Objection to ALL Defendants Request for Dismissal and Request for Summary Judgement
1. Attorney for the defendants the City of Lake Station et al, including the Lake Station Police Department Mayor Christopher Anderson and other officers named including Detective Brian Williams of the Lake Station Police Department responded to the complaint filed by plaintiffs Sarah Covington mother and next friend and acting legal representation for all three minor children AJM, MRM, MLM. This is a civil rights case filed under 1983.
2. This document is to serve as the plaintiffs objection to all defendants requests for dismissal and request for partial summary judgement filed with this court on March 20, 2017.
3. This objection is made due to the facts of the case and the facts that the defendants named
have continued to directly and willfully deny plaintiff of her due justice, equal and proper protections under the law and have continued to deny her and her children of their civil rights. This objection is also made to include and reiterate the following facts which are the true basis of the case and which do in fact hold merit for this case to be heard by this court.
4. Plaintiff realizes that this case is unique it is complex and it encompasses several various
issues as well as shines the light upon corruption, discrimination, and the villainization of victims.
Those atrocities can be used for the greater good of all and for the real purpose. That purpose is to use this complex situation as a teaching tool for others in how our system is flawed, and how failure to educate persons in their rights as well as the continued denial of individual’s rights can and has resulted in a seriously urgent situation in which officials have erroneously ignored a serious situation. Furthermore, citizens need to learn that they do in fact have rights inability to stand up for their rights and that those rights are not dependent upon their ability to afford a high-priced attorney. It seems that over time a very dangerous pattern has formed of the courts ignoring civil rights, evidence, and of falsely prosecuting person’s and even stealing children. It simply must be known that The United States Constitution still in fact exists and that it is not just a set of “guidelines” it is not simply an “framework” it is in fact the Supreme Law of the Land and no mar is beyond its reach nor shall be excluded from the protection’s in which it extends to each and ever citizen.
No citizen regardless of “job title” can justly deny another citizen rf their civil rights including Magistrates, Judges, Lawyers, DCFS workers, Municipalities, Cir’s, and any other governmental agency. Those whom have been named in this lawsuit have discriminated against Plaintiff, and they have denied the Plaintiff’s of their civil rights and have ignored the facts and in turn have not provided Plaintiff’s with proper protections as afforded to them under the law. Plaintiff believes that her rights have purposefully and intentionally been denied by those whom were sworn to protect her. These atrocities have occurred while these persons were purportedly “working under
the color of law”.
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Plaintiff has filed a complaint with this court seeking relief that is available to this court and
that this court can provide, that relief comes in the form of fair and proper declaratory damages and statutory damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages, and damages for pain and suffering, lost wages, court costs, filing fees.
2. Plaintiff has filed on behalf of herself and on behalf of each of her three minor daughters
AJM, MLM, MRM, each defendant has been effected by the actions of those listed as defendants to this claim. All defendants named have contributed all or in part to the facts that have transpired and been depicted in this claim.
3. Sarah Jean Covington aka Anna Marie Malik and her daughters and co-plaintiffs AJM born 1999), (MRM born 2007), (MLM born 2009), are citizens of the state of Indiana. However, her minor daughters have been kidnapped and currently reside in Morris Illinois with their abusive and homicidal father Edward Malik. They were illegally removed from the custody and care of their mother Sarah Covington and placed with Edward Malik by DCFS erroneously, their value is priceless.
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS MET
1. This court holds jurisdiction over this proceeding due to the fact that my property is located within the state of Illinois, that property being my three minor daughters AJM 1999, MRM 2007, and MLM 2009. The court further holds jurisdiction over these proceedings in the interest of justice as this case pertains to corruption within the State of Indiana, and deep within the judicial system where the incident took place.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
2. This court holds subject matter jurisdiction over these proceedings in that these proceedings deal with the direct disembowelment of the Constitution of the United States of America; purposefully imposed and perpetrated by those named in this lawsuit as defendants. At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, each defendant was acting under the color of state law.
3. This court holds personal Jurisdiction matter jurisdiction over these proceedings in that these
proceedings deal with the direct disembowelment of the Constitution of the United States of America; and the numerous torts described and have been avoidable and purposefully imposed and perpetrated by those named in this lawsuit as defendants. At the time the claim( s) alleged in this complaint arose, each defendant was acting under the color of state law.
DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 1983
4. All Plaintiff’s moves that this court to act swiftly and without delay in the denial of their first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and fourteenth amendments as afforded to her under the United States constitution.
CIVIL TORT CLAIMS
All Plaintiffs moves this court to act swiftly and without delay in the civil including , Malice, conspiracy, denial of justice, malicious prosecution, police misconduct, prosecutor misconduct, coercion, submission of false evidence, fraud, unlawful detainment, unlawful restraint, assault and battery, perjury, practicing medicine without a license, discrimination based on sex, religion, disability, social status, abuse of power, breach of duty, malice, unlawful entry, trespassing, violation of privacy, aiding and abetting in a “legal kidnapping’s’ filing of false documents, keeping a prisoner longer than maximum hold time of 48 hours without arraignment, neglect of a minor child, child
abuse, child endangerment, invasion of privacy, alloying a known perpetrator of violence to enter a residence without the home owner’s permission, the unlawful of minor children, unlawful removal of a pet, gross negligence, failure to provide police procedure manual when requested by a private citizen, defamation of character, liable, failure to do a background check on a parent before placing minor children into his custody. Failure to protect a citizen’s in need of protection from a known perpetrator of abuse and suspect named in an attempted homicide.
On February 23, Officer Persur from the Lake Station Police had reported to Ms. Covington’s residence for a “welfare check” that had been called in by Edward Malik. Mr. Malik called in the welfare check because he was aware that the “public gas and electric service” tb the residence had been shut off for non-payment. The reason it had been shut off was because Plaintiff is disabled with Systemic Lupus and Mr. Malik was thousands of dollars behind in child support payments.
Ms. Covington’s property is fenced and gated at the property line, all the way around her entire piece of property. Officer Perser stood outside the gate and spoke to Ms. Covington about her sickness, and asked what she had done with the money Mr. Malik had sent. Ms.Covington explained to Officer Perser that she had no car, no way to get any assistance, and that she had Lupus and that Mr. Malik had fallen extremely behind and that there really was nothing she could do about it.
Mr. Malik had told Ms. Covington that he had voluntarily quit his high paying jib because he didn’t like it and he had decided to take a job “selling life insurance”.
Officer Perser told Ms. Covington that Mr. Malik had said that he was going to contact DCFS the following day. The police were aware of Mr.Malik’s intention of contacting DCFS in advance.
The following day and less than 24 hours later Ms. Covington heard a very loud banging on her front door.
She looked out and saw that there were now six fully uniformed and armed Lake Station Police Officers standing on her front porch with a woman. The woman stated she was from DCFS. Ms. Covington went out onto the front porch and shut the front door behind her. The
officer’s began asking Ms. Covington “prying and probing questions”. The officer’s asked her the same question’s that Officer Perser bad asked her the day before including what she had done with the money that Mr. Malik had sent. Ms. Covington told them she used it to pay the water bill. Ms. Covington has submitted all bank statements to show what and when Mr. Malik paid and what the funds were spent on.
The moment that the officers began asking “prying and probing questions” marked the beginning of a “police investigation”. Due to that fact, the officers should have read Ms. Covington her Miranda Rights prior to questioning her and prior to entry into her home. It is obvious that the officers had intentions of removing the children and entering Ms. Covington’s home without a warrant and that is evidence is obvious by the number of officers, their rank, and the fact that they were fully uniformed and armed. The sheer number and size of the officers intimidated and scared Ms. Covington and she felt that she had absolutely no other choice but to open the door and allow entry of her home.
However, no crime had been committed, the absence of “public utility services” is not an indicator of abuse and neglect of a child nor is the liberty of choice in using alternative energy to heat and light your residence. Ms. Covington had not committed any crime and by any means and no law exists that says she must use public utilities to heat and illuminate her residence. She had not neglected nor abused her children.
Ms. Covington had been a victim of Mr. Malik’s abuse for years and a victim of attempted murder and her children had been as much of a victim as she had. However, the police choose not to believe her and because they sided with Mr. Malik as a result they have aided and abetted him in what is known as an “legal-kidnapping”. I The entry into Ms. Covington’s home was’ fact illegal because the police had begun a police investigation while on the front porch an .had not read Ms. Covington her Miranda rights or informed her of a suspected crime before they entered her home. Their entry was unlawful, they used an excessive show of force and that excessive show of force was intentional, and was done so to escape the hassles of having to obtain a warrant which Ms.Covington believes they would not have been able to obtain because Ms. Covington really had not committed a crime.
The police and the DCFS worker, inserted their “opinion” that a person “should” have I “public utility services”. However, that statement or line of thinking is simply a matter of “opinion” and not a matter of fact or law. In fact, Ms. Covington has the liberty under the constitution to choose how she raises her children, and how she heats and illuminates her residence.
For the police or DCFS to use something as trivial as the lack of “public utility services” to illegally enter a residence, remove children from parent’s care, and arrest a tax paying citizen and thrown them in jail for 21 days on false charges is in a word unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution and the law is to be applied equally to all men, and the Amish, as well as many other smaller social groups “choose” to live off grid and to use alternative energy to heat and illuminate their home. In fact, many states give tax breaks to families who use alternative energy. The use of a wood burning stove and candles is not eminent circumstances, nor just cause, it was a poor excuse to deny Ms. Covington her constitutional rights and to unlawfully remove her children from her custody and care and give them to Mr. Malik. What they did was discrimination, and they have made an enormous and grievous error.
Furthermore, the conditions were no different than that of what many consider “vacation” or “camping”. The children were clean, healthy, fed, they went to school, they were happy, and they are very loved.
In Odonnell Vs. Lancing Mi. Fed Case No. 5:02-CV-143; this case nearly mirrors the plaintiffs, and it was the opinion of the Federal Court that since the officer’s entry into the residence was unlawful so was the removal of the children, and the arrest of the man involved. It was further ruled that the officers had interfered with the plaintiffs liberty and right to due process.
Since the entry of Ms. Covington’s residence was indeed unlawful; so was the unlawful removal of each of her minor children. And the attack of Ms. Covington was assault and battery as well as an unlawful arrest and an unlawful detainment. Ms. Covington was held for twenty-one days in the Lake County Jail and was not arraigned for two weeks nor made aware of her charges for that length of time. Ms. Covington simply did not commit the charges that have been placed I against her and they were in fact false charges. Furthermore, even if she had fought with the officers, since the entrance of her house was an unlawful entry Ms. Covington had every right to stand her ground according to Indiana’s castle doctrine Indiana Code IC 35-41-3-2 & IC 35-41-3-3 which states that a citizen is within his or her right to defend their property against unlawful or imminent force.
Furthermore, in Chief Johnson’s police report, it state that he had Ms. Covington’s arm and then she shoved him with both hands. It is not physically possible to accomplish what the Chief has reported. The Chief is a large man who over powers Ms. Covington easily.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW
All Plaintiff’s have all been denied their fourteenth amendment rights in the right to equal protection under the law. As a result, all plaintiffs are subject to further severe emotional and mental trauma as well as subject to a risk of physical damage from Mr. Malik. The defendants hold authoritative positions and have shown extreme misconduct and severe negligence in their failure to take action in protecting the girls and arresting Mr. Malik for his crimes. Each presiding Judge has been informed of the extenuating circumstances of this case and continue to fail to take proper actions and provide a solution. It is plaintiff’s belief that severe corruption i· at the core of the inaction of these person’s. Their refusal to take appropriate action in protecting the children and Plaintiff and to perform their jobs within the guidelines of the law and rights and protections in which the U.S. Constitution Provides evidence of that corruption.
Neither the Juvenile Court, Nor the Merrillville town court have ceased in their attempts to wrongfully prosecute and persecute Plaintiff even after she has filed a lawsuit against the court’s prosecutors and presiding judges. The cases have been continued as if Plaintiff had not ever filed a claim. The Juvenile court judge decided against Plaintiffs mothers motion to dismiss and has continued to allow the girls to reside with Mr. Malik even though he has been made aware of the danger’s.
FAILURE TO FULLY INVESTIGATE EVIDENCE OF CLAIMS
Mr. Malik is in fact dangerous and he has committed the very real act of attempting to kill Plaintiff for life insurance proceeds. He has apologized for one of his failed attempts on Plaintiffs life in which he nearly poked Plaintiff with a hypodermic needle. Mr. Malik has also told AJM that he regretted the action. While DCFS had entered into their CHINS documentation as purported “evidence” against Plaintiff that AJM had attempted suicide Ms. Protho did not obtain AJM’s medical records and notes in regard to her stay at Northlake Hospital for evaluation. Plaintiff did obtain those records and in those records AJM told the doctors about the poisoning, and she told them about the abuse she received from Mr. Malik and stated that he was the cause of her cutting, and of her suicide attempts; not Plaintiff. This failure to obtain the records is negligent, and shows how Ms. Protho has attempted to “twist” the truth into flat lies.
Plaintiff also has audio of Mr. Malik acknowledging and admitting to his attempt to kill Plaintiff with a hypodermic needle. on two separate audio files that Plaintiff obtained while they were arguing. ALL Officials have ignored the facts and have refused to lislet 10 the audio files.
Plaintiff contacted Detective Williams after she obtained the audio and she me with him at which time Detective Williams stated that Mr. Malik was a bad man and to stay away from him. Detective Williams had appeared angry when he listened to the audio. However, he refused to arrest Mr. Malik and he refused to investigate the situation fully. Detective Williams told Plaintiff “Guy’s like Ed get away with this type of thing all the time”.
Plaintiffs children have all been effected negatively by Mr. Malik’s actions and Authority’ figures whom have not wanted to take the time to listen, investigate, review evidence or to believe her.
Authorities have refused to believe what Mr. Malik has inflicted severe abuse upon her and his abuse that he had attempted to kill Plaintiff, they have further refused to believe that he did stand to gain millions in life insurance proceeds
Authorities have refused take proper legal actions against Mr. Malik and have failed to prevent Mr. Malik from ever harming Plaintiff or her children or any other unsuspecting woman again.
Authorities have ignored Plaintiffs valid complaints and have denied her due process, and equal protection under the law.
CORRUPTION A CONFLICT OF INTEREST & UNETHICAL PRACTICES
Additional Defendants added On January 30,2017 Plaintiff filed for an order of protection through the Lake County court due to the abuse she had suffered the fact that she had filed a lawsuit and the past attempts on her life that had been made by Mr. Malik. Plaintiff brought all evidence including a portable DVD player to court with her to show the evidence of Mr. Malik’s admittance of abuse. The presiding Magistrate Stephen E. Scheele, denied Plaintiffs request for an ex parte’ order of protection for the Minor Children and for an ex parte’ order of protection for herself. Magistrate Stephen E. Scheele, refused to review or view the evidence, was made aware of lawsuits against Mr. Malik and had viewed that the cases were filed in the docket. He ignored the dire situation and the attempts on Plaintiffs life and his decision denied all plaintiff s equal protection as provided under the law. The order of protection hearing was held on April 5th 2016 two full months later.
Then on April, 2017 Mr. Malik and Plaintiff appeared for a court hearing in regard to an order of protection. Plaintiff had requested orders of protection as recently as January 30, 2017 after the filing of the federal case. More than two months later On April 5th 2017 Plaintiff had a hearing in regard to the order of protection and it had been denied without the presiding judge Lisa Berdine reviewing the evidence.
Plaintiff had not been allowed to speak in the court, and the presiding judge had cut her off while she was trying to explain what Mr. Malik had done. Mr. Malik was present in the courtroom at the time. Plaintiff did not know whom the presiding judge was. There was no name plate, she did not introduce herself and she was not the same judge Plaintiff had in regards to her divorce. Later after the paperwork came in the Mail Plaintiff was informed the presiding Judge Lisa Berdine.
During Court Plaintiff had explained about the abuse, and had the police logs handy to show the judge. Plaintiff attempted to explain the situation including that Mr. Malik had poisoned her for insurance money. The Judge Lisa Berdine cut Plaintiff off mid-sentence talked over her and yelled at her when she in fact was the one who had rudely interrupt Plaintiff while Plaintiff had the floor. Lisa Berdine flatly refused to listen or allow Plaintiff to tell her what Mr. Malik had done, and refused to review evidence.
Lisa Berdine did ask Mr. Malik if he had anything to say about the allegations. Mr. Malik replied “no” he did not deny the allegations. Lisa Berdine did not take into consideration that Mr. Malik did not deny the allegations. Lisa Berdine then asked Mr. Malik if he had harmed Plaintiff and he stated, “yeah I hit her”. He never said that he did not poison her.
Lisa Berdine was made aware that Mr.Malik had tried to poison Plaintiff for life insurance and that he had abused her. Lisa Berdine refused to look at the evidence and ignored that fact. Lisa Berdine denied Plaintiff an order of protection, she failed to provide her fair and equal protection under the law. Plaintiff was not treated fairly. Lisa Berdine has not followed proper procedure and has denied Plaintiff her rights as afforded to her under the US. Constitution. As such Lisa Berdine has been added as a defendant to this cause.
Furthermore, Judge Lisa Berdine should not have presided over Plaintiffs case as it was unethical and a direct conflict of interest. However, because Plaintiff was not aware of what the Judges Name Was who was presiding as no name plate was present and she did not introduce herself Plaintiff did not have opportunity to rebut.
Lisa Berdine had been the appointed “public defender” for Plaintiffs oP+ CHIN’S case and Plaintiff had fired her because she did not want to properly defend Plaintiffs rights as afforded to her under the constitution. Lisa Berdine and Plaintiff had a heated argument over’ the phone as Lisa Berdine did not agree that Plaintiff had a choice in how she heated her home and that the police had interfered with her liberty and that they had no right to illegally enter her home seize her children and then arrest and jail her for 21 days when no crime had been committed.
Lisa Berdine had expected Plaintiff to forfeit her constitutional rights, and succumb to the whims of DCFS. Lisa Berdine had judged Plaintiff for being poor and disabled, she did not plan to defend Plaintiff she simply planned to walk her through the system.
Lisa Berdine’s presiding over Plaintiffs order of protection hearing is a direct conflict of interest and is unethical. It is this continued denial of Plaintiffs civil rights, and the denial of her children’s rights that has caused the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff believes that she has not been
protected properly and that proper procedure has not been followed in handling her case. As a result
of the level of corruption within the system, Plaintiff has lost time with her children she can never get back. And a man whom nearly murdered her has not only not been charged nor prosecuted, he has not been questioned, and he has been given the children. He has lied and manipulated the system and those who work within it, and due to their discrimination and stereotyping of Plaintiff her civil rights and the civil rights of her children have been revoked and denied.
CONTINUOUS DATE OF LOSS
Plaintiff has much more to add to her complaint against all parties, including all Judges and Magistrates whom have been named, as well as DCFS have purposefully and knowingly continued in their wrongful persecution and prosecution of plaintiff. They have continued to ignore her very real and very serious claims. Each day that she is away from her children is a loss as she will not ever be able to get that time returned to her and time with her is lost for them. It is for this reason that Plaintiffs “date of loss” is continuous and ongoing and is not simply related to any certain date but it is continuous and is dynamic. It is for this reason, Plaintiff’s civil tort claims should not be dismissed by this court.
ADDITIONAL LAWSUITS PENDING
Plaintiff has also filed suit against Mr. Malik at the State level for sett Ingher up with his friends, and for the years of physical and emotional abuse as well as attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Plaintiff has asked for the courts action in providing Plaintiff with due Justice and the arrest of Mr. Malik. Plaintiffs cases have not been read and have been ignored.
Mr. Malik has blamed the children for his acts of abuse. Stating that the children set him up or that they were mischievous and destroyed his marriage. Mr. Malik has also verbally attacked MRM for actions that it was later found he had done. Furthermore, Mr. Malik has purposefully broken items of value that belonged to Plaintiff in Plaintiffs presence out of anger.
The girls understand that Plaintiff has been abused by Mr. Malik and they are not the one to blame for absolutely anything that has occurred in the residence. The incidents that have happened are all hateful extremely malicious and have been the sale action of Mr. Malik. Mr. Malik has even posed as the children online and has attacked Plaintiff while pretending to be the children.
However, because of the verbiage that has been used as well as other very simple and easy to detect clues such as spelling and word placement Plaintiff is sure that it was not the children who have attacked her online but that it was Mr. Malik attacking her.
Loss of Possible Income and Wages
Plaintiff has suffered serious damages as a result of the way she has been treated by all whom have been named as defendants. Plaintiff has lost business opportunities as a result of her now tarnished background report. As a result, Plaintiff has lost wages and incentives that she could have earned but has been denied due to the charges that have been unlawfully placed against her.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has lost the benefit of living with and raising her minor, children until they were adults and ready to leave home on their own accord. Plaintiff has been treated like a criminal and she has been treated like a liar; while Mr. Malik, Mr. Victors, Cathy Boettcher, and Steven Penaloza and all others whom are involved and stand to gain from her death have all been allowed to roam free.
Response to Motion to Dismiss submitted by City of Lake Station et al.
The City of Lake Station would like this court to deny Plaintiff her most basic and fundamental rights as afforded to her under the united states constitution because she has filed this case as a Pro Se litigant. Plaintiff created a Non-Profit corporation the United Coalition for Social Equality Inc. which Plaintiff created in order to educate and provide assistance to persons whom have been discriminated against for any reason and whom are in need of assistance and education. Plaintiff is the sole shareholder of that corporation and is the legal representative of that Corporation. Plaintiff is also a citizen of the United States of America and as such she has a right to readdress the government without fear of reprisals. Furthermore, Plaintiff has a right to justice and to have her case heard regardless of any assumed “difference” that she may have. That right is not to be discarded for any reason including lack of funding for an attorney or exercising the liberty in representing herself. FRCP ll(a) was not meant to be construed to omit “everyday citizens” from filing their own lawsuits and signing the lawsuit themselves. However, this is a prime example of how the laws have been misinterpreted, twisted, and used to deny people of their constitutional right which is the Supreme Law of the land. All other laws, must be in alignment with the constitution and must not impede on any of the rights that have been afforded to us by it.
The notion that Plaintiff has no standing and has not alleged any injury caused by Mayor Anderson, Lake Station, Judge Matejczyk or the City Court.
Mayor Anderson was the presiding judge in Mr. Malik’s abuse case. Mayor Anderson did not enforce the plea agreement as it was written and due to that fact Plaintiff and her children have suffered severe and extreme mental and emotional torture which has been explained in detail throughout this document and the complaint and injunction that have been submitted to the court.
Furthermore, Mayor Anderson is the Mayor of the City of Lake Station as such he is the Commander in chief or “acting police commissioner” and the head of the Lake Station Police Department. He is in fact the boss of The Chief of Police and therefore he is liable for not providing proper education to his officers about how to properly investigate a crime, citizen’s basic civil rights,
and how to handle severe domestic violence situations, and empathize with the sick disabled and poor residents that reside in his community especially since Lake Station is not a wealthy community but home to many struggling family’s whom seem to be a target to these types of situations.
Judge Matejczyk and the City Court proceeded to prosecute Plaintiff for crimes she did not commit, kept her in jail for a period of time that was extremely excessive, and did not read her her rights at the time of her arrest, did not tell her what she had done wrong for a period of two weeks.
Then held her in jail for an additional seven days because she could not pay a $250.00 bond which from a financial stand point equates to $1.68 per clock hour for her time. In total Plaintiff was incarcerated for approximately 504 clock hours, her total bond was originally $750.00 at that amount and with the time served it comes out to $1.48per hr. To be denied your liberty and forced to live in inhumane conditions for crimes you did not commit, then labeled a “threat” and not allowed to visit with your children indefinitely after being a dedicated mother for twenty-one years. While the man whom truly is the criminal walks away with three daughters when there is a very real possibility that he may have raped her oldest daughter and their older sister.
Plaintiff has been robbed of her time, denied her rights to proper due process under the law, denied proper protections as provided under the law, discriminated against, and all defendants are responsible for the charges herein.
Judge Matejczyk has the choice of taking the prosecutors suggestion during a court proceeding however, he has a mind of his own and is supposed to think for himself, ask questions, and make informed and fair decisions. However, in Plaintiffs case and other cases Plaintiff
witnessed being presented Judge Matejczyk simply followed the prosecutor’s direction and did not think for himself and make thoughtful decisions. If this was the way that court was meant to be then we would have no need for Judges and we would simply have only prosecutors. Furthermore, when Plaintiff put in her plea of not-guilty and requested a jury trial Judge Matejczyk still did not review the case himself and still continued to prosecute her for crimes she did not commit, and an arrest that was not legal and should not have happened. For these reasons, Judge Matejczyk should be held accountable for his actions.
What’s more, Judge Matejczyk kept Plaintiff locked up in the County jail for an excessive amount of time for a crime she did not commit. Plaintiff did not see him for two entire weeks and then after she did see him, he sent her back to jail for an additional seven days because she did not have $250.00 bail. Plaintiff was treated harsher for a crime she did not commit than Mr. Malik had been for the act of strangulation. Plaintiff’s bail was set at $750.00 and Mr. Miik’S had only been set at $300.00. Mr. Malik had committed an act that could have resulted in the death of Plaintiff. Furthermore, Mr. Malik had committed that act in front of the children. However, Judge Matejczyk had chosen to allow the prosecutor to make his choices for him and not to review the case himself and make informed decisions on his own.
RE: The Lake Station Defense par. (D).
Plaintiff has already explained that the police had begun questioning while on her front porch and that she has a fully fenced and gated property. Police trespassed onto gated private property and began asking “prying and probing” questions of Plaintiff and asking her questions that she had been asked the day before by officer Purser. The act of asking the same questions less than twenty-four hours apart is harassment. Furthermore, the officer’s asking prying and probing questions marks the beginning of a police investigation. As such Miranda should have been read to Plaintiff before they had commenced questioning. Because Miranda was never read to Plaintiff and she was never informed of any type of “crime” at all by any of the Lake Station Police especially before they set foot inside her residence the police violated the fourth amendment. The police removed the minor children without any real reason and based solely upon “personal preference or personal opinion”, how one heats their residence is a matter of “liberty” or choice and not a criminal act or an act of child abuse nor child neglect under any law or statute.
In fact, many family’s live off grid and many states give residents tax breaks and other incentives to use alternative energy as the power company also gives residents who create their own energy incentives to do so by purchasing the additional energy from them.
Therefore, the officers committed the act of failure to mirandize and , their acts constitute more than a “mere inference” of misconduct. It simply was an excessive use of force, an abuse of power, pre-meditated and pre-conspired, and it certainly counts as three counts of the unlawful removal of minor children, trespassing, and the denial of liberty as well as harassment and discrimination of Plaintiff etc. It is for these reasons that this case should not be dismissed by this court and it should be heard by a jury.
RE: Lake Station Defense par..(E) No remedy under State Constitution.
Plaintiff stands corrected. The Indiana Constitutional violations did occur; however Plaintiff did not remember that because the rights generally overlap the United States Constitution and because the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and if a person or governmental agency were to deny or violate a person their state constitutional rights then they would have also of denied a Federal Constitutional right and you would then file your grievance with the federal government using the federal law as to not charge for the same “denial of I civil rights offence” twice.
RE: Defense (F)
The City of Lake Station Can Not Be Sued for a Civil Rights Violation.
Plaintiff has stated time and time again that the United States constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that No MAN or WOMAN including the President of the United states is beyond the reach of the constitution and the protections it provides. When it comes to the denial of our rights and civil liberties as American citizens it is a black and white matter there simply is no grey area. Cities, Mayors, Prosecutors, Judges, Lawyers, Doctors, Police Officers, anyone can all be filed against if they fail to perform their duties and in the process, deny the rights to those whom they have sworn to protect. The statement that they cannot be sued is preposterous, and the ninth
amendment states that no right can be used to undermine any other right that is in the constitution and that includes the eleventh amendment. In fact, even criminals and those whom are incarcerated still hold their certain inalienable rights.
RE: (H) Claim’s against officers in their Individual Capacities Under 1983
Defense states that Plaintiff allowed the officers into the residence. However, it has already been established that the officers had begun asking “prying and probing questions” while on the I front porch and that marked the beginning of a police investigation. As such the entry into the residence was illegal and forced. Further, there were 6 officers on Plaintiffs front porch including the chief of police. All of the officers were wearing uniforms and carrying firearms. Plaintiff is a single mother, law abiding citizen whom had been the victim of abuse for years. Plaintiff has no prior convictions or accusations in any court under any name. Plaintiff felt scared and intimidated of the officers and as if she had no other choice but to allow the officers to enter her home. The entry of Plaintiffs home was done under the excessive show of force used by the officers and by their using fear and intimidation tactics that are often used by police officers in order to gain entry or intimidate a “suspect” into giving access into a residence without a warrant, Plaintiff had not committed any crime nor had she been accused of any criminal act that truly constituted abuse or neglect of her children, no exigent circumstances existed. The DCFS worker and the officers responded to a call that the home did not have “public utility service”.
Officer Perser had already been to the residence less than twenty-four hours before and checked on the children and spoken to Plaintiff for the same exact issue. The Police and DCFS were harassing Plaintiff, they frightened and bullied Plaintiff and they have assaulted, wrongfully arrested, unlawfully seized and detained her and her children. They had then violated her civil rights to privacy by taking photographs after she had told them they could not, rummaged through her home which is an illegal search and unlawfully seized, detained and removed her children from her custody and care. The officers discriminated against Plaintiff because she is different, disabled, wiccan, single, and because she is poor. They purposefully and intentionally denied Plaintiff and her children of their rights as American citizens.
Furthermore, the Lake Station Police department including Detective Brian Williams failed to provide proper protection to Plaintiff and her children. Failed to properly and professionally investigate her claims and make an arrest of Mr. Malik for his crime of attempted murder and
conspiracy to commit murder of her. Detective Williams has denied Plaintiff her right to justice. Detective Williams was made aware of the possible rape of Plaintiff s daughter MMM by Mr. Malik, and he did not question her, he did not investigate the possible rape and forced abortion, and he may also have denied MMM of her right to justice.
The Lake Station Police and DCFS worker Spears had the option of taking Plaintiff and her children to a nearby warming shelter located in New Chicago. However, they did not do this and instead decided to deny Plaintiff of her rights and separate the family and put the children in harm’s way. Their actions have and will cause the children a life time of mental scarring and irreversible emotional damage from being ripped from their mother’s loving care, and then put into foster care then shifted to another foster care home and then moved again into Mr. Malik’s custody.
For the denial of justice committed by the Lake Station Police, Detective Williams, and the denial of civil rights and what the Lake Station Police have done they are each personally responsible for the acts as they are all American citizens and should be aware of the constitution and the law.
That the Federal Court does not handle Domestic Issues.
The issue is not simply a “domestic issue” this case sets president, and is controversial in that United States Citizens rights under the constitution are being constantly and continually ignored by both the system and the governing bodies with in the system. Any time a person’s civil rights have been denied regardless of the circumstances surrounding the denial or rights that citizen has a right to file suit. In this case Plaintiff has a civic duty to file suit as to inform society and bring into light the fact that anyone can purchase as much and as many life insurance policies as they are willing to buy and can afford on another person without their knowledge and consent. That person can then either wait until the person dies naturally or dies as a result of a person causing their body to become sick or murder.
The other issue is the Juvenile court and the complete abomination of the constitution and the protections it affords within the Juvenile Court system. Further, the complete absence of due process and the denial of civil rights in the way that parents and children are treated by the courts with no real regard for constitution or the safety and well being of the child. From the unlawful removal of the children by police, to the unlawful detainment and inhumane treatment of a prisoner for misdemeanor charges, to using the children as a tool for coercion and the denial of a person’s rights to parent their child based upon a difference in “opinion” and not a matter of law. To making decisions without proper hearings, and even while a conflict of interest exists and a after a lawsuit has been filed in a higher court. To failing to provide a fairness and equality based upon stereotypes, and discrimination.
This case is also a 1983 civil rights case because it also has to do with equality in how people are treated between the social classes, and it shows how people can allow division s and stereotyping and classifications to overrule their basic common sense, and how they hear at they choose to hear and ignore the facts, and will even choose to ignore the evidence when it doesn’t suit their needs.
RE: Request for a dismissal because the claim is unprecedented.
A case being unprecedented is not a real and true reason to simply dismiss a case. After all the law is made up of laws and statutes created by lawmakers such as family law, civil law, and criminal law, there is civil tort law, contract law, estate planning, constitutional law, and then there is case law.
Case law is probably where the largest amount of law is created. It is because of this fact that to state a case should be dismissed because it is merely “unprecedented” in and of would be self defeating and would be doing a dis-service not only to the plaintiff and her children but would also be a dis-service to society. There are many cases that have never been brought before the court in the past for many
reasons simply because as a person had not ever filed a claim. Furthermore, since each and every circumstance is unique surrounding a case when it comes to case law it would be safe to surmise that all cases are in fact “unprecedented” in one way or another. It seems that case law like so many other things in life are in a word forever evolving and simply “relative”. Which is also an issue brought into light in this case as all defendants have taken the position they have in not listening to Plaintiff when their entire case against and mistreatment of Plaintiff has been based solely upon their “opinion” and opinions are in a word “relative” to a person’s own personal upbringing, income, style, and family status, social status, and religious beliefs. However, when it comes to matter of law and right and wrong, such things are not supposed to play an active role in the decision-making process some things in life are simply black and white matters.
Therefore, for a DCFS caseworker to enter any residence and consider a residence in deplorable condition because a person does not have nice furniture, or simply hr different taste, is effectively “relative to that persons view of the world and what they think a home should be like in I their own opinion” however, that in and of itself opens the door to discrimination based on financial status and social status and the way they live compared to perhaps the way the poor lives. That inevitably effects that person’s opinion and their opinion is not a matter of law as the only place for “opinion” is the “opinion” of the judge or jury.
However, in this case all involved have over reached in their positions and have gone above and beyond their job descriptions and played the role of Police Officer, Case worker and Judge and Jury. In doing so they have submitted false evidence, made false statements, and have attempted to twist complaints made by Plaintiff into “complaints made against” Plaintiff. They had no evidence so they “created” evidence, out of police calls and reports that consisted of Plaintiff whom was the victim and complainant of the call. Plaintiff is not a trouble maker and there have been no complaints “against her”. They have labeled Plaintiff as a “threat” because she stated that she was going to file a lawsuit against them for how she had been labeled a treated by the court and DCFS and because they denied her rights from the very beginning.
Plaintiff refused to participate in any “Ms. Protho demanded” court ordered “services and evaluations” as there are no real grounds for such “probing and prying”. Furthermore, Ms.Covington sited that the state was suing her for her children and that it was up to them to prove their case, it is not Plaintiffs responsibility to give them the opportunity to create fabricated lies against her or further twist her words and actions.
Plaintiff has already witnessed lies and she will have to subpoena and court audio files and video files as well as court transcripts will show that her words have in fact been twisted from fact into “their version”.
Further as a result of the DCFS action against Plaintiff her name will b placed into a state registry of abusive parents. However, she is not an abusive parent and the addition I n of her name into any registry such as that constitutes defamation of character and libel.
Plaintiff is innocent of neglect and abuse and she is a law-abiding citizen and does not even use the word “bad” when speaking to her children but rather states “your behavior or is inappropriate and will not be tolerated!”.
Plaintiff is a dyslexia tutor and worked hard to learn how to help children to read. The addition of her name to any such registry can affect her future and her ability to tutor children or even foster children in the future. The actions of DCFS are effecting Ms Covington’s long term goals and are destroying her reputation and personal and professional image.
Plaintiff and her children are victims and Plaintiff has been persecuted for being single, disabled with Lupus, different or eccentric, and for being poor and of a lower social and financial status, and finally, because of her wiccan religious beliefs.
Further, DCFS simply does not wish to believe that Mr. Malik has in fact done what he has and they have made the erroneous choice of siding with him. To remove Plaintiffs children from her care, and then keep her from them, lie and tell her they are wards of the state the minute they were removed from her home, and tell her she cannot see or talk to them unless she gives up her constitutional rights is coercion and it is against the law.
Ms Covington is not a threat to anyone, however, she refuses to allow “the state” to deny her constitutional rights and refused to allow them to impede upon her rights as it is in a word “UN-Americana”. The CHINS laws is honestly a set of laws that are not in alignment with the
constitution and DCFS is operating under false pretenses and false allegations of charges of which not one shred of evidence exists against Plaintiff.
No evidence exists to back Mr. Malik’s lies because Plaintiff is not the person Mr. Malik has painted her to be.
While it is true that Plaintiff is not an attorney she still has rights under the constitution to file a grievance when her rights have been denied and they have. Plaintiff a so has the right to represent herself in a court of law. Plaintiff filed the case using her Non-Profit organization but did not know that it was a “issue” or a problem or not allowed. Plaintiff considers this a clerical error that could have been easily corrected and that Plaintiff has corrected on the face of this document and will correct on the amended complaint that will be filed once additional evidence surfaces through subpoena. Plaintiff accepts responsibility for the error and will correct it. Plaintiff and her children’s rights under the constitution should not be denied due to a clerical error. Furthermore, while Plaintiffs Organization is a “corporation” it is a non-profit organization created to help each individual American whom rights are discriminated learn and understand their rights and to defend those rights in a court of law.
Plaintiff filed a TRO and a request for an injunction from this court and had her TRO denied based upon a simple clerical error leaving Plaintiff, her children, and her daughter MMM and her parents Lucy and David Boettcher, in danger from Mr. Malik and his family. Plaintiff has come forward with the truth and Plaintiff has reason to believe that Mr. Malik and Cathy Boettcher and Anthony Victors all have ties with the Italian Mob and within the street gang 2-6. 4. Furthermore, the lower courts including the juvenile court and the family court and criminal court continue to attempt to wrongfully persecute and prosecute Plaintiff even though she has filed this case and the judges whom are prosecuting her should have recused themselves as they are named in this lawsuit as defendants. Ethically and legally speaking, they have broken the law the cases should have been halted upon the notification of filing of this case but they have refused to halt the cases and have continued to make judgement against Plaintiff. Obviously, any judgement made after this case was filed can be considered skewed.
However, Plaintiff so humbly preys that this court will find that the defense’s request for a dismissal is unfounded and that this case will be heard as each and every victim in this case deserves true justice. Furthermore, the action of this court is imperative to protect the rights of all citizens, and so that no further or future harm can occur to her daughters, her parents, or to her extended family as it is extremely possible that the Italian mob and the street gang 2-6 is involved and that members may hold life insurance policies on Plaintiff. Everything that Mr. Boettcher had told Plaintiff has come true, there is no reason not to believe that the Mob is involved.
Plaintiff and her children have suffered immensely as a result of Mr. Malik’s actions and the failure of The City of Lake Station, the Lake Station Mayor Anderson, The Lake Station Court, The Lake Station Police, Mayor Anderson, the Lake County Prosecutor, the Lake County Jail, and DCFS and all other Court’s Judges and Attorney’s involved.
Wherefore on April 16, 2017, Plaintiff Sarah Covington, aka Anna M.Malik, so humbly preys that this court hear her case and that it not be dismissed as it does have strong merit and is Based on hard evidence and solid grounds. It is imperative that this court hold those who have ignored the law and all Plaintiff’s civil rights and they simply must be held accountable for their
actions and that this court deny the defendants motions to dismiss accordingly.
Signed PRO-SE Date