy shall be determined by the

most serious offense conspired to…” Therefore as shown above in ¶¶ 28-34 and as provided by

A.R.S. § 13-1804 C. all six (6) of the above named parties may be found guilty of a Class 2

felony.

35. As shown by the facts stated in ¶¶ 2-4, 6-9, 13, and 16-22 above, the

Claimant/Victim has made every reasonable attempt to assert his Civil Rights, each time being

forcefully and intentionally denied any opportunity of being afforded the equal protection of his

rights guaranteed to him by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United

States of America, by the very individuals whom the Fourteenth Amendment commands to

uphold and provide due process protection.

36. Pursuant to A.R.S. 11-201 A. “…The powers of a county shall be exercised only by

the board of supervisors or by agents and officers acting under its authority and authority of

law.” This begs the question of what authority did the County act under in the actions taken by

its officer’s described in the paragraphs above?

37. A.R.S. 11-202 A. states that “…Each county is a body politic and corporate,

possessing all the powers expressly provided in the constitution or laws of this state and such

16

powers as are necessarily implied therefrom…” Therefore, it must follow, that the County, as

required of all branches of state government, must strictly adhere to all of the requirements of the

Arizona Constitution and that its purpose is that it has been established to protect and maintain

individual rights! It also follows that the County, pursuant to A.R.S. 11-201A.(1), “… has the

power to: Sue and be sued.”

38. The Supreme Court and Justice Rehnquist recognized the necessity for citizens to

be able to assert their Civil Rights in Federal Courts in PARRATT v. TAYLOR, 451 U.S. 527

(1981)101 S.Ct. 1908 by stating: “…The Court recognized as much in Monroe v. Pape, 365

U.S. 167 (1961), when we explained after extensively reviewing the legislative history of § 1983,

that "[i]t is abundantly clear that one reason the legislation was passed was to afford a federal

right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance or

otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights,

privileges and immunities guaranteed by the (Page 53) Fourteenth Amendment might be denied

by the state agencies." Id., at 180.

III. CONCLUSION

39. Surely, the County Officials whose private names appear on the first page of this

Notice of Claim, and who have been entrusted with the power, duty and obligation that their

official positions require, obtained their given authority, not through illegal seizure or

unscrupulous, tyrannical actions, but rather through the consent and approval of the honest

hardworking Citizens who elected them, based on their character, honesty and uncompromising

ability to recognize, strike down and correct a grave injustice whenever it raises its ugly head .

Over One Hundred (100) years ago, the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Lee,

106 U.S. 196 (1882), unequivocally stated:

17

“…No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law

may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest

to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.

The Supreme Court then sincerely added:

“…It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by

accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that

supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority

which it gives…”

40. The Claimant/Victim; in a good faith effort to allow the County a fair opportunity

to correct, investigate, prosecute and properly redress the grave injustices; which the County’s

duly sworn agents, while illegally masquerading under the color of Arizona State Law, have

undeniably, knowingly and maliciously caused to be visited upon the Claimant/Victim; which

has resulted in intentional, and willful deprivations of the Claimant/Victim’s Civil Rights,

Privileges and Immunities guaranteed to Claimant/Victim and all Arizona Citizens, by and

through the Supreme Law, which is the Constitution of the United States of America, as properly

stated in the Arizona State Constitution and further supported by other Arizona and Federal

Laws; the Claimant/Victim respectfully offers the following Terms of Settlement.

III. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

a. As just compensation for the County’s Duly Sworn Agents intentional, malicious and

illegal actions, which in return caused the Claimant/Victim to deprived of the constant support,

security, comfort, as well as love and affection of his companion Shilo, the Claimant/Victim will

accept $1,000.00 per day commencing on Wednesday December 2, 2009, until such a time that

18

Claimant/Victim’s irreplaceable, companion Shilo is safely returned to him, unharmed and in a

healthy condition as previously documented and made evident in attached (EXHIBIT 4).

b. As just compensation for the County’s Duly Sworn Agent’s intentional, malicious and

injurious behavior as described in ¶ a. above which has caused and continues to cause the

Claimant/Victim, constant worry, mental anguish, pain and suffering, loss of sleep, all of which

has manifested into a noticeable decline of the Claimant/Victim’s physical health and well-being

as made evident by a dangerous, and measurable increase in the Claimant/Victim’s blood

pressure, which in return has resulted in a decrease of the Claimant/Victim’s ability to

productively and safely operate heavy equipment, which in return has caused and continues to

cause the Claimant/Victim financial losses for which he will accept $1,000.00 per day

commencing on Wednesday December 2, 2009, until such a time that Claimant/Victim’s

irreplaceable Companion Shilo, is safely returned to him, unharmed and in a healthy condition as

previously documented and made evident in (EXHIBIT 4) and as previously stated in ¶ a. above.

c. As just compensation for the County’s Duly Sworn Agent’s having entered into a

conspiracy to extort his property by employing various threats as shown in ¶¶ above which

resulted in a blantent deprivation of the Claimant/Victim’s Civil Rights. The County shall pay to

the Claimant/Victim, no less than $50,000.00 composed of $10,000 for each of the County’s five

(5) deputies directly involved in this malicious and felonious assault on the Claimant/Victim’s

Civil Rights.

d. Claimant/Victim demands that the named deputies be immediately put on

administrative leave and a thorough investigation commence. Upon completion, a complete

report to be forwarded to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office for charging review. By this

statement the ClaimantNietim exercises his Right to be apprised of all phases of any resulting

prosecutions.

e. As to Ms Carol Lee Dixon, the ClaimantNictim also wishes that formal charges be

brought against her for False Reporting to a Police Officer, as well as any and all other Criminal

Charges deemed to be appropriate for her part in this Criminal Conspiracy. By this statement the

ClaimantNictim exercises his Right to be apprised of all phases of any resulting prosecutions.

f. ClaimantNictim reserves the right to seek civil relief in Federal Court against the

Conspirators, the County and its agents in their official and/or individual capacities if the

equitable relief is not granted.

Dated December2 2009.....

MarkDixon~z~P.O. Box 12695Casa Grande, AZ 85130(520) 705-2945

19