Gottschalk Federal Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION
DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, )

)
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
)
KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK, )
BARBARA LASSITER, Esq., )
MICHAEL MANELY, Esq., )
THE MANELY FIRM, PC )
HON. S. LARK INGRAM, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
HON. C. LATAIN KELL, )
JEANNE DIANE WOODS, )
HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY )
SONNY PURDUE, in his official ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
capacity as Governor of the State )
of Georgia, )
CASEY CAGLE, in his official )
capacity of Lieutenant Governor )
of the State of Georgia, )
THURBERT E. BAKER, in his )
official capacity as Attorney )
General for the State of Georgia, )
CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, )
F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL )
DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, )
MARSHA B. SAULS, in their )
official capacities as members of )
the GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF )
EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, )
COBB COUNTY, a political )
subdivision of the State of )
Georgia, )
GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, )
GENE THOMAS SCHRADER, HELEN W. )
COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE )
HARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. )
LENARD, JAN LIGON, in their )
official capacity as members of )
the GEORGIA COMPOSITE BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL
WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
THERAPISTS,
1
THERAPISTS,
SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN
GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON, and BOB
OTT, in their official capacity
as members of the COBB COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
SHERI M. SIEGEL,
EMMETT FULLER,
SUSAN VOLENTINE,
PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC,
ANN BOST,
LARRY O. BOST,
JANE DOE
JOHN DOE
Defendants
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Introduction
Dean Mark Gottschalk (“Plaintiff” or “I” or “Me”), of
Georgia, hereby asserts the following claims against Defendants
in the above-referenced action:
(1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of equal

protection of the law under the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution;
(2) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - denial of procedural
due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the
(3) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of substantive
due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the
(4) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3),
conspiracy;
(5) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Jurisdiction
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to:
a. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983(civil action for deprivation
of rights, 1985(conspiracy to interfere with civil
2
rights), 1986 and 1988(proceedings in vindication of
civil rights); and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3),
and (4)(civil rights and elective franchise), and
1367(a)(supplemental jurisdiction);
b. Pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent
claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises
under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set
forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715
(1966).
Venue based on Location of Parties and Events

2. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331
& 1391(a) because all the parties reside, work or operate
in this District and because the location of the civil
rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is in this District.
3. This complaint is not frivolous.
4. This is a proceeding for declaratory relief, and permanent

injunction, enjoining all defendants, and each of them, their
agents, employees and successors from continuing their policy,
practice, and actions depriving me of the privileges and
immunities as a citizen of the United Sates, as further set
forth herein.
Parties
5. DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff, 2589 Beckwith Trail,
Marietta, GA 30068, is an individual residing in Cobb County,
Georgia. I am a white, heterosexual male.
3
6. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK (“Defendant Gottschalk”), 3580 Oak
Knoll Dr., Marietta, GA, 30068, is an individual residing in
Cobb County, Georgia, and my former wife.
7. BARBARA LASSITER (“Defendant Lassiter”), 1700 Water Place
NW, Suite 306, Atlanta, GA, 30339, is an attorney licensed in
the state of Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and
represents my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the underlying
state litigation in the trial court presided over by Defendant
Kell. On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter is a
homosexual female.
8. HON. C. LATAIN KELL (“Defendant Kell”), 30 Waddell Street,

Marietta, GA 30090 is a judge of the Superior Court of the State
of Georgia, Cobb Judicial Circuit.
9. HON. S. LARK INGRAM (“Defendant Ingram”) is the Chief Judge
of the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Cobb Judicial
Circuit. At all times herein, Defendant Ingram supervises,
commands, and controls Defendant Kell.
10. JEANNE DIANE WOODS (“Defendant Woods”), 707 Whitlock
Avenue, SW, Suite G-5, Marietta, GA 30064,is a licensed attorney
in the State of Georgia and was appointed and did act as
Guardian Ad Litem in the Underlying Action.
11. HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5,
Marietta, GA 30064 (“Defendant Huff, Woods and Hamby”) is a
partnership one of whose partners is Defendant Woods, and who
employs Defendant Woods.
12. MICHAEL MANELEY (“Defendant Maneley”), 7 Atlanta St., Suite
C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is an attorney licensed in the state of
4
Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and represented
my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the Underlying Action at the
time it was presided over by The Hon. Adele Grubbs.
13. THE MANELEY FIRM, PC (“Defendant The Maneley Firm”), 7
Atlanta St., Suite C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is a professional
corporation formed in the state of Georgia attorney, employing
and supervising the efforts of Defendant Michael Maneley.
14. COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA,
30090, is a political subdivision of the State of Georgia.
15. SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON,
and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (“Defendant Board of
Commissioners”), 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA 30090, is the
governing body of Defendant Cobb County. Defendant Board of
Commissioners oversees and operates the administrative aspects
of the Cobb County court system.
16. SONNY PURDUE, State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334(“Defendant
Purdue”) is the governor of the State of Georgia.
17. CASEY CAGLE, 240 State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334
(“Defendant Cagle”) is the lieutenant governor of the state of
Georgia.
18. THURBERT BAKER, 40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334
(“Defendant Baker”) is the Attorney General of the State of
Georgia, who is responsible to protect the public as well as to
uphold the laws and the Constitution of Georgia.
19. CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL
DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, 237 Coliseum
Drive, Macon, GA 31217 (“Defendant Board of Psychologists”), are
all members of the Georgia State Board of Examiners of
Psychologists, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia,
5
formed to provide consumer protection and public health and
welfare through the regulation of the profession, and to
investigate and adjudicate complaints issued against licensed
psychologists.
20. DEFENDANTS GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GENE THOMAS
SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL,
JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, 237 Coliseum Drive,
Macon, GA 31217-3858, are all members of the Georgia Composite
Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage
And Family Therapists (“Defendant Composite Board of
Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage And Family
Therapists”), a political subdivision, charged by law with
regulating the practice of professional counseling, social work,
and marriage and family therapy in order to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the people of Georgia, by enforcing the
education and training requirements established by law for
licensure in each profession, by adopting and enforcing a code
of ethics governing licensees, by establishing and enforcing
continuing education requirements, and by addressing unlicensed
practice in these professions.
21. SHERI M. SIEGEL (“Defendant Siegel”), 122 Cherry St NE,
Marietta, GA, 30060, is a clinical psychologist who evaluated
the Minor Children, and who testified against me in the
Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
22. EMMETT FULLER (“Defendant Fuller”), 899 Burns St. SE,
Marietta, GA, 30067, is a licensed professional counselor,
practicing in Marietta, Georgia, and who provided therapeutic
counseling to me, but then testified against me in the
Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
6
23. SUSAN Z. VOLENTINE (“Defendant Volentine”), 2688 Tritt
Springs Drive, Marietta, GA, 30062, is a licensed psychologist
practicing in the state of Georgia and who testified against me
in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.
24. PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC (“Defendant Psychological
Affiliates”), 122 Cherry Street NE, Marietta, GA, 30060, employs
and directs the conduct of Defendants Volentine and Fuller.
25. ANN BOST, 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30068
(“Defendant Ann Bost”) is the mother of Defendant Gottschalk.
26. LARRY BOST 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30068
(“Defendant Larry Bost”) is the father of Defendant Gottschalk.
7
Plain Statement of Facts as Required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure
27. On May 2, 1998, I married Karen Ann Gottschalk. Two
children were born of our marriage, Lexi Gottschalk, born
on July 20, 1999 and Tanner Gottschalk born on July 24,
2002. Lexi Gottschalk and Tanner Gottschalk are minor
children (the “Minor Children”).
28. As life would have it, the marriage did not last. On
February 19, 2004, Defendant Gottschalk filed for divorce.
29. On March 31, 2005, Judge Grubbs granted a final judgment
and decree of divorce.
30. Defendant Maneley drafted an order that did not follow
Judge Grubbs’ verbal findings, and limited my time and
decision making beyond what was intended by the Court.
31. Judge Grubbs adopted the Defendant Maneley’s draft order
verbatim.
32. I was not made aware at the time that I had a right to
contest the inaccuracies in the order.
33. Unhappy with the result, Defendant Gottschalk sought and
found new counsel, Defendant Lassiter.
34. On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter harbors bias
and resentment against me because I am a heterosexual man.
35. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk conspired with each
other and acted to deny me my civil rights.
36. On April 24, 2006, by and through Defendant Lassiter,
Defendant Gottschalk filed a Petition for Modification of
Visitation under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3.
8
37. In the petition, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk
demanded that my contact with my children be supervised,
and my parental rights curtailed.1
38. Defendants embellished the facts alleged in the complaint,
that I had been “arrested for aggravated assault” by
threatening someone with a shotgun. I never admitted any
guilt, but had entered a plea under the authority of North
Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to a simple act of
pointing a weapon. I was never convicted of aggravated
assault.
39. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk alleged that I was
violent, and was a threat to my children. This was untrue.
The Shadow Justice System

40. Cobb County is somewhat unique among the Georgia counties
in the manner that is handles domestic cases involving
contested custody. There is a de facto “shadow justice”
system that functions by designating a Guardian Ad Litem
under U.S.C.R. 24.9, usually an old, established one that
has been doing it for 20 or 30 years, to “evaluate” the
case.
41. The Guardian Ad Litem then typically appoints a custodial
evaluator.
42. The attorneys for the parties go along with this process,
and refrain from a zealous advocacy for their clients.
43. The report and recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem,
made first to the parties and then to the Court, is more
1
In reality, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk likely wanted a change of
custody, but feared meeting the “material change in circumstances”
standard applicable. See O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. Instead they brought the
action as one seeking a change of visitation because such changes are
not subject to any showing of fitness or any change in circumstances.
9
than merely advisory, becomes the de facto ruling of the
Court, and are in practice extremely difficult to
challenge.
44. This system operates to protect the state actor
participants and quickly dispose of family law cases
without the need for a protracted trial on the merits.
45. The Cobb County Courts give great deference to the
appointed Guardians Ad Litem, and protect them.
46. Attorneys and litigants that challenge or fail to “go
along” with this shadow justice system are chastised by the
court officials through unofficial and official means, such
as the power of contempt, refusal to seriously consider
evidence, and declining to hear significant issues.
47. As a result, the Guardians frequently are allowed to ignore
the rules of court and Georgia law in the conduct of their
duties, including, for example, the filing of proper
motions, and rules regarding ex parte communications with
the Court.
Pre-Trial Actions
48. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk used their embellished
facts to attract the attention of the court.
49. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then conspired to have a
Guardian Ad Litem appointed in my case. Without a formal
request from either side, or motion therefore, Defendant
Grubbs, sua sponte, appointed a Guardian Ad Litem,
Defendant Woods. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Woods was
given full authority to access all of my medical records,
including my mental health records despite the existence of
Georgia law making such records absolutely privileged.
10
50. Defendant Woods has been acting as a Guardian Ad Litem for
over 20 years, is viewed as a “fixture” in Cobb County, and
the Cobb County Superior Court judges routinely defer in
substantial part to her judgment when she is appointed as a
Guardian Ad Litem.
51. Despite this being only a visitation case, Defendant Woods
furthered the conspiracy with Defendants Gottschalk and
Lassiter by filing a motion seeking a full custodial
evaluation by Defendant Siegel. Custodial evaluations are
done in cases where custody is at issue, which was not the
case here.
52. In that motion she represented that she had the agreement
of my counsel, however, I was never made aware of the
consequences of this action or that a full custodial
evaluation was being requested.
53. As a result of the mandatory custodial evaluation, I was
forced to undergo examination and evaluation by a custodial
evaluator.
54. Following the custodial evaluation, I was ordered to
undergo therapy with Defendant Fuller. I understood this to
be a confidential, therapeutic relationship. I was not
advised by Defendant Fuller that he could or would disclose
my statements or his impressions of me to Defendant Woods
or any other party.
55. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Fuller and Defendant Volentine
were both associates with Defendant Psychological
Associates.
56. As a result of the mandatory treatment, I was forced to
undergo weeks of examination and evaluation by Defendant
Fuller.
11
57. Defendant Fuller never administered any recognized tests to
me. Despite this, after a mere two weeks of “treatment”,
Defendant Fuller announced to me that he had diagnosed me.
58. Defendant Fuller shared his findings with Defendant Woods,
who in turn shared those findings with others.
Attempts to Hide Secret Custodial Report

59. Defendants conspired to keep the Siegel report secret from
professional review.
60. Defendant Woods requested special language intended to
punish unauthorized distribution of the report.
61. On information and belief Defendant Woods took this action
primarily in response to having been previously sued over
her recommendations in another custodial case.
62. Judge Grubbs thereafter issued an order that unauthorized
distribution of the custody evaluation report would be
punishable by contempt.
63. The same order directed that a copy was to be provided to
counsel and Defendant Woods.
Conspiracy to Issue Biased Report

64. Defendant Woods’ pattern of practice is to send business to
her close associates.
65. On information and belief, Defendant Woods and Siegel have
a long professional relationship.
66. Based on Defendant Woods recommendation, Defendants secured
the appointment of Defendant Siegel as the custody
evaluator in my case.
67. Prior to my meeting with Defendant Siegel, Defendants
Gottschalk and Lassiter submitted to Defendant Siegel a
12
mountain of alleged documentation critical of me that
Defendant Siegel admitted weighed at least 25 pounds.
68. On information and belief, this documentation was intended
to heavily bias Defendant Siegel, and skew the results of
her analysis.
69. Defendant Siegel thereafter conducted an examination and
evaluation of the parties, and issued a report finding that
I had no level of clinical pathology.
70. Even though there was no clinical pathology to support a
diagnosis, Defendant Siegel included statements in her
report that were highly critical of my parenting abilities
and my psychological well-being in her report, insinuating
and implying that I may have tendencies toward certain
conditions that may not be in the best interest of the
children.
Secret Evaluations of the Children

71. Defendant Gottschalk arranged without my knowledge and in
secret to take the Minor Children to Defendant Volentine
for evaluation.
72. On information and belief the purpose of the evaluations
was to establish a false record that I was a threat to my
children.
73. I was not allowed to know about these sessions, which I
discovered afterwards. I was not allowed to attend or
participate in these sessions.
74. Following the secret evaluations, Defendant Volentine
issued secret communications to Defendants Lassiter and
Gottschalk, insinuating that I might be a threat to my
children.
13
75. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then filed an
“emergency” motion on March 10, 2008, containing gross
exaggerations and embellishments of actions they claimed to
occur that were dangers to my children. That motion was
denied.
Secret Suggestions about Psychological Condition of Defendant

76. Defendant Volentine was retained by Defendant Gottschalk to
treat the Minor Children on a continuing basis.
77. Defendant Volentine did, from time to time, counsel the
Minor Children.
78. On information and belief, Defendant Gottschalk gave
significant false and misleading information about me to
Defendant Volentine.
79. Even though I was not her patient, Defendant Volentine took
it upon herself to contact Defendant Woods, and inform her
that Defendant Volentine believed that I may have a “high-
functioning form of Asberger’s syndrome”, and suggested
that I be evaluated for such a condition.
80. Defendant Woods received this information and then provided
it to Defendant Lassiter.
81. Defendant Volentine, despite having no therapeutic or other
relationship with me, then took it upon herself to research
for Defendant Woods professionals who “possess the
requisite skills to conduct such an evaluation”.
Illegal Attempts to Seize Counseling Records

82. Any attorney is presumed to know the law. Georgia law
provides therapist/patient privilege to confidentiality.
Defendant Lassiter is presumed to know this.
14
83. Despite this knowledge, prior to trial Defendants Lassiter
and Gottschalk attempted to secure my confidential
counseling records by sending a court-signed subpoena.
84. As a result, I was forced to pay my attorney to file a
formal objection and quash the subpoena.
85. Defendant Lassiter stated on occasion that “she would get
them” despite the legal privilege.
Ongoing Efforts to Harass and Intimidate

86. From the time the action was filed, until and through the
trial, Defendants Gottschalk, Ann Bost and Larry Bost
engaged in a continuous pattern of actions intended to
thwart my parenting time with my children.
87. Without limitation to specific acts, Defendants Gottschalk
and Bost continually attempted to usurp and limit my role
as parent, prevent me from communicating with my children
during extracurricular events and at other times, and to
encourage my children to believe that Defendants Bost and
Gottschalk are my children’s “true” family, and encouraging
my children to believe I was no longer part of their
family.
88. This matter came on for hearing on September 29, 2009.
89. At trial I was repeatedly denied my civil rights.
Surprise In-Chambers Announcement by Defendant Woods

90. On the morning of the second day of trial Defendant Woods
met the attorneys first thing and asked them to step back
into chambers to see the Judge.
91. Thereupon she proceeded to inform Defendant Kell, out of
the presence of the parties and the Court Reporter, that
15
she had just received information that “triggered” her
obligation to do a mandatory report to the Department of
Family and Childrens Services (“DFCS”) under the child
abuse statute, and had done so.
92. My counsel immediately objected to this disclosure, and the
unfair prejudice to the Defendant’s case, but Defendant
Kell declined to declare a mistrial.
93. Because Defendant Woods chose to reveal her information to
Defendant Kell in chambers, rather than in court on the
record, I was denied the opportunity to be present during
this testimony.
94. I sought, but was denied, the opportunity to cross-examine
Defendant Woods on any facts that supported her claim.
95. I have repeatedly contacted DFCS, and have been unable to
confirm that any investigation or report was made regarding
myself.
96. Upon information and belief, the intent of Defendant Woods’
actions was to prejudice the judge on the case against me,
to do so off the record where she could escape censure, and
to avoid having to introduce any actual facts.
97. As a result of Defendant Woods’ clandestine disclosures,
Defendant Kell’s perception of me was fatally poisoned, and
I was denied a fair trial.
98. As a result of Defendant Kell’s refusal to allow me to
cross-examine Defendant Woods, denied the opportunity to
challenge the evidence against me, and denied a fair
hearing.
16
Denial of Expert Cross Examination,
and Threats Against Counsel
99. During the trial I qualified my expert, Dr. Monty
Weinstein, PSY.D., M.P.A., D.A.P.A., N.C.P. Dr. Weinstein
is a Clinical Fellow of the American Association for
Marriage and Family Therapy. He is also a Fellow of the
American Orthopsychiatric Association. He has qualified as
an expert in custodial issues over 2,500 times in 45 states
and 4 countries. Recipient of the Distinguished Public
Service Award in Kings County, Adjunct Professor, Nassau
Community College, New York. Holds two masters and a
doctorate. Mentor at the New York University Graduate
School of Public Affairs. Supervised interns at Connecticut
State University in Family Therapy. Has an earned
doctorate. On the editorial advisory board for the American
Psychotherapy Association. Published numerous book reviews
for the American Orthopsychiatric Association. Chaired the
ethics committee in a psychiatric facility. Published fifty
journal articles in the area of mental health. Clinical
administrator for years at a large children's psychiatric
facility. Developed expertise on the deliverance of mental
health services by editing the psychiatric journal
reviewing book reviews, studying clinical administration at
New York University, and being a clinical administrator at
psychiatric facilities for numerous years.
100. Dr. Weinstein testified in the Underlying Action about my
qualifications as a parent, and my relationship with my
children.
101. I then attempted to have him testify about issues with the
Siegel Report.
17
102. When I attempted to have Dr. Weinstein critique the Siegel
psychological report, Defendant Kell became enraged, and
accused me and my counsel of having illegally distributed
the report to Dr. Weinstein.
103. Defendant Kell threatened to hold my counsel in contempt
for letting my expert review the report.
104. Defendant Kell refused to let Dr. Weinstein testify
regarding problems in the Siegel report.
105. As a result of Defendant Kell’s actions, I was denied the
opportunity to challenge facts and conclusions in the
Siegel report.
Seizure of Expert Report

106. Upon cross-examination, Defendant Lassiter demanded to see
the contents of Dr. Weinstein’s bag, and then demanded that
the court do an in-camera inspection of the bag, over the
objection of my counsel.
107. Defendant Kell personally searched Dr. Weinstein’s bag from
the bench, and seized certain reports therein, including
Dr. Weinstein’s own report of an MMPI-2 that he had
administered to me.
108. Defendant Kell had no right to seize Dr. Weinstein’s
personal reports.
109. Defendant Kell’s conduct was excessive, and cast a pall
over the courtroom and my conduct of the case.
110. The intent of these actions was to protect the court-
appointed experts from criticism, and to prevent me from
fairly litigating the competency of the Siegel Report.
18
111. As a result of Defendants’ actions, I was denied a fair
hearing, denied the opportunity to present significant and
material evidence, and denied due process of law.
Prejudicial Announcement by GAL During Trial

112. Prior to the conclusion of the trial in this case, counsel
for Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that the
Court impose supervised visits upon me while the parties
drafted and submitted written closing arguments.
113. Following this demand, Defendant Woods also then and there
asked for supervision.
114. Over the objection of my counsel, and without allowing
cross-examination of Defendant Woods, Defendant Kell
granted supervision, for one visit during one week.
115. This “one week” grew to ten weeks of supervised visits,
without any response, advice, or relief from Defendant
Kell.
116. The intent of this supervision requirement was to drive a
wedge between me and my children, to alienate them from
their father, and to deny me an active and meaningful role
in their lives.
117. As a result of this requirement, I was denied substantial
time with my children, and forced to pay a heavy burden in
supervision fees for the time I did have.
Refusal to Approve Supervisor

118. Once the supervision requirement was implement, Defendant
Woods then refused to approve reasonable supervisors other
than her favorites.
19
119. I attempted to get approval for the use of Phyllis McNeal,
a supervisor who has had hundreds of hours of prior
supervising experience, and had never been refused as a
qualified supervisor.
120. Despite this, Defendant Woods refused Ms. McNeal initially
on the basis that she did not have proof of passing a GCIC
(criminal background) screen, and she could not confirm her
malpractice insurance.
121. On November 5, 2008, I again submitted Ms. McNeal, after
receiving confirmation from Wagner Consulting that Ms.
McNeal had a clean GCIC report and confirmed her
malpractice insurance. A letter from Wagner was included
with the submission to Defendant Woods.
122. Despite receiving all of this information, Defendant Woods
still denied Ms. McNeal, this time adding a new requirement
that the supervisor have “clinical skills.” Defendant
Woods recommended two other supervising services, with
which she has “been familiar for at least fifteen years.”
Defendant Woods presented a “take it or leave it”
proposition, that if this is “not acceptable” that I must
“schedule a hearing before Judge Kell” so that he can make
the determination as to who will supervise.
123. The new “clinical skill” requirement was arbitrary and
capricious. It not only ruled out Ms. McNeal, but the
current supervisor as well, who had been writing reports
reflecting positively on my parenting skills.
124. As a result of Defendant Woods pattern of prejudicial
behavior, I filed a motion to have her recused from the
case. The motion was denied by Defendant Kell.
20
125. As a result of being denied approval for Ms. McNeal, I was
forced to use one of Defendant Woods’ hand picked
favorites, or miss time with my children.
126. As a result of Defendant Woods’ behavior, I was denied
substantial parenting time with my children, and forced to
incur burdensome supervision expenses.
Refusal To Sanction Defendant Volentine

127. Following Defendant Volentine’s unethical attempts to
diagnose me, her discussions of her impressions of my
condition with Defendant Woods, and her continuing
exclusion of me from counseling sessions with my children,
I filed a complaint with Defendant Board of Psychologists
outlining Defendant Volentine’s unprofessional and
inappropriate behavior.
128. Defendant Board of Psychologists failed to take any action
to discipline Defendant Volentine.
Refusal To Sanction Defendant Fuller

129. Following Defendant Fuller’s failure to advise me of the
lack of privilege, his ineffective and incomplete attempts
to diagnose me, and his discussions of impressions of my
condition with Defendant Woods, I filed a complaint with
Defendant Composite Board Of Professional Counselors,
Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists,
outlining Defendant Fuller’s unprofessional and
inappropriate behavior.
130. Defendant Composite Board Of Professional Counselors,
Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists failed to
take any action to discipline Defendant Fuller.
21
Refusal to Recuse Guardian
131. As the result of Defendant Woods’s attempts to prejudice
the court with factually unproven claims before and during
trial, I filed a motion to recuse her.
132. The filing of this motion upset both Defendant Woods and
Defendant Kell.
133. Defendant Kell denied my motion for recusal in an order
that made no mention whatsoever of Defendant Woods’
attempts to influence the Court by her in chambers
announcement at the start of trial.
Denial Of Emergency Access To The Court

134. Following Defendant Woods’ refusal to allow me another
supervisor acceptable to me, I then applied to the Cobb
County Superior Court for Emergency relief in order to be
able to see my children over the Thanksgiving holiday.
135. Initially, my attorney was told that an emergency hearing
would be granted.
136. However, when it came on for hearing, Judge Brantley
advised that he had made no decision to hear the matter.
137. He then, without entertaining my motion, asked for
Defendant Woods’ input into the case.
138. Defendant Woods was allowed to state on the record her view
of the case before I was allowed to present my motion.
139. Defendant Woods was further permitted to state that she had
not yet been paid her fees granted in the case.
140. I was not permitted to testify as to whether I was
willfully failing to pay the fees.
141. Instead, Judge Brantley simply ruled that I was guilty of
“unclean hands” and he would not hear my motion.
22
142. As a result, I was not permitted to see my children over
the Thanksgiving holiday.
Ruling
143. Subsequently, the Court issued a ruling forcing me to
attend therapeutic counseling with a psychologist hand-
picked by Defendant Woods.
144. The Court’s order further allowed Defendant Woods to talk
freely about me to the psychologist, totally invading and
denying me patient/therapist privilege.
145. The Court’s order further imposed supervision upon me at my
own expense until such time as Defendant Woods was
satisfied with my progress.
Count One: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Due Process)
146. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by
reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 145 above
with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
147. At all relevant times herein, I had a right under the due
process clauses of the state and federal constitutions not
to be deprived of my life, liberty, or property. U.S.C.
Const. Amend. 14.
148. At all times relevant herein, the defendants were state
actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985, and 1988.2
149. All Defendants acted to deprive me of my fundamental right
to the care, custody, and control of my children.
2
"Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged
action, are acting `under color' of law for purposes of Section 1983
actions." Dennis v. Sparks. 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).
23
150. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized
that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the care,
custody and control of his children. See Troxel v.
Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of
Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson, 345
U.S. 528 (1952).
151. This right has sought to be, and has been, injured and
foreclosed by all Defendants.
152. Defendants have conspired to and have injured and continue
to injure me by acting, aiding, and abetting in the conduct
of a proceeding in Superior Court, Cobb County, Georgia,
attempting to modify the visitation granted to me in my
divorce decree under the “best interest of the child”
standard adopted by the Georgia Legislature in O.C.G.A. §
19-9-3.
153. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have injured and
continue to injure me by the filing of a complaint, and
several subsequent motions, in Cobb County Superior Court,
seeking to limit and interfere with my established
parenting time with my Minor Children.
154. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have continued their
campaign for over four years, including the making of ex
parte communications with the court.
155. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, Woods and Kell acted to
deprive me of my ability to have my trial expert cross-
examine the expert witnesses against him.
156. Defendant Woods acted to deprive me of a fair trial by
intentionally making out-of-court statements to the judge
regarding her alleged mandatory abuse reporting, which
24
reporting has not been verified with the state agency to
date.
157. Defendant Woods and Lassiter acted willfully and
maliciously intending to prejudice and bias the trial court
against me.
158. Defendants Lassiter and Kell acted to willfully and
unlawfully seize and retain my expert’s private materials
without authority.
159. Defendant Kell acted to intimidate my counsel and harass my
expert by attempting to hold them in contempt of an order
that unreasonably restricted my right to prepare my case
and challenge the witnesses against me.
160. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure
to receive a fair trial.
to receive due process of law.
to receive my fundamental right to the care, custody, and
control of my children.
163. Defendants’ actions denied me a fair trial, my right to due
process of the law.
164. Acting under color of law, all Defendants worked a denial
of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
United States Constitution or by Federal Law and guaranteed
by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sought and
got court orders based on their actions.
165. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious
conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to due process of
law, of my right to the care, custody and control of my
25
children, and the due course of justice was impeded, in
violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments
of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec.
1983.
166. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which
would not otherwise have been incurred, and has suffered
the loss of the association and love and respect of my
Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by
the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all
compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
168. Defendants single me out for harsh treatment and
restriction of my rights to parenting time because of my
status as a heterosexual male.
169. Singling me out for harsh treatment and denial of my
parenting time rights on the basis my sex and sexual
orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
170. As a result of this harsh and discriminatory treatment, I
have been harmed by being denied the right to the care of,
and association with, my Minor Children.
171. The actions of Defendants are ongoing and they are
continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, limit and
restrict my right to the care of and association with my
Minor Children.
26
173. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my
injuries.
conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to equal
protection of all the laws, of my right to the care,
custody and control of my children, and the due course of
justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
COUNT THREE
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
177. Defendant Sonny Purdue acted to violate and limit my
fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my
children by signing and implementing O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3,
27
permitting judges to modify and restrict visitation without
the necessity of showing any material change in conditions,
or any lack of fitness.
178. All Defendants acted in concert to deprive me of my
Minor Children.
179. Defendant Kell acted to limit my fundamental right to the
care, custody and control of my children by holding under a
mere “best interest of the children” standard (O.C.G.A. §
19-9-3), that my visitation should be supervised and
substantially curtailed, and further imposing mandatory
counseling requiring that Defendant surrender my right to
patient/therapist privilege.
180. The action of Defendants are ongoing and they are
continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, limit and
restrict my right to the care of and association with my
Minor Children.
182. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my
injuries.
conduct, I was deprived of my fundamental right to the
care, custody and control of my children, and the due
course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth,
28
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered
COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. sec. 1985(3) (conspiracy)

186. All Defendants have conspire and acted in concert to deny
my civil rights.
187. The conspiratorial purpose was to deny me (i) my
children, (ii) my right to due process and a fair trial,
(iii) my right to equal protection of the law.
188. The conspiracy, as it developed, also emerged to protect
the participants in the unofficial “shadow justice” system
that operates in Cobb County family courts.
189. The first step in the conspiracy was taken by Defendant
Gottschalk when she retained Defendant Lassiter to
represent her, and they together the filed a complaint
making outlandish and derogatory claims against me.
190. All individual Defendants, other than those acting in their
official capacity for the State of Georgia, insinuated
29
themselves into the conspiracy and metamorphosed the
private actors into State actors.
191. This action took the form of involvement in some or all of
the litigation seeking to limit and deny my visitation with
my children.
192. The Defendants intentionally interfered with my exercise
and enjoyment of my clear and established rights secured by
the state and federal constitutions or laws of the United
States and/or the State of Georgia, and thereby deprived me
of those rights and caused me injuries.
193. As a result of the concerted unlawful and malicious
conspiracy of all the Defendants, I was deprived of my
rights to both due process and the equal protection of the
laws, the due course of justice was impeded, and my
fundamental rights to the care, custody and control of my
children was taken, in violation of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
194. The conspiratorial acts of Defendants were the legal and
proximate cause of my injuries.
30
COUNT FIVE
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

197. All Defendants acted individually and in concert to impose
cruel and unusual punishment upon me for challenging the
recommendation of Defendant Woods, and the Cobb County
family law “shadow justice” system.
198. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that
supervision be imposed upon my visitation with my children,
without any finding of fitness or danger to my children.
199. Defendant Woods recommended supervised visitation be
imposed upon me.
200. Defendant Kell imposed supervised visits upon me in his
final order as punishment for my actions named above and an
effort to prevent further exercise of my legitimate right
to petition the court for redress of grievances.
201. That all Defendants were aware of and approved of Defendant
Kell’s imposition of supervised visitation.
202. Defendant Ingram failed to supervise and educate Defendant
Kell.
31
COUNT SIX
42 U.S.C. § 1983:
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING3
205. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s
performance on the bench.
206. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s
continuing education and training in the application of
constitutional law.
207. Defendant Ingram failed to adequately supervise and train
Defendant Kell.
208. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Ingram’s
failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s imposition of
supervision on my visits with my children.
COUNT SEVEN
18 U.S.C. 1513: RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
3
See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
32
211. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeking to have my
expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defendant
Siegel.
212. Defendant Kell further retaliated against me for filing my
motion to recuse Defendant Woods.
213. Defendant Kell retaliated against me by issuing a final
order that imposed supervised visits, compelled me to
undergo psychological treatment, denied me my right to
patient/therapist privilege, and denied me my fundamental
right to the care, custody and control of my Minor
Children.
214. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Ingram’s
failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s imposition of
supervision on my visits with my children.
COUNT EIGHT
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
217. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeking to have my
expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defendant
Siegel.
33
218. All Defendants intentionally and recklessly inflicted
emotional distress on me by denying me my constitutional
rights, by forcing me to defend costly litigation for over
four years, by conspiring with other Defendants to deny my
civil rights, by retaliating against me for the lawful
exercise of my right to cross examination and presentation
of witnesses, and knew or should have known that emotional
distress was the likely result of their conduct.
219. Defendants’ conduct was directed at me.
220. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all
possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community.
221. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of my
distress.
222. The emotional distress I sustained was severe.
223. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous
conduct, I was, am, and, with a high degree of likelihood,
will continue to be emotionally distressed.
224. Defendants Board of Commissioners and Defendant Sonny
Purdue are liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
225. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous
conduct, I have suffered and will continue to suffer mental
pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment,
and humiliation.
34
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
226. A declaratory judgment that each and every §1983 cause of
action numbered 1 through and including 7 lies as a
violation of my civil rights.
227. A declaratory judgment that each and every common law claim
lies.
228. A declaratory judgment that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) permitting
reduction of visitation and imposition of supervision
“without the necessity of any showing of a change in any
material conditions and circumstances of either party or
the child” violates my fundamental right to the care,
custody, and control of my children under the Constitution
of the United States.
229. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
Defendants, jointly and severally, from continuing to
violate my civil rights under the United States
Constitution; and
230. Judgment, where available, and against all Defendants not
protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severally for
all actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the
amount of $5,000,000 and
231. Judgment, where available, and against all Defendants not
protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severally, for
punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury,
232. Costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such
other relief deemed to be just, fair, and appropriate.
35
This ___ day of April, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Dean Mark Gottschalk
36

Gottschalk Federal Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gottschalk Federal Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, )

Dean Mark Gottschalk (“Plaintiff” or “I” or “Me”), of

Georgia, hereby asserts the following claims against Defendants

in the above-referenced action:

(1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of equal

Venue based on Location of Parties and Events

4. This is a proceeding for declaratory relief, and permanent

5. DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff, 2589 Beckwith Trail,

Marietta, GA 30068, is an individual residing in Cobb County,

Georgia. I am a white, heterosexual male.

Knoll Dr., Marietta, GA, 30068, is an individual residing in

Cobb County, Georgia, and my former wife.

7. BARBARA LASSITER (“Defendant Lassiter”), 1700 Water Place

NW, Suite 306, Atlanta, GA, 30339, is an attorney licensed in

the state of Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and

represents my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the underlying

state litigation in the trial court presided over by Defendant

Kell. On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter is a

8. HON. C. LATAIN KELL (“Defendant Kell”), 30 Waddell Street,

The Shadow Justice System

Attempts to Hide Secret Custodial Report

Conspiracy to Issue Biased Report

Secret Evaluations of the Children

Secret Suggestions about Psychological Condition of Defendant

Illegal Attempts to Seize Counseling Records

Ongoing Efforts to Harass and Intimidate

Surprise In-Chambers Announcement by Defendant Woods

Seizure of Expert Report

Prejudicial Announcement by GAL During Trial

Refusal to Approve Supervisor

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Volentine

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Fuller

Denial Of Emergency Access To The Court

Count One: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

185. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by

196. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by

Dean Mark Gottschalk

S-ar putea să vă placă și