IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA KEVIN A. ROSS, KEVIN ROSS PUBLIC AFFAIK THE LAW PRACTICE OF KEVIN A. ROSS, LLC, AND AND KEVIN ROSS POLITICAL CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT JAMES, DEKALB COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, in his individual Capacity, WILLIAM C. NIX in his individual Capacity, PAUL CHAMPION d/b/a CHAMPION, TREE SERVICES, JEFFREY WALKER, DION ALLEN, JOHN DOES 1-10 AND JANE DOES 1-10. ) ) ) d ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. COMPL: Plaintiffs Kevin A, Ross (“Ross”), Kevin Ross Public Affairs Group, LLC (“KRPA”), sulting Group, ‘The Law Practice of Kevin A. Ross, LLC (“KRLP") and Kevin Ross Political Ci LLC (*KRPC”); Ross, KRPA, KRLP and KRPC are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs") hereby make the following complaint against Defendants DeKalb County District , Paul Attorney Robert James (“James”), William C. Nix (*Ni champion d/b/a Champion Tree Services, Ine. (“Champion”), Jeffrey Walker (“Walker”), Dion Allen (“Allen”), John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 and respectfully show this Honorable Court the following facts.1. ASUMMARY OF THE CAS 1 Every one of the named Defendants maliciously tried to ruin the professional life of Ross, by making Ross the public target of a criminal investigation stemming from information that all Defendants knew was false. For example, Defendant Champion targeted Ross after Champion himself was under investigation by a DeKalb County grand jury because of suspected, fraudulent billing: Champion, a small company, went from billing approximately $50,000 annually to billing over $10 million after signing a contract with DeKalb County's Watershed Management—whose Deputy Director at the time Champion received these lucrative contracts was the brother of Champion's highly-paid “consultant,” Defendant Walker. In fact, DeKalb County has taken the position that Champion indeed did steal money; thus, DeKalb County has filed civil claims against Champion for—fraud, theft, and racketeering—to recoup the millions of dollars Champion allegedly stole. 2 Worried about being the principal target of both a criminal investigation and civil lawsuit, Champion deflected attention towards Ross—for entirely personal, malicious reasons—by conspiring with Defendants Walker and Allen to deliver a “Things to Know memorandum” to Defendant James (DeKalb County’s neophyte Distriet Attomey). Significantly, Defendants Champion, Walker, and Allen knew that said memorandum was 100 percent false— to the extent that Walker has now recanted and repudiated the Things to Know memorandum in its entirety, and Walker’s legal counsel has informed the DeKalb District Attomey’s office, on more than one occasion, that Walker does wor stand by the truthfulness or accuracy of the Things to Know memorandum. The situation gets worse.3. Defendants James and Nix, as public officials, knowingly abused their entrusted authority by publically targeting Ross for criminal indictment based on known, false information, Indeed, according to Nix, both he and James knew that (1) Defendant Walker and Champion (authors of the Things to Know memorandum) were “at the center of the DA Office Investigation for being involved in a “pay-to-play” scheme involving contracts awarded through Watershed Management ...”; that (2) Defendant Walker dad perjured himself before the grand jury; and that (3) DeKalb County had “an ongoing civil suit involving Champion” to recoup millions of dollars Champion allegedly stole. That knowledge, alone, rendered any accusation Jevied against Ross by Walker and Champion absolutely untrustworthy, to the point of requiring adequate corroboration. Yet, as the evidence demonstrates, James and Nix refused to conduct a mandated, reasonable investigation into the 100 percent false allegations contained in the “Things to Know” memorandum. Or, even worse, and more probable, James and Nix knew the memorandum was false but ignored its falsity, due to their own professional and political aspirations. Suffice to say, the law required more from these public officials. As such, Ross now seeks damages for the gross injustice perpetrated against him. I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE, 4, Ross is a resident of Fulton County, Georgia, 5. KRPA, KRLP and KRPC are all domiciled in Cobb County, Georgia, which their prineipal office located at 2255 Cumberland Parkway, Building 700, Suite B, Atlanta, Georgia 30339.6. Defendant Robert James (“‘James”) became the DeKalb County District Attomey in 2010 in a Special Election and in his short time in office has already demonstrated highly questionable character and competence, including, but not limited to, the following publicly documented examples: (1) James’s former Chief Assistant, Don Geary, a Jong time senior prosecutor, former Georgia Court of Appeal finalist and ex-Marine, came forward and accused James of serious prosecutorial misconduct in the prosecution of DeKalb CEO Burrell Ellis, allegations of misconduct that have not been resolved or disproven; and (2) James prosecuted cases in DeKalb County’s Recorder Court without any legal authority to do so, and now has withdrawn from such prosecutorial activity after a defense challenge to his unauthorized activity. In addition, and relevant to Ross, Defendant James violated multiple ethical standards by subpoenaing Ross before the grand jury, as if Ross were merely a witness, when in fact James had already targeted Ross as a criminal suspect, evidenced by James having Ross's home and office raided prior to the subject subpoena, Relevantly, the subject subpoena was quashed. James! improper and ill- considered conduct has weakened his standing in the legal community, such that he lost his recent bid for re-election to the State Bar of Georgia Board of Governors, a rarity. A resident of DeKalb County, Georgia, James is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and may be served at individual lames 556 North McDonough, Decatur, Georgia 30030. As is being sued in his capacity, public funds should not be used for his legal defense in this matter. 7. Defendant William C. Nix is a resident of Henry County, Georgia, and may be served at 4965 Cook Road, Stockbridge, Georgia, During the time of the events described in this complaint, Nix was the Deputy Chief Investigator in the DeKalb County District Attomey’soffice. He served as the lead investigator in the improperly intertwined Special Purpose Grand inal investigation of Ross. Nix Jury investigation into the Watershed Management and the crin executed under oath both a false and materially misleading wiretap application and search warrant affidavit. Nix is subject to the jurisdiction of this court. As Nix is being sued in his individual capacity, public funds should not be used for his legal defense in this matter. 8. Defendant Paul Champion d/b/a Champion Tree Services (“Champion”) is a resident of Gwinnett County with his principal place of business at 1520 Coleville Circle, Norcross, Georgia. In the words of DeKalb County, the same government of which James is a public official and Nix was public employee during the time period pertinent to this complaint, Champion prior to 2003 “earned approximately $50,000 per year with a small landscaping business” and “then moved his business to DeKalb County, where almost overnight he embarked on a multi-million dollar relationship with DeKalb County.” Champion’s scheme involved (1) hiring as paid consultants individuals who were related to high ranking officials in Watershed Management, with these very officials approving Champion's invoices in the face of objections of other Watershed Management employees about fraudulent overbillings; and (2) establishing and colhiding in the bidding process with a front company to obtain further work from DeKalb County and continuing to overbill. DeKalb County's position as to the Champion litigation is set forth in detail in DeKalb County's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed in October, 2014 (Exhibit A) and DeKalb County’s Forth Amended Counterclaim filed in May, 2014 (Exhibit B), Further, Defendant Champion has invoked the jurisdiction of the courts of DeKalb County as he is @ party to a lawsuit he initiated in Paul Champion d/b/a Champion Tree Service v. DeKalb County et al, Superior Court of DeKalb County, Civil Action File No.10CV3160-10, which remains pending as of the filing of this case. For these reasons, Champion is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Defendant Jefirey Walker is a resident of Broward County, Florida believed to be residing at 5741 SW 40" Court, Hollywood, Florida, Defendant Walker's brother is John Walker (now deceased), whe was the Deputy Commissioner of Watershed Management, and during the time John Walker was Deputy Commissioner, Defendant Walker became a highly paid “consultant” of Champion, As stated, Defendant Walker attempted to destroy the professional life of Ross by delivering a “Things to Know memorandum” to James, a memorandum Defendant Walker later recanted in its entirety. During the time of the events described in this complaint, Defendant Jefitey Walker was a resident of DeKalb County, transacted extensive business in DeKalb County, and committed tortuous acts within DeKalb County against Plaintiffs as a joint tortfeasor with Champion and Allen. For these reasons, ‘Walker is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Defendant Dion Allen is a resident of DeKalb County, Georgia residing at 5561 Petite Place, Lithonia, Georgia 30058. Allen lied to the DeKalb County District Attorney's office, claiming that he owned 100% of a company named Superior Pipeline Services, Inc., when in fact, Jeffrey Walker was found to be a secret owner in the company after the execution of search warrants by the DeKalb County District Atlomey’s Office against either Walker or Allen, or both. In fact, Allen perjured himself before the Special Purpose Grand Jury by providing “substantiation” of a document which was a completely fabricated. During the time of the events described in this complaint, Defendant Allen transacted extensive business in DeKalb County 6n DeKalb County against Plaintifs as a joint tortfeasor with and committed tortuous acts wil Defendants Champion and Walker. For these reasons, Allen is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, ity John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 are persons in the DeKalb County District Attomey’s Office who participated with James and Nix in the civil rights violations committed against Ross, and whose identities and specific actions in the commission of these civil rights violations are in this case. presently unknown, but will be revealed in discovery and subsequent proceedings John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 will be added as party defendants by amendment to this complaint when their identities and actions are ascertained. 12. John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 are persons who participated with Champion, Walker and Allen as joint tortfeasors in their tortuous actions set forth in this Complaint, and whose identities and specific tortuous actions are presently unknown, but will be revealed in discovery and subsequent proceedings in this case. John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 will be added as party defendants by amendment to this complaint when their identities and actions are ascertained, 13. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Georgia, Article 6, Section 2, Paragraphs 4 and 6 and O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31I, FACTUAL BACKGROUND PERTINENT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION A. ROSS’ EDUCATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS __AND__CIVIC BACKGROUND 4. Ross is a 197 graduate of Darmouth College and a 1980 graduate of Emory Law School, where he graded onto the Emory Law Journal by placing in the top 5% of his first year class, Ross was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1980, and has been continuously admitted as a member of the Georgia bar since that time. 15. During his thirty five year career, Ross practiced with three commercial law firms: ‘Associate - Long, Aldridge (now McKenna, Long, Aldridge) 1980-88; Parner - Hurt, Richardson, Gamer, Todd and Cadenhead (now defunct) 1989-1992; and Partner - Hunton & Williams 1992-2002. While a partner at Hunton & Williams, an 800 plus lawyer national law firm based out of Richmond, Virginia, Ross was selected by the firm’s Executive Committee to be the Managing Partner of the firm’s Atlanta office, a role which he held for four years and during which time period the firm’s Atlanta office doubled in size from approximately 50 Iawyers to 100 lawyers. In being selected as the Atlanta’s office managing partner, Ross became the first Affican-American lawyer in the firm’s century plus history to become a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, 16, In 2002, Ross established his own practice of three interrelated firms, KRPA which primarily represented businesses in local government matters; KRLP, a law practice; and KRPC, a political consulting firm. During the period from 2003 through 2013, Ross’ businessesaffiliated with two of America’s largest law firms, Bryan Cave (formerly Powell Goldstein) from 2003 to 2011 and Greenberg Trauig from 2011 to 2013. 17. During his career, Ross has been involved in numerous high profile legal representations, a sampling of which include: (j) serving as outside general counsel to the Morehouse School of Medicine in the transaction during which period the school became independent of Morehouse College; (ii) serving as general counsel to the Atlanta Fulton County Recreation Authority during the time leading up to the Olympics and the development and construction of Tumer Field and Philips Arena; (ii) geting as co-counsel for a class action of Georgia cities and counties against the online travel industry, which resulted in a settlement providing millions of dollars in additional transient occupancy tax collections for Georgia local governments (including DeKalb County); and (iv) serving for more than twenty years as legal counsel to Public Broadcasting Atlanta. 18. During his career, Ross has provided campaign management, consulting, advice and ‘guidance to successful candidates for the United States Congress, for local government executive office (Mayor, CEO, Commission Chair), local government legislative office (County Commission, City Council and School Board), state legislative office (Lieutenant Governor, State House and State Senate) and judicial races (local and statewide). Ross also managed numerous successful referenda which have generated hundreds of millions of dollars for the City of Atlanta and the Atlanta Board of Education, Ross has been sought out for and has provided management, consulting, advice and guidance to current and former office holders andcandidates around the nation, often times without asking for or receiving any financial remuneration in return, 19. During his career, Ross has played prominent roles in the bar. In his third year of practice, he was elected President of the Gate City Bar Association. For years, he was active with Gate City’s successful efforts to increase the appointments of more African American lawyers {0 judicial positions. In addition, Ross has been active in legal education in Georgia, having served for more than a decade on the board of the John Marshall Law School and having, provided leadership to the school in its successful efforts to obtain full American Bar Association accreditation. 20. During his career, Ross has been active in the alumni affairs of his undergraduate and law schools. He served on the Dartmouth Alumni Council and was nominated by the Alumni Couneil to stand for election to the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees. For five years, Ross held the Donald L. Hollowell Professor of Law at Emory University as an adjunct professor, during which time he taught hundreds of law students Federal Civil Rights law and Election Law. Ross was honored as one of Emory Law School's distinguished alumni in 2000. 21. During his career, Ross has been active in the civic life of Atlanta. He chaired the Atlanta Charter Review Commission from 1995 to 1996, which resulted in the current City of this regard directly led to a major ethical enhancement in the City Atlanta charter. His worl of Atlanta governance, i.e., the establishment of an internal auditor. Ross also chaired (i) the transition committee of Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard after his first election as 10Fulton County’s DA; (ii) the annual conference of the National Conference of Black Mayors; and (iii) a City of Atlanta Labor Pool Task Foree, which proposed legislation that he drafted which was subsequently enacted for the reform of the City’s labor pools. While a partner at the firm of Hunton & Williams, Ross conceived a project for a community legal clinic to provide legal services to the working poor, which clinic is still in existence nearly twenty years later. Ross has also served on numerous civic boards throughout his cater 22. Ross has held since 1988 to the present time an AV pre-eminent Peer Review Rating with a 5.0 out of 5.0 rating from Martindale Hubbell, a national service which gathers information on. lawyers from his or her professional peers and rates lawyers on their legal knowledge, analytical capabilities, judgment, communication ability and legal experience. 23. Between 2002 and 2012, Ross built a substantial professional practice, mostly centered around Jocal government matters, one in which he represented Fortune 500 companies, large national and international businesses, regional and local businesses, small businesses, and occasionally governments. It was a practice that was national in seope and in addition to clients based and headquartered in metropolitan Atlanta, included clients headquartered in Denver, Colorado, New York, New York, Phoenix, Arizona, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Houstor Texas, Cincinnati and Dayton Ohio, and Jacksonville and Miami, Florida. Further, it was a practice where many of his client relationships were of many years duration, in some cases nearly two decades. Ross’ practice grew every year in its revenue generated from 2002 when he started KRPA, KRLP, and KRPC. On a regular, annual basis, Ross received inquiries from multiple possible new clients and formed new client relationships each year. Ross worked hardand diligently on behalf of his clients, represented them in an honest and forthright fashion, and in so doing, earned their trust and confidence as well as their referral of other clients. B. DEFENDANTS CHAMPION, WALKER AND ALLEN DEVISE AND EXECUTE A SCHEME DESIGNED BOTH TO SHIELD THEMSELVES FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND TO MALICIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY DAMAGE PLAINTIFFS" BUSINESS. 1. Defendants Champion and Walker's dealings with DeKalb County result in fraud, theft and racketecring claims by the County in excess of $3 million against Champion as well as grand jury scrutiny. 24, Prior to 2003, Defendant had a relatively small tree landscaping business in Birmingham, Alabama which generated approximately $50,000 in annual revenue. 25. In 2003, Defendant was awarded a contract with DeKalb County, Georgia to perform tree cutting and easement clearing services for Watershed Management. 26. At some point in time during the term of this 2003 contract, Walker became a paid consultant to Defendant Champion. Walker, who had no expertise or prior experienee in public policy maiters or in tree cutting or easement clearing, received hundreds of thousands of dollars as compensation from Champion with respect to Defendant 2003 contract with DeKalb County and subsequent contracts between Champion and DeKalb County. 27. Walker’s brother, John Walker (now deceased) was the Deputy Commissioner of Watershed Management during the period of time that Champion was a party to the 2003 contract with DeKalb County and while Defendant Walker, his brother, was acting as a 12consultant to Champion and receiving substantial compensation from Champion as to this DeKalb County contract which was personally be overseen by John Walker. 28, During the term of his 2003 contract with DeKalb County, Champion billed the county the staggering sum of more than $10 million. Throughout the term of this contract, numerous county employees in Watershed Management raised serious, substantial concerns about fraudulent overbilling by Champion. John Walker, Defendant Walker’s brother, would overrule these employees and approve Champion’s payments. 29. ‘Champion entered into another contract with DeKalb County in 2007. Defendant Walker continued to act as a consultant with respect to Champion’s 2007 DeKalb Contract and his brother continued in his role as the Deputy Commissioner of Watershed Management for the ‘County until his death in 2007. Under this contract, Champion billed and collected from DeKalb County another $3 million, even though there continued to be ongoing serious and substantial concerns expressed by employees in Watershed Management that Champion was fraudulently overbilling the County. 30. In February 2010, after Burrell Ellis had become DeKalb County’s CEO, Champion sued DeKalb County to collect an outstanding invoice in the amount of approximately $900,000. 31 On April 16, 2010 DeKalb County brought a multi-count counterclaim against Champion, including counts for fraud, theft by deception, theft by conversion, racketeering, and punitive damages. The counterclaim sought $3.1 million in damages for the fraud and sought to 13recover treble damages (3 times) the compensatory damages (ie., $9.3 million) on the racketeering count, This litigation is still pending today, more than five years after the suit was initially commenced and the County is still pursuing millions of dollars in damages from Champion. (A copy of the civil docket for this litigation as of May 27, 2015 is attached as Exhibit “B”), 32, DeKalb County amended its counterclaim on November 12, 2010 and March 29, 2011 ‘and reasserted its causes of action for fraud, theft by deception, theft by conversion, racketeering and punitive damages against Champion. 33. In January, 2012, the DeKalb Superior Court, at the request of James, convened a special purpose grand jury (the “SPGJ"), ie. a civil investigatory grand jury, to investigate the award of contracts let by Watershed Management for the period of time from 2002 to 2010, which includes the period of time that Champion was awarded his contracts with DeKalb County. In a contemporaneous press report regarding the convening of the SPGJ, the DeKalb County/Champion contracts were specifically identified as matters the SPGJ would be investigating. (Exhibit “C 2, Defendants Champion, Walker and Allen formulated a scheme designed to deflect the grand jury and media attention away from their improper dealings by making false allegations of wrongdoing by Ross. 4. In early 2012, Champion was embroiled in contentious civil litigation with DeKalb County having asserted against him three times (in April, 2010, November, 2010 and March, 2011) counterclaims for fraud, thefi and racketeering seeking to recover millions of dollars in 4damages. In addition, both Champion and Walker were facing SPGJ scrutiny as to their dealings with DeKalb County. Adopting the approach that the best defense is a good offense, even if that offense is based entirely in lies, Defendants Champion and Walker came up with a scheme and plan to deflect the grand jury and media’s attention away ftom themselves and onto Ross. Specifically, the scheme involved Defendants Champion and Walker claiming the mantle of innocents and making false, unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing and corruption against Ross. 35. Walker wrote a three page memorandum entitled “Things to Know”. The Things to Know memorandum is undated, unsigned and unattributed and does not contain on its face any information which would identify its connection to Walker, Champion or Allen. It is not swom to under oath or in any way verified as to truthfulness. ‘The Things to Know memorandum es and makes various assertions alleging improper, illegal and mentions Ross’ nine (9) corrupt activities and behavior on Ross’ part. 36. Walker has acknowledged and admitted that he had no personal knowledge or any factual basis as to any of the allegations made against Ross in the Things to Know memorandum, Walker has acknowledged and admitted that these allegations were either based upon rumors (“things he had heard”) or were completely fabricated. 31. Walker has also admitted that in writing the Things to Know memorandum he was motivated by intense personal animus and malice towards DeKalb CEO Ellis because numerous DeKalb County Watershed Management contracts as to which Walker had been a consultant and 15receiving compensation had ended or were ending and his sister, Joy Walker, had been replaced by DeKalb CEO Ellis as the Chief Judge of the DeKalb County Recorders Court. 38. Walker has also admitted that in writing the Things to Know memorandum he also harbored personal animus and malice toward Ross, because of what he perceived to be Ross’ influence with DeKalb County CEO Ellis. 39. Champion retained Robert (Bob) Wilson of the law firm Wilson, Morton & Downs and a former DeKalb County District Attomey to represent him both with respect to the civil litigation with DeKalb County over Champion’s billing and with respect to the SPGJ proceedings. On February 24, 2012, Bob Wilson, his partner Stephen Quinn and Champion had a meeting with the DeKalb District Atiomey’s office and delivered the Things to Know memorandum in furtherance of Champion and Walker’s scheme of diverting attention from the scrutiny they were under before the SPGI by making false allegations of impropriety against Ross. The DeKalb District Attorney Office has expressly referenced this meeting and identified the delivery of the ‘Things to Know memorandum as the beginning of its investigation into Ross in both its application for a wiretap on Ross’ telephone and its affidavit for a search warrant to search Plaintiffs’ offices and Ross” home. 40. Champion and Walker continued the execution of their scheme in their appearances and testimony before the SPGI. In this regard, they were aided and assisted in their scheme by Defendant Allen, Specifically, Allen falsely testified before the SPGJ as to matters made up by ‘Walker in the Things to Know Memorandum. 16Al Champion also continued the execution of their scheme by making several media appearances with his attorney Bob Wilson, during which Champion protested his innocence and the direction of where the stated that he had pointed the DeKalb District Attomey’s office corruption actually existed 42. Among the false allegations made against Ross in the Things to Know memorandum is that he was on the payroll of a firm named MM&E, and that he forced a client of his (Inland Pipe) to end its subcontract relationship with Superior Pipeline Services, Inc. (“Superior”) and replace it with MM&E. Like everything else in the Things to Know memorandum as it pertains to Ross, these statements are demonstrably false in that Ross has never represented MM&E as a lawyer or consultant or had any business or financial relationship with MME, and he had no role in any decision made by Inland Pipe as to its subcontractor relationship with Superior. 43. Allen, who was purportedly the sole owner of Superior, testified falsely before the SPGJ that Ross brought about the termination of his subcontract with Inland. The word purportedly is used in the prior sentence because the DeKalb District Attorney Office Jeamed that both Allen and Walker had dishonestly sought to conceal Walker’s ownership interest in Superior, 44. Allen further participated in the scheme 10 divert the SPGJ and DeKalb District Attomey’s attention away from Champion and Walker by providing the alleged “substantiation” of the Things to Know Memorandum, when he testified falsely before the SPGJ. Allen’s false “substantiation” of the Things to Know Memorandum was subsequently used by the DeKalb 7District Attorney's Office to obtain a wiretap authorization on Ross’ cell phone and a search warrant for Plaintiffs’ offices and Ross’ home, 45. Walker has recanted and repudiated the Things to Know memorandum in its entirety. Moreover, Walker's legal counsel has informed the DeKalb District Attomey’s office on more than one occasion, including as early as the summer of 2013 that Walker docs not stand by the truthfulness or accuracy of the Things to Know memorandum, 46. To the best of Ross’ knowledge, he has never met Champion, Walker, or Allen, 47. Champion, Walker and Allen’s scheme was successfull in that it caused the DeKalb District Attomey’s office to criminally investigate Ross, 48, alculation as to their scheme and the Things to Part of Champion, Walker and Allen’ Know memorandum was that Ross, due to his long standing involvement and profile in professional, political and civie matters, ineluding his work with DeKalb County CEO Ellis, would be a target of greater interest to both a brazenly ambitious young DeKalb District Attorney and to the media. Champion, Walker and Allen's scheme worked as evidenced by the fact that even though there was a highly detailed, extensive passage in the SPGJ report about Defendant Champion's improper business dealings with DeKalb County, and even though Champion and Walker were identified with Ross and others on the list of individuals who the roportionately focused SPGI recommended for further criminal investigation, the media more atiention on Ross. Indeed, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution in August, 2013 ran a 18. with a picture and insert, as a lengthy front page article on the SPGJ report and included Ros “major player in the DeKalb corruption scandal”, while neither Champion, a business owner that DeKalb County was then and is now suing for fraud, theft, and racketeering in the overbilling of consultant Walker, whose brother was overseeing the the County in excess of $3 million, nor contract and approving the fraudulently billed invoices, were identified as a “major player” nor had their picture or insert included in this AJC sto 49. Throughout this entire period of time, Ross had no knowledge of the contents of the Things to Know Memorandum, or its specific allegations against him, because the document remained seal under the request of the DeKalb District Attomey Office. 50. Champion, Walker, and Allen’s scheme was intended to cause and did in fact cause Ross to suffer and experience extensive negative publicity and was designed to substantially injure and interfere with and did in fact substantially injure and interfere with Ross’ existing and prospective business relationships. 31 ‘The investigation, brought about by the fabricated and completely false Things to Know memorandum authored by Walker, “substantiated” by Allen and hand delivered to the DeKalb District Attorney's Office by Champion and his attomeys Bob Wilson and Stephen Quinn, caused Ross to suffer and experience extensive negative publicity and caused Ross to sustain substantial injury and loss of his then existing and prospective business relations 19DEKALB DISTRICT ATTORNEY ROBERT JAMES ACTING IN CONCERT WITH HIS CHIEF INVESTIGATOR NIX AND OTHERS, MAKES A FALSE AND _MATERIALLY MISLEADING APPLICATION FOR A WIRETAP_ON ROSS’ TELEPHONE AND MAKES A FALSE AND __MATERIALLY MISLEADING AFFIDAVIT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OFFICE AND ROSS" HOME. 52, James, as the DeKalb District Attorney controlled, supervised, directed and had personal knowledge of the entire proceedings of the SPGJ that he convened in January, 2012 and the improperly intertwined, interrelated criminal investigation of Ross. The SPGI was a civil investigatory grand jury, under the control, supervision, direction and manipulation of James. Defendant Nix, working under the control, direction, and supervision of James, was the Chief Investigator of the DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office in 2012 and 2013 and in such role had intimate involvement in the improperly intertwined SPGJ and criminal investigation into Ross, which came about after the delivery of the Things to Know memorandum to the DeKalb District Attorney Office by Defendant Champion and his lawyers. 33. Sometime during the course of 2012, the DeKalb County District Attorney's office determined that Kelvin Walton, the County’s Director of Procurement, had been engaged in illegal conduct, some of which involved dealings with Champion. Under a threat of criminal prosecution, Walton became a confidential informant of the DeKalb County Distriet Attorney's office under the direct control, supervision and direction of James and Nix. Walton began secretly recording conversations with various individuals, including Ross. As a result of ‘Walton’s status as a confidential informant of the DA’s office, James and Nix had direct personal knowledge of developments and circumstances taking place in the Procurement Department in 20real time from the point when Walton became a confidential informant through the time that they applied for both the wiretap application and the search warrant, 54. ‘Walton demonstrated that he was a notoriously untruthful and dishonest person. While ing as a confidential informant for the DA’s office, Walton failed multiple lie detector tests, prompting the DA's office lie detector test vendor to ask Walton why anyone should believe anything Walton said. Further, Walton in a civil deposition in the Chempion/DeKalb County case invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination hundreds of times, 55. On December 3, 2012, Defendant Nix, working under James’ control, supervision and direction made under oath on behalf of James an application for a wiretap application for the purposes of intercepting felephone calls made to and from Ross’ cell phone and office lines. The wiretap application contained numerous false statements. 56. First, the wiretap application identified the Things to Know memorandum as the document which initiated the investigation into Ross and stated that the Things to Know memorandum had been substantiated by Defendant Allen's sworn testimony before the SPGI. Defendant Allen’s testimony before the SPGJ was petjurious. 57. The falsity of the Things to Know memorandum and Defendant Allen's perjurious testimony could have been ascertained by a minimal amount of legitimate, professionally conducted investigatory work on the part of the DeKalb County District Attorney's Office 258. Given that Walker and Allen had indicated signs of dishonesty and deception in providing false information to the DeKalb District Attomey’s Office about the true ownership of Superior, and because it was obvious that Walker and Allen were working in concert, it was unreasonable for the DeKalb District Attorney’s Office, James and Nix to rely upon Allen's SPGI testimony as independent “substantiation” of the Things to Know memorandum 59, Nix did not contact Inland Prior to making the wiretap application, Defendants James and Pipe to seek the truth regarding the circumstances and history of Inland’s subcontract relationship with Superior. Had they done so they would have leamed that the Things to Know memorandum was false as to the allegations that Ross directed Inland to terminate its relationship with Superior 60. Prior to making the wiretap application, Defendant James and Nix either did not subpoena the financial records of MM&E (and therefore proceeded in reckless disregard of whether the Things to Know memorandum was false) or they did subpoena the financial records of MME and Defendant Nix knowingly provided false testimony in the wiretap application under oath as a financial relationship between MM&E and Plaintiffs has never existed. 61. In making the wiretap application, Defendant Nix quoted DeKalb CEO Elis’ former chief of staff Hakim Hilliard as saying that Ross should have been prosecuted and disbarred because of his involvement in matters pertaining to former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell, but Ross was not because he reached a “confidential” (presumably, an immunity) agreement with the 22federal government. By quoting Mr. Hilliard’s statement in the wiretap application, Defendants James and Nix adopted such statement as an affirmative factual representation of the DeKalb District Attomey’s office. 62. This statement is completely false. Ross never hed an immunity agreement with the federal government on any matter related to former Atlanta Mayor Campbell, or as to any matter whatsoever. Ross was never a target of the federal investigation that resulted in the prosecution of former Mayor Campbell. The falsity of this statement could have been ascertained by Defendants James and Nix cither by a direct inquiry to the United States District Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia or a federal Freedom of Information Act request. 63. The wiretap application made under oath by Defendant Nix also contained material omissions which were intended to make the application misleading. 64. The improperly intertwined SPGJ investigation and District Attorney's criminal investigation of Ross were looking into potential wrongdoing related to bid rigging, ‘The wiretap application references conversations between DeKalb CEO Ellis and Ross regarding an Emergency Management Services (“EMS”) contract for which Ross’ client, Rural Metro, was competing in 2012, 65. ‘The wiretap application misleadingly creates the impression that any such conversations, in and of themselves, were evidence of bid rigging. This false and misleading impression was 23bolstered by numerous material omissions from the wiretap application on the part of Defendants James and Nix. 66. It was a material omission from the wiretap application for Defendants James and Nix to fail to disclose in such application that neither the DeKalb purchasing policy then in effect nor the terms of the Request for Proposals issued by the County for the EMS contract prohibited contact and communication between vendors, their representatives and county officials. These material omissions by Defendants James and Nix were intended to make the wiretap application misleading to the DeKalb County Superior Court. 67. It was another material omission from the wiretap application for Defendants James and Nix to fail to disclose that the position which Ross advocated on behalf of Rural Metro as to the EMS procurement was rejected by CEO Ellis and his administration, an outcome completely inconsistent with any suggestion that there was probable cause of bid rigging, This material ‘omission by Defendants James and Nix were intended to make the wiretap application misleading to the DeKalb County Superior Court, 68, By way of further explanation and background of the material omission referenced in the paragraph above, Rural Metro, when it responded to the EMS Request for Proposals objected to the bid specification which required 90% of all EMS calls county wide to be made within 8 minutes and 59 seconds. Rural Metro believed that this specification was unrealistic and financially infeasible. 2469. In October, 2012, DeKalb County wrote to Rural Metro and informed the company that it would have to remove all of its objections to the procurement, including the objection to the response time bid specification, or be disqualified from proceeding in the competition of the procurement, No substantive explanation was given by DeKalb County for rejecting Rural Metro’s objections to this bid specification. 70. Afterwards, at Rural Metro’s request and on its behalf, Ross contacted CEO Ellis and Director of Procurement Kelvin Walton and asked that the County re-examine the response time bid specification. After review of the matter, the County affirmed the response time bid specification and stood by its position that Rural Metro would either have to withdraw its objections or be disqualified. 71. ‘The wiretap application also materially omitted that Kelvin Walton, DeKalb County's former Director of Procurement and the confidential source identified in the wiretap application, as a source of evidence in support of the wiretap application had failed three polygraph examinations throughout the year 2012 and proven himself to be a completely unreliable and untruthful witness. ‘This material omission by Defendants James and Nix was intended to make the wiretap application misleading to the Superior Court of DeKalb County. 72. The wiretap application is also replete with other material omissions in that it quotes brief passages from various conversations either recorded by its confidential informant Kelvin Walton es are either or fiom the intercept of telephone calls to or from Ross’ telephone, which passtaken out of context, are misleadingly paraphrased, or are separated from other parts of such conversations, wiich had more complete quotations and passages been provided would have shown clearly that no bid rigging or other improper or illegal activity was occurring, ‘These various material omissions by Defendants James and Nix were intended to make the wiretap application misleading to the Superior Court of DeKalb County. 73. Had the wiretap application submitted to the Superior Court of DeKalb County by Defendants James and Nix (i) not contained a false statement asserting that the Things to Know memorandum (a completely fabricated document) contained substantiated allegations of ‘wrongdoing on the part of Ross; (ii) not contained a false statement that Ross had entered into a confidential (immunity) agreement with the federal government on a prior matter to shield himself from prosecution and disbarment; (iii) not materially omitted that there was no (iv) not materially prohibition on contaet with County officials in the EMS procurement proces ‘omitted that the position of which Ross advocated on behalf of his client had_ been rejected by the Ellis administration; (v) not materially omitted that the DeKalb County District Attorney's. confidential source had failed three lie detector tests and had been determined by the lie detector vendor engaged by the District Attorney's office to be a completely unreliable and untruthful individual; and (vi) not materially omitted more complete and accurate conversations of Ross, there could not have been a finding of probable cause leading to the issuance of the wiretap on Ross’s cell and office phone. m4. James and Nix knew that the wiretap application Nix signed was false. 2645. In the alternative, James and Nix proceeded in reckless disregard of whether the wiretap application was true or not, 76. James and Nix materially omitted information with the intent to mislead and deceive the ‘court into issuing the wiretap authorization, notwithstanding the absence of probable cause. 77. On January 3, 2013, Nix, acting under the direction, supervision, and control of James, and on behalf of James, executed under oath an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant against Plaintiffs” offices and Ross’ home. 78. In this search warrant affidavit, James and Nix repeated the falsity with respect to the Things to Know memorandum described in paragraphs 35-44 above. 19. In this search warrant affidavit, James and Nix repeated the false statements with respect to Ross having entered into a confidential (immunity) agreement described in paragraph 61 above. 80. In the search warrant affidavit, James and Nix identified two individuals, Joel Alvarado and Ken Saunders who they maintained were part of the bid rigging conspiracy pertaining to Ross’ clients, However, taped recordings of its confidential informant provided the DeKalb District Attomey’s Office with clear knowledge that no such bid rigging conspiracy existed involving these two individuals, Ross and Ross’ clients. 2781 On December 16, 2012 a conversation occurred between Walton and Rudy Chen, a DeKalb County employee who was the chairman of the evaluation committee that reviewed the proposals for the County’s Watershed Management consent decree program management services. Alvarado and Saunders served on this evaluation committee. During this conversation, (D Chen clearly and unambiguously informs Welton that of three short listed firms, Alvarado gave a higher score to the two other firms over Plaintiffs" client, Montgomery Watson; (ii) Chen and Walton clearly demonstrate that they do not know how Saunders was appointed to the formed him that CEO Ellis did not evaluation committee; (iii) Walton states that CEO Ellis know Saunders very well; and (iv) Walton speculates that CEO Ellis’ former Chief of Staff may have appointed Saunders to the evaluation committee without CEO Ellis’ knowledge. 82. The contents of this telephone conversation provided the DeKalb District Attomey’s Office with knowledge on December 16, 2012, three weeks before James and Nix submitted the search warrant affidavit, that there was no probable cause as to any bid rigging conspiracy by and among Ross, CEO Ellis, Alvarado and Saunders. Notwithstanding this, James and Nix submitted @ search warrant affidavit which omitted the material information detailed in the preceding paragraph, James and Nix’s failure to disclose this information was intentionally done to make the search warrant affidavit misleading. 83. 1e search warrant affidavit further states that there was a meeting between CEO Ellis, Alvarado and Ross and implies that such a meeting was in pursuit of a bid rigging conspiracy. ‘This statement is false in that no such meeting ever took place. 2884. On January 2, 2013, one day before the search warrant affidavit was submitted by James and Nix to the Fulton Superior Court, Walton contacted Ross and informed him that the evaluation committee for the EMS contract had voted to recommend a different company than Plaintiffs’ client, Rural Metro. (It should be noted that neither Alvarado nor Saunders served on this evaluation committee.) Therefore, James and Nix knew through their confidential informant the day before they applied for a search warrant that Plaintiffs’ client had lost the EMS. procurement, however, James and Nix materially omitted this from the search warrant affidavit. 85. Summarized simply, James and Nix presented & search warrant affidavit to the Fulton Superior Court asserting that they had probable cause to believe that Ross was engaged in bid rigging as to two major County procurements without disclosing to the Court that Ross’ clients had lost both procurements in that the respective evaluation committees had recommended other firms. 86. Had the search warrant application by James and Nix (i) not contained a false statement asserting that the Things to Know memorandum (a completely fabricated document) contained substantiated allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Ross, which had been substantiated; (ii) not contained a false statement that Ross had entered into a confidential (immunity) agreement with the federal government on a prior matter to shield himself from prosecution and disbarment; (iii) not materially omitted Nix that there was no prohibition on contact with County officials in the EMS procurement process; (iv) not materially omitted that Ross’ clients who had competed for major county procurements in 2012 had lost in that the evaluation committees had 29recommended other companies for award; (v) not materially omitted that the DeKalb County District Attorney's confidential source had failed three lie detector tests and had been determined by the lie detector vendor engaged by the District Attorney's office to be a completely unreliable and untruthful individual; (vi) not materially omitted that an individual claimed to have been placed on an evaluation committee to vote for Ross’ client, in fact voted for a different firm; and (vii) not materially omitted more complete and accurate conversations of Ross, there could not have been ® proper finding of probable cause leading to the issuance of search warrants for Plaintiffs’ offices and Ross’ home. 87. James and Nix knew that the search warrant affidavit Nix signed was false and contained ‘material omissions designed to make the application misleading, 88. In the alternative, James and Nix proceeded in reckless disregard of whether the search warrant affidavit was true or not. 89. James and Nix materially omitted information with the intent to mislead and deceive the Superior County of Fulton County into issuing the search warrant, notwithstanding the absence of probable cause. D. CHAMPION, WALKER, AND ALLEN’S CONSPIRACY _TO_INJURE PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS AND JAMES AND NIX’S FALSE AND MISLEADING IRETAP APPLICATION AND SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT COMBINE, ‘O CAUSE PLAINTIFFS? SUBSTANTIAL INJURY AND DAMAGE. 90. Defendant James has openly and freely communicated to the media and the public his aspirations and ambitions to hold higher political office. 3091. Don Geary, the former number two in the DeKalb County District Attorney’s office has stated that Defendant James was interested in criminally pursuing DeKalb County CEO Ellis from the time that James became the DeKalb District Attomey and began “hunting” him shortly after his election to a full four year term as DeKalb’s District Attorney. 92. Defendant James’s motivation for pursuing CEO Ellis, and by extension, Ross, was his assessment that going after individuals with the high public profiles of an incumbent CEO and Ross would be more conducive James’ political ambitions than pursuing criminal charges against individuals like Champion and Walker who were relatively unknown to the public, notwithstanding the millions of dollars that these individuals have likely defrauded and stole from the coffers of DeKalb County, 93. Hence, James seized upon the Things to Know Memorandum, as a pretext and cover to commence a criminal investigation into Ellis and Ross because it suited James’ ultimate political objectives. Accordingly, James had no desire fo and did not conduct a real, substantive investigation to determine whether there was any truth to the Things to Know Memorandum, Instead, through Defendant Nix, James used this false document to seek and secure the wiretap on Ross’ phones and the search warrant for his office and home. 94, Approximately at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, January 7, 2013, the first Monday of the new year, Ross was revising a letter at his desk and sensed that his professional assistant had come into his office. When he looked up, he saw his professional assistant flanked by about 10 law 31enforcement officers, including Atlanta police officers, investigators from the DeKalb District ‘Attorney's office and an assistant DeKalb District Attorney, who announced that they were there to execute a criminal search warrant of Plaintiffs’ premises. 95. ‘One of the law enforcement officials stuck a cell phone in Ross’ face and told him that he had to take this call, When Ross took the call, on the other end was another law enforcement officer informing Ross that there was another team of law enforcement officers at Ross” home to execute a search warrant there, and that he had to give her the access code for them to gain entry or else they would knock the door down. 96. Ross was completely surprised by the execution of search warrants zt his office and home as there had been no prior sign that he was under investigation, and he knew that he had not been ‘engaged in any criminal activity. 7. Four of Plaintiffs’ clients, Montgomery Watson, Rural Metro, Inland, and Sentinel Probationary Services, were identified in the search warrant, and later in the afternoon on January 7, 2013, Plaintiffs leamed that the DeKalb County District Attomey’s office had faxed subpoenas for production of documents related to these clients’ pursuit of business in DeKalb County and to their relationship with Plaintiffs 98. Likewise, this was the first time that these clients learned that Plaintiffs or they were under investigation. 32,99. At the same time that his office and home were being raided, Ross was served with a subpoena to appear before the SPGS later that week. 100. This subpoena was not served for any true investigative purpose, given that the DeKalb District Attorney had just seized all of the files that Ross would have needed to prepare for a ‘grand jury appearance, had thrown his life into turmoil, and had caused the predictable media frenzy associated with the execution of criminal search warrants in a high profile case. 101 Plaintiffs suffered an immediate loss of business after the media publicity of the execution of the criminal search warrants at Plaintiffs’ offices and Ross’ home. On Monday, ffs’ client of eighteen years, terminated their January 14, 2013 Montgomery Watson, Plai contract with Plaintiffs, saying that while they were not aware of any wrongdoing, they were taking action in response to “published media reports”, 102, Within a few weeks, Rural Metro, a client of three years, afer the courtesy of a personal phone call where they expressed complete confidence in Ross’ integrity, sent correspondence “suspending” their relationship with KRPA and stating that they felt confident that the matter “would have a positive outcome” for Ross. 103. A few months later, Inland, a client of two years and one of the companies expressly mentioned in the Things to Know Memorandum also informed Ross that they were suspending their relationship with KRPA. 33104, In January, 2013 Ross was under active consideration for a consultancy in a mayoral race, which consideration ended following the execution of the search warrants. 105, Plaintiffs continued to lose business throughout 2013 or to have clients allow their agreements with Plaintiffs to expire without renewal. 106. Plaintiffs were substantially impaired in developing new business during 2013 and into 2014, and several professional colleagues attempted to refer business to Plaintiffs, but were unable to do so, given the pending criminal investigation and the related media climate. COUNTI SECTION 1983 CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF ROSS’ FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BROUGHT ABOUT BY A FALSE AND MATERIALLY MISLEADING WIRETAP APPLICATION (JAMES. NIX AND OTHERS) 107. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 106 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 108, James, Nix and John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 acted under color of law with respect to the applying for and obtaining a wiretap application on Ross’ cellular and mobile telephones, 109, By executing under oath and submitting an application for a wiretap of Ross’ cellular and mobile telephones and material omissions designed to deceive and mislead the DeKalb Superior Court into beli ng that probable cause existed as to Ross as to any of the crimes listed in the 34application, especially “bid rigging”, James, Nix, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 caused Ross? civil rights to be free of unreasonable governmental searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be violated. 110. John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 are present and former attorneys, investigators and other personnel in the DeKalb District Attomey’s office who participated, supervised, or otherwise were substantively involved with James and Nix in the preparation of the application for a wiretap authorization on Ross’ cellular and office phones and the presentation of this application to the DeKalb Superior Court for the wiretap authorization, with knowledge of the false statements contained within such wiretap application, or who had a reckless disregard for the uth of such false statements, and who had knowledge of the material omissions from the wiretap application, which material omissions were designed to mislead and deceive the court into finding probable cause that Ross had committed any crimes. The true names and identities of these Doe Defendants, and their exact participation, supervision, and involvement is unknown to Ross at this time and therefore said Defendants are sued by such fictitious names. Ross will ask leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the Doe Defendants true names and identities, and their participation and involvement with James and Nix in the violation of Ross” civil rights. On information and belief, Ross alleges that each of the Doe Defendants is an appropriate party to the claims alleged in this Complaint. iL ‘The violation of Ross’ Fourth Amendment sights resulting from the false and materially misleading wiretap application was severe and extensive in that the DeKalb District Attomey’s Office did not follow proper procedures for minimization of the wiretap interceptions, Because 35the DeKalb District Attorney’s Office failed to follow proper procedures for minimization, the DeKalb District Attomey’s Office intercepted calls between Ross and his clients (many of which were subject to attorney-client privilege); between Ross and the attorneys he retained after the search warrants were executed by the DeKalb County District Attorney's office on Plaintiffs’ offices and Ross’ home; between Ross and his family members; between Ross and numerous other individuals having nothing to do whatsoever with any matters pertaining to DeKalb County. 12. The violation of Ross’ Fourth Amendment rights are ongoing, in that the DeKalb County District Attorney's Office continues to have in its possession the tapes of the calls intercepted from Ross’ phone, all of which were intercepted besed upon a false and materially misleading wiretap application, 113. ‘The violation of Ross’ civil rights by James, Nix and the Doe Defendants have caused substantial injury and harm to Ross for which damage James, Nix and the Doe Defendants are liable to Ross in an amount to be shown at trial, which amount is estimated by Ross to be at least $5 million. 36COUNT I SECTION 1983 CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF ROSS’ FOURTI AMENDMENT RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BROUGHT ABOUT BY A FALSE AND MATERIALLY MISLEADING SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT ERS) 114, ‘The allegations of paragraphs | through 113 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if cach such allegation were fully set forth herein. 115, James, Nix, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 acted under color of law with respect to the applying for and obtaining a search warrant for Plaintiffs office and Ross’ home. 116, By executing under oath and submitting an affidavit for a search warrant for Plaintiffs? office and Ross’ home, which affidavit contained false statements and material omissions designed to deceive and mislead the Fulton Superior Court into believing that probable cause existed as fo Ross as to any of the crimes listed in the affidavit as being under investigation, especially “bid rigging”, James, Nix, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 caused Ross’ civil rights to be free of unreasonable governmental searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States to be violated. 117, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 are former and present attomeys, investigators and other personnel in the DeKalb District Attomey’s office who participated, supervised, or otherwise was substantively involved with Defendant James and Nix in the preparation of the affidavit for the search warrant on Plaintiffs’ office and Ross’ home and the presentation of thisaffidavit to the Fulton Superior Court for the search warrant, with knowledge of the false statements contained within such affidavit, or who had a reckless disregard for the truth of such false statements, and who had knowledge of the material omissions from the affidavit, which material omissions were designed to mislead and deceive the court into finding probable cause that Ross had committed any crimes. The true names and identities of these Doe Defendants, and their exact participation, supervision, and involvement is unknown to Ross at this time and therefore said Defendants are sued by such fictitious names. Ross will ask leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the Doe Defendants true names and identities, and their participation, supervision and involvement with Defendant Nix in the violation of Ross’ civil rights, On information and belief, Ross alleges that each of the Doe Defendants is an appropriate party to the claims alleged in this Complaint. 118. ‘The violation of Ross’ Fourth Amendment civil rights were severe and extensive as the DeKalb District Attorney’s Office seized files of Ross’ client without regard to the attorney client privilege that existed between Ross and many of his clients. 119, The violation of Ross’ Fourth Amendment civil rights are ongoing, in that the DeKalb County District Attomey’s office for more than two years have refused to return the files and personal property seized in the raids of Plaintiffs’ office and Ross’ home despite having requests having been made for the return of such files and property and despite the DeKalb County District Attomey’s office having had more than enough time 10 make copies of such files, including the hard drives on computers seized by his office during the raids. 38120, The violation of Ross’ civil rights by James, Nix and the Doe Defendants have caused substantial injury and harm to Ross for which damage James, Nix and the Doe Defendants are liable to Ross in an amount to be shown at trial, which amount is estimated by Ross to be at least $5 million, COUNT UI SECTION 1983 CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF ROSS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH 121 The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 120 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 122, Ross, throughout the course of his three decade plus professional career, has been active in the political and civic life and discourse of the Metropolitan Atlanta community. He has choice, He has played sought fo influence public policy by supporting political candidates of | numerous leadership roles in civic, governmental and political positions, and in the process, he has fully exercised his 1" Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association, 123. In addition, Ross has exercised his 1% Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association as an active advocate and representative for the interests of his clients, ic life and discourse of the many of whom have also been active in the political and Metropolitan Atlanta Commun 39124. Defendant James, acting under color of law, utilized a fabricated document, ie. the ‘Things to Know memorandum, a document which could have been ascertained to lack veracity or substance with a modest amount of true investigatory effort, as a pretext to launch an unwarranted criminal investigation into Ross. 125. Defendant James also utilized a wiretap application and search warrant affidavit, both of which contained numerous material false statements, and numerous material omissions which were designed to mislead the courts into finding probable cause against Ross where none existed, to further the unwarranted and unjustified criminal investigation into Ross. 126, ‘The actions of Defendant James, which occurred while he was acting under color of law, in commencing and continuing an unwarranted and unjustified criminal investigation into Ross based upon false and materially misleading documents and placing @ false cloud of corruption over Ross” head, were intended to chill, limit and suppress Ross’ 1% Amendment rights to free speech and free association as to (i) his representation of and advocacy on behalf of his clients, especially those who were doing business in DeKalb County during the time of James’ tortious n in the political and civil affairs of DeKalb County and actions; (ii) as to his participa Metropolitan Atlanta; and (iii) his association with and support of public officials of his choosing, Defendant James violated Ross’ 1“ Amendment rights and is liable to Ross for such violations by the enlighten conscience of jury, such amount to be at least equal to $5 million. 40UNT IV SECTION 1988 CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (JAMES, NIX AND OTHERS) 127, ‘The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 126 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 128 mes, Nix and the Doe Defendants are liable to Ross under 42 U.S.C. §1988 for the attorneys fees incurred in connection with his Section 1983 claims in an amount to be determined at trial, COUNT V VE DAMAG! 129. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 128 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 130, James, Nix and the Doe Defendants are liable to Ross for punitive damages in an amount to be determined in the enlightened conscience of the jury. COUNT VI ELATIONS (CHAMPION, WALKER, ALLEN AND OTHERS) 131. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 130 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 4132, Ross had protectable business interests, which interests included, but were not limited to, clients he was representing before DeKalb County, Georgia, 133. Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10°s knew of the existence of these business relationships. 134, Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10"s were strangers to Ross’ existing business relationships. 135, Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 intentionally interfered with Ross’ existing business relationships. Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10’s actions were done with malice and with no justification or legal privilege. 136. Ross has suffered damage resulting from and caused by Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10’s tortious interference with his existing business relationships. “The damage which Ross has sustained from Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10°s tortious interference with Ross” existing business relationships will be in an amount to be shown at trial. Such damage as of the time of the filing of this complaint is at least equal to $2.0 million. 2COUNT VII TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS (CHAMPION, WALKER, ALLEN AND OTHERS) 137. ‘The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 136 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 138, Ross had reasonable expectancies of future business relations which would have provided commercial benefit to Ross. 139, Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 intentionally interfered with Ross’ prospective business relations. Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane ification or legal privilege. Does 6-10’s actions were done with malice and with no ju 140. Ross has suffered damage resulting from and caused by Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10's interference with his prospective business relations. The damage which Ross has sustained from Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10’s tortious interference with Ross’ prospective business relationships will be in an mated to be at least $3.0 million, amount to be shown at trial, but in es 4BCOUNT VII. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (CHAMPION, WALKER, ALLEN AND OTHERS) 141. ‘The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 140 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein, 142. Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10°s conduct towards Ross as detailed throughout this complaint were intentional and malicious. 143. Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does6-10’s conduct towards Ross was outrageous in character and so extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. 144, Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does6-10"s conduct was atrocious and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society. 145. Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does6-10"s conduct caused Ross extreme distress so severe that no individual could or should be expected to bear it. 146, Champion, Walker, Allen, Jobn Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 are liable to Ross for the distress caused to Ross by Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does6-10°s ‘outrageous and extreme conduct in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury, such amount to be at least equal to $5.0 million.COUNT 1X CIVIL CONSPIRACY (CHAMPION, WALKER, ALLEN AND OTH) 147. ‘The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 146 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 148, Champion, Walker, Allen and John Does 6-10 maliciously formed a combination to commit a tortious act against Plaintiffs, namely the interference with Plaintiffs’ existing and prospective business relations. 149, As co-conspirators and joint tortfeasors in the tortious acts committed against Plaintifis, Champion, Walker, Allen and John Does 6-10 are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for the damages caused to Plaintiffs. COUNT X (CHAMPION, WALKER, ALLEN AND OTHERS) 150. ‘The allegations of paragraphs | through 149 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein, 151 Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10's actions and conduct toward Ross showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences 45Further, Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10, as active and joint torifeasors, acted with the specific intent to cause Ross harm. Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded punitive damages as allowed by O.C.G.A § 51-12-5.1 in an amount equal £0 $10 million or such other amount as may be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury. COUNT XI ATTORNEYS FEES (CHAMPION, WALKER, ALLEN AND OTHERS) 152. ‘The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 151 of this complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if each such allegation were fully set forth herein. 153, Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 have acted in bad faith, been stubbomly litigious and have caused Ross unnecessary trouble and expense. Ross is therefore entitled to recover attorneys fees and expenses of litigation pursuant to O.C.G.A § 13- 6-11 in an amount to be proven at trial, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully demand and pray for judgment against Defendants as follows: (a) that process issue and be served as provided by law; (b) that judgment be entered in favor of Ross and against James, Nix, John Does 1-3 and Jane Does 1-5 on Count I of the Complaint in the amount of $3,000,000, or such other amount as may be shown by the evidence at trial; (©) that judgment be entered in favor of Ross and against James, Nix, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 on Count Il of the Complaint in the amount of $5,000,000, or such other amount as may be shown by the evidence at trial; 46(@) that judgment be entered in favor of Ross and against James on Count Ill of the Complaint in the amount of $5,000,000, or such other amount as may be shown by the evidence at trial; (©) that judgment be entered in favor of Ross and against James, Nix, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 on Count IV of the Complaint for attorneys fees and costs of litigation, as may be shown by the evidence at trials that judgment be entered in favor of Ross and against James, Nix, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5 on Count V of the Complaint for punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000, or such other amount as may be determined in the enlightened conscience of the jury; (g) that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10, and Jane Does 6-10 on Count VI of the Complaint in the amount of $2,000,000, or in such other amount as may be shown by the evidence at trial; (h) that judgment be entered in favor of Ross against Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10, and Jane Does 6-10 on Count VII of the Complaint in the amount of $3,000,000, or in such other amount as may be shown by the evidence at trial; () that judgment be entered in favor of Ross against Champion, Walker, Allen, John. Does 6-10, and Jane Does 6-10 on Count VIII of the Complaint in the amount of $5,000,009, or in such other amount as may be shown by the evidence at trial; () that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 on Count IX of the Complaint in the 47amount of $5,000,000, or in such other amount as may be shown by the evidence at trial; (k) that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 on Count X of the Complaint for punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000, or such other amount as the jury may determine in its enlightened conscience; () that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintifis and against Champion, Walker, Allen, John Does 6-10 and Jane Does 6-10 on Count XI of the Complaint for attorneys fees and costs of litigation as may be shown by the evidence at trial; (in)that Plaintiffs be granted such other and further relief as may be justified by the evidence and the law, and as the Court may deem just and proper; and (n) that Plaintiffs be granted a trial by jury. This____day of May, 2015. Thelma Wyatt Moore Georgia Bar Number 779300 Moore Law, LLC 3285 Main Street Atlanta, Georgia 30337 imoore@moore-legal.com (404) 699-6001 (Office) (678) 472-1372 (Mobile) (866) 257-5052 (Fax) 48Mario Williams Georgia Bar Number 235254 Williams Oinonen, LLC The Grant Building 44 Broad Street, NW Suite 200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 mariowilliams@g1 (404) 654-0288 (Office) (404) 592-6225 (Fax) 49