Shooter lawsuit filled with salacious details, accusations

178. When considering this issue, due to the lack of specific judicial guidance, the Congressional Research Service asserts there is strong legal precedent to look to historical instances of the exercise of its power to interpret and guide the proper uses and constraints of the Expulsion Clause. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45078.pdf.

COUNT ONE (Violation of Civil Rights and Aiding and Abetting And Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights)

179. The actors, described above, were acting, singularly or in concert, under color of state law.

180. Pursuant to 42 USC §1983 the coordination and actions taken and taken in concert by the Speaker and Adams, and the unconstitutional implementation of policies of the State constitute a violation of that Federal law.

181. Section 1983 provides that no person acting under color of state law may act to deprive another of the rights and privileges granted to them under the laws of either Arizona or the United States Constitution.

182. The actions of defendants deprived Shooter of his rights to due process and equal protection.

183. The actions detailed above are sufficient to establish a violation of 42 USC § 1983 and entitle Representative Shooter to his actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

184. The actions taken to expel Representative Shooter deprived him of a protected liberty interest. Representative Shooter lost his seat and was defamed at the same time. An individual who is terminated by the government has a protected liberty interest that is compensable if that individual is libeled at the same time. Montoya v. Law Enforcement Merit System Counsel, 148 Ariz. 108, 713 P.2d 309 (1985).

185. Defendants aided and abetted each other and conspired to deprive Mr. Shooter of his constitutional rights.

COUNT TWO (Defamation and Aiding and Abetting, and Conspiracy to Commit Defamation)

186. The allegations and opinions against Shooter which were evaluated applying a bogus policy, applied retroactively, and without the opportunity to respond to the investigators’ report are defamatory and were publicly disseminated in the independent investigators’ report and repeated as fact in the media.

This report includes salacious information some of which even the independent investigator found not relevant. For example, on a number of the charges the independent investigator’s report found that there was no credible evidence, and yet the House based its decision to expel Representative Shooter in part on the information contained in independent investigators’ report.

187. On information and belief, Defendants made defamatory statements to the press outside of legislative proceedings.

188. Upon information, Defendants knew that the statements they were making were false or they acted in reckless disregard of the truth.

189. Defendants are liable for this defamation, aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit defamation.

190. The State is liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

COUNT THREE (False Light Invasion Of Privacy and Aiding and Abetting, and Conspiracy to Commit False Light Invasion Of Privacy)

191. The allegations presented in the independent investigators’ report, and the intentional suppression of exculpatory information (which was suppressed at the direction of Speaker Mesnard), and Defendants’ statements to the press, place Representative Shooter in a false light.

192. Defendants are liable for this false light invasion of privacy and aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit false light invasion of privacy. The State is liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

COUNT FOUR (Wrongful Termination)

193. Representative Shooter was wrongfully terminated from his position of Representative of legislative district 13, resulting in loss of salary, fringe benefits, position, and most important, reputation. All defendants are liable for this wrongful termination.

Therefore, Plaintiff prays for damages against Defendants, and each of them, in a reasonable amount, for attorneys’ fees, for costs incurred, for us and for such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.

THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
(a) Enter judgment against the defendants and each of them;
(b) Enter a declaratory judgment declaring the acts of the defendant to be a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, equal protection, and due process and rights to public records;
(c) Award plaintiff all damages, costs, interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees for this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and other relevant statutes; and,
(d) Order such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

3 Comments

  1. More sweetheart contracts by the Ducey mafia?

    So lets examine what is on the table. The procurement officer for AZ DOA claims this with evidence, the DES Director claims this with evidence, the Appropriations Chairman claims this with evidence. All are fired and slandered after discovering and attempting to correct the misfeasance.

    No wonder Ducey wants to give the cops so much money, perhaps so they can continue to turn their heads. We can’t count on the Arizona Attorney General, Brnovich is attached to the same dark money sow as Ducey.

    Sad days for Arizona

  2. Most likely this isn’t limited to one or two departments, one only has to look at how director Jefferies and his staff were escorted out of the building over at DES before he was attacked by the same minions. As I recall his department was saddled with a overpriced underperforming software vendor that was also a large Douchey campaign contributor, go figure?

    The Oracle

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*