THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA / COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

John Andrew Clefstad,

Plaintiff

V.

The City of Santa Clara et al.

Defendants

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Claim No.

14-15-071

Jury Trial Requested
INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action to recover lost wages from pain and suffering inflicted by years of inaction on the part of the City of Santa Clara, paid for and furnished, and/or to be paid for and furnished, by the City of Santa Clara for many years of negligent and/or grossly negligent behavior leading to various stress-related illnesses (eczema; insomnia etc) caused by tortious, torturous and/or fraudulent conduct of defendants; to recover from defendants, lost wages and/or compensation for medical treatment and pain and suffering, and reimbursement for work opportunities missed, caused by the fraudulent and tortious conduct of defendants; and to restrain defendants and their co-conspirators from engaging in fraud and other unlawful conduct in the future.

2. Plaintiff brings this complaint for violations of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Part 1, Articles 1 and 2; Individual and associational rights under First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Voting Rights Act of 1965, section 11(a); Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter 1 > 1971 § 1971 (Voting Rights) [383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966)]; Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510 : US Code - Section 1510: (Obstruction of Criminal Investigations); 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - (Perjury generally); Title 18 U.S.C. - Chapter 73: (Obstruction of Justice); 18 U.S.C. § 1513 : US Code - Section 1513: (Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant); 42 U.S.C. § 1986 - (Action for Neglect to Prevent); Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights); 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights; California Constitution, Article 1 (Declaration of Rights) Sections 2 (Free Speech) 10 (Unreasonable Detention), 17 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment), 26, and 28 (1-6); CA Penal Code 182 (a) (Conspiracy); CA. Penal Code Penal code Sections 142 (a) and Section 145; Article 1, sections 1-2-3-10-17-26-28 of the California Constitution; Cal Civ Code § 1708.7 (2014) Stalking; California Stalking Laws Penal Code 646.9 PC; CA Penal code sections 118-131 (Perjury); CA Penal Code Section 182 (a) (2) (Obstruction of Justice); California Civ. Code §1714 (a) Breach of Duty (Negligence) of California general laws; CA Penal Code 415 PC (Disturbing the Peace); and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

3. Defendants have for many years sought to deceive about the health effects of their harassment and/or stalking and/or menacing campaign. Defendants have also repeatedly and consistently denied involvement in the harassment and/or stalking and/or menacing of Plaintiff, while evidentiary material gathered by Plaintiff strongly suggests otherwise. Even though Defendants have long understood not only the illegality involved in such behavior, but also the hazards caused by harassment and/or stalking and/or menacing. Defendants could have developed new strategies to counter this illegal behavior, but defendants chose and conspired not to do so. Defendants have repeatedly and consistently stated that they are sworn to protecting the public in a fair and equal fashion, while using questionable law enforcement techniques that clearly do not protect the public equally.

4. In all relevant respects, defendants acted in concert with each other in order to further their fraudulent scheme. Beginning not later than 2007, defendants, their various agents and employees, and their co-conspirators, formed an "enterprise" ("the Enterprise") as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). That Enterprise has functioned as an organized association-in-fact for almost 10 years to achieve, through illegal means, the shared goals avoiding the consequences of their actions. (Sunnyvale D.P.S.; George Hills, Inc etc – Obstruction of Justice etc etc etc) Each defendant has knowingly and/or perhaps unknowingly participated in the operation and management of the Enterprise, and has committed numerous acts to maintain and expand the Enterprise.

5. In order to avoid discovery of their fraudulent conduct and the possibility that they might be called to account for their conduct, defendants engaged in a widespread scheme to

frustrate public scrutiny by making false and deceptive statements and by concealing documents

etc that they knew would have exposed their public campaign of deceit. This scheme

included making false and deceptive statements to the public etc.

6. Defendants' tortious and unlawful course of conduct has caused plaintiff to suffer dangerous diseases and injuries. As a consequence of defendants' tortious and unlawful conduct, plaintiff has depleted all life insurance monies left to plaintiff by plaintiffs' deceased brother. The effect of defendants' fraudulent scheme and wrongful conduct continues to this day; as defendants are continuing their unlawful and tortious conduct; and, unless restrained by this Court, defendants are likely to continue their unlawful activities into the future.

I. JURISDICTION

7. Jurisdiction of this action is predicated upon 28 U.S. Code § 1343 - Civil rights and elective franchise; 28 U.S. Code § 1346 - United States as defendant.

II. VENUE

8. 18 U.S. Code § 1965 (a) (b) (d) - Venue and process; 28 U.S. Code § 1391 (a) (1) (2); (b) (1) (2) (3); (E) (1) (A) (B) (C) - Venue generally. Defendants in question have been involved in tortious and/or torturous conduct over a roughly ten year span. In addition, George Hills, Inc.;the City of Santa Clara and/or the Santa Clara Police Department among many others (the City of Sunnyvale; the Sunnyvale D.P.S. etc) , have not paid for and/or provided compensatory relief to plaintiff whose egregious stress-related injuries were caused by the negligence of defendants.

III. THE PARTIES

9. CITY OF SANTA CLARA POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; OFFICER PABLO LOPEZ; OFFICER GABRIELE SEAGRAVE; OFFICER DON PAOLINETTI; OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS, CITY OF SANTA CLARA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION, CITY OF SANTA CLARA ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (F.B.I.); DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (D.O.J.); NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (N.S.A.); GEORGE HILLS INCORPORATED; in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

Defendant Santa Clara Police Department has a principal place of business at 601 El Camino real in Santa Clara, CA. At relevant times, Defendant Santa Clara Police Department has failed to protect and serve plaintiff as required by defendants Oath of Honor. At times pertinent to this Complaint, Santa Clara Police Department, has individually participated in the Enterprise, and materially participated, conspired, assisted, encouraged, and otherwise aided and abetted one or more of the other defendants in the unlawful, misleading, and fraudulent conduct alleged herein. Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation; Department of Justice and/or National Security Agency failed to act upon plaintiffs' multiple requests for assistance. Defendants actions created a type of malicious prosecution which violated Plaintiff's Due Process rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983] and significantly wrongfully and maliciously defamed Plaintiff's character in the process. The Plaintiff has been deprived of significant liberties under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and Article 1 section 1 of the California Constitution..

See United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 266 (1967); Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960)[notice of accusation]; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 447-8 (1966)[illegal police procedures]; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404

IV. THE FACTS

10. STALKING is repeatedly and obsessively harassing someone in ways that alarm and frighten them. Commonly, stalking begins with annoying or threatening phone calls, letters, or electronic communications and escalates to constant following or surveillance. Stalking is a crime in every state, though it may be called by another name, such as criminal harassment. It can be difficult to convict someone of stalking because much of the behavior may be legal when looked at in isolation; only when acts are repeated intensively do they become intimidating and abusive, rising to the level of illegal stalking. > go to: http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/stalking-term.html

11. A) 6.6 million people are stalked in one year in the United States. B)1 in 6 women and 1 in 19 men have experienced stalking victimization at some point during their lifetime in which they

felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed. C) Using a less conservative definition of stalking, which considers any amount of fear (i.e., a little fearful, somewhat fearful, or very fearful), 1 in 4 women and 1 in 13 men reported being a victim

of stalking in their lifetime. D) The majority of stalking victims are stalked by someone they

know. 66% of female victims and 41% of male victims of stalking are stalked by a current or former intimate partner. E) 11% of stalking victims have been stalked for 5 years or more. > source: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/src/stalking-fact-sheet_english.pdf

A. The Formation of the Enterprise and the Nature of the Conspiracy

In the early 2000s, the harassment of plaintiff began in earnest after plaintiff attended Sunnyvale City Council meetings in early 2005 regarding the fate of the Peterson Middle School field. Plaintiff later published findings that suggest a relationship between night time disturbances at plaintiffs residence, and the actions of defendants. Note: Harassment of plaintiff may have been allowed to continue by the City of Santa Clara due to retaliation against plaintiff for past attendance at Santa Clara City Council meeting during the 1990s.

SEE: THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA + 1333 LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY + THE MARINA PLAYA APARTMENTS ETC = LAX ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ETC @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-city-of-santa-clara-1333-lawrence.html + TIMELINE: ACTIVIST TARGETED FOR DISSENT? @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/05/timeline-activist-targeted-for-dissent.html + EXTRA-LEGAL HARASSMENT @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/07/extra-legal-harassment.html + VARIOUS ADDENDUM BLOG POSTS SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA ETC @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/09/various-addendum-blog-posts.html

Adding to this; the City of Santa Clara and/or the Santa Clara Police Department; George Hills Incorporated executives; Sunnyvale D.P.S. and other unknown investigators (Perhaps the F.B.I through N.S.A surveillance?) closely monitored the tortious actions of defendants, and knew that if the public came to understand the true nature of the enterprise, trust and/or confidence in defendants would not only decline; but defendants would also face the prospect of civil liability and government regulation. In response to plaintiffs' claims linking stress and disease (eczema; insomnia etc), George Hills Incorporated formulated their "standard response" to the studies by rejecting and/or essentially attempting to cover up plaintiffs claims.

12. The fundamental goal of the Enterprise and conspiracy was to preserve and expand confidence in local law enforcement, even though they clearly do not deserve such trust. To achieve this goal, defendants' strategy was to respond to plaintiffs various accusations with fraud and deception. Rather than provide full disclosure to the public about what defendants knew or learned about the dangers and/or illegality of the stalking and/or harassment and/or menacing plaintiff was experiencing, defendants and their agents determined, in furtherance of this Enterprise and conspiracy, to outright deny stalking was occurring to plaintiff; instead allowing plaintiff to be accused of the same harassment plaintiff was experiencing.

13. Defendants sought to ensure that no one broke ranks from defendants' public posture, which was based on falsehood and deception. If defendants admitted that stalking was hazardous to ones' health, and/or that plaintiff was innocent, and/or that facts manipulated by defendants' research commitment was a sham, or that the local law enforcement (Don Paolinetti etc) was using children as part of their illegal enterprise, the conspiracy would be endangered. To further and protect the Enterprise and conspiracy and their profits, defendants: 1) made false and misleading statements to the public, 2) made false public statements that were intended to be heard by the consuming public; and 3) adhered to their common scheme of deception and falsehood, including, among other things, destroying and/or concealing documents.

14. To achieve this goal, defendants' strategy was to respond to plaintiffs' claims of adverse health consequences caused by plaintiffs' harassment and/or stalking and/or menacing with fraud and deception. Rather than provide full disclosure to the public and/or in judicial proceedings about what they knew or learned about plaintiffs' plight, defendants and their agents determined, in furtherance of this Enterprise and conspiracy, to deny that stalking caused and/or exacerbated plaintiffs' disease, despite having actual knowledge that stalking did cause disease in plaintiff.

15. Defendants sought to ensure that no one broke ranks from defendants' public posture, which was based on falsehood and deception. If defendants admitted that stalking was occurring to plaintiff and/or was hazardous to plaintiff, that stalking was illegal, that the delivery of plaintiffs' stalking was manipulated by Officer Don Paolinetti, that defendants' research commitment was a sham, or that local law enforcement relied on teenaged children to conduct their 'dirty work' (stalking etc), the conspiracy would be endangered. To further and protect the Enterprise and conspiracy, defendants: A) made false and misleading statements to the public through press releases, advertising, and public statements that were intended to be heard by the consuming public, and B) adhered to their common scheme of deception and falsehood, including, among other things, mischaracterizing and/or destroying and/or concealing documents.

16. Defendants and their co-conspirators committed multiple acts involving material fraudulent misrepresentations, fraudulent concealment, and fraudulent non-disclosures over the course of the last decade. Defendants' and their co-conspirators' acts of concealment took a number of forms, many of which are unknown to Plaintiff because such actions and concealment are within the exclusive knowledge of defendants.

1. Defendants liability for Violations

The District of Columbia and/or the State of California has statutes that prohibit unfair, unconscionable, deceptive and/or misleading practices, and individuals may recover damages for conduct that violates these statutes. The conduct of defendants and their co-conspirators, as set forth above, violated their duty imposed upon them by the below-cited statutes to refrain from engaging in unfair, deceptive, and/or unconscionable law enforcement practices.

Plaintiff brings this complaint for violations of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Part 1, Articles 1 and 2; Individual and associational rights under First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Voting Rights Act of 1965, section 11(a); Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter 1 > 1971 § 1971 (Voting Rights) [383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966)]; Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510 : US Code - Section 1510: (Obstruction of Criminal Investigations); 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - (Perjury generally); Title 18 U.S.C. - Chapter 73: (Obstruction of Justice); 18 U.S.C. § 1513 : US Code - Section 1513: (Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant); 42 U.S.C. § 1986 - (Action for Neglect to Prevent); Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights); 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights; California Constitution, Article 1 (Declaration of Rights) Sections 2 (Free Speech) 10 (Unreasonable Detention), 17 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment), 26, and 28 (1-6); CA Penal Code 182 (a) (Conspiracy); CA. Penal Code Penal code Sections 142 (a) and Section 145; Article 1, sections 1-2-3-10-17-26-28 of the California Constitution; Cal Civ Code § 1708.7 (2014) Stalking; California Stalking Laws Penal Code 646.9 PC; CA Penal code sections 118-131 (Perjury); CA Penal Code Section 182 (a) (2) (Obstruction of Justice); California Civ. Code §1714 (a) Breach of Duty (Negligence) of California general laws; CA Penal Code 415 PC (Disturbing the Peace); and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

SEE ALSO: http://likroper.com/CITYOFSANTACLARA3.wpd + http:/likroper.com/CITYOFSUNNYVALE3.wpd +

+ THE ADDENDUM BLOG @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/

+ AMENDMENTS TO THIS DOCUMENT @ http://likroper.com/CITYOFSANTACLARA4.wpd + http://likroper.com/CITYOFSUNNYVALE4.wpd

V.

1. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

A.

A1. Awarding damages, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law, to plaintiff, pursuant to Counts One and Two, for defendants' tortious and

wrongful acts, as alleged above, as follows:

1. Under Count One; awarding plaintiff money for damages for an amount that is sufficient to provide restitution and repay plaintiff for the sums it has spent or will spend, constituting, as provided by law, the reasonable value of hospital, medical, surgical, and dental care and treatment furnished and to be furnished, paid for and to be paid for, as a result of the wrongful conduct of defendants, which amount is to be determined at trial by a jury and/or judge. The plaintiff has suffered and in the future will continue to incur substantial monetary damages as a result of this same conduct. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between plaintiff and defendants regarding the ultimate legal and financial responsibility for these future medical expenditures.

2. Under Count Two; awarding plaintiff money damages for an amount that is sufficient to provide restitution and repay the plaintiff for the sums it has spent or will spend, past and present, pursuant to the plaintiffs' right, suffering from diseases and other health problems as a result of defendants' wrongful and unlawful conduct – which amount is to be determined at trial by a jury. The plaintiff has suffered and in the future will continue to incur substantial monetary damages as a result of this same conduct. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between plaintiff and defendants regarding the ultimate legal and financial responsibility for these future medical expenditures

2. DECLARATORY RELIEF: Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1657 - Priority of civil actions; that this Court declare that defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for future costs of hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care and treatment to be furnished, or to paid for, by the United States resulting from the past tortious and/or wrongful conduct of defendants.

VI. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

1. Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial either by one fair-minded judge and/or by jury on all issues so triable under counts one and two in this action.

DATED: 9 SEPTEMBER 2015

AMENDED: 10 SEPTEMBER 2015

RESUBMITTED: 10 MARCH 2016 + 6 APR 2016

John Andrew Clefstad

Plaintiff

___________________________