Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RAYMOND R. SCHWAB
AMELIAD. SCHWAB
Plaintiffs,
v. CASEN0.18-CV-02488
Respondents.
Comes now Raymond R Schwab and Amelia D Schwab Jointly In Propia Persona requesting
The Plaintiffs Initial Complaint was filed Aug 27, 2018 in Denver Colorado (DOC!).
Plaintiffs were asked, by the State of Colorado Magistrate, to file the complaint using a specific format
and template so they placed the same complaint on the form provided by the Court September 5th 2018
which was listed as an amended complaint (DOC 7). The case was subsequently transferred to Kansas,
per request of the Plaintiffs, Sept 10, 2018. December 27th 2018 KVC filed a motion to dismiss (DOC
Plaintiff Response 1
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 2 of 26
One stubborn fact the Plaintiff's would ask the Court to consider is how a case that the
allegations were unsubstantiated by the DCF investigation (EXHIBIT 1) , went on for three years
when the only evidence or witness the State ever produced was the hearsay testimony of the officer
Plaintiffs agree with the fact that this current litigation and complaint arise out of alleged
unconstitutional, tortious, damaging conduct and actions which occurred during a Child In Need Of
Care (CINC) proceeding by defendant KVC and their agent's against Raymond and Amelia Schwab
and their five minor children which spanned from April 27'h 2015 to May of2018.
The Schwab's disagree, however with the facts as presented by KVC in the beginning of their
motion to dismiss. KVC, like ST FRANCIS are private contracting agencies who functionally operate
under the Color of State Law providing the service in place of DCF. As the Plaintiffs complaint states
"Respondent's ST FRANCIS AND KVC are non-profit corporation's organized in the State of
Kansas where DCF previously contracted out core public functions to this private not for profit
corporation. ST FRANCIS, KVC and Does I through I 0 are "persons" within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and subject to Monell liability and is known as the Monell Defendants. See
Monell v. Dept. a/Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)." (Pgs 63-66).
The defendant's acknowledge in their motion they knew what their responsibilities were. The
motion claims;
"When the Schwab children were found to be children in need of care and removed from the
Schwab home by order of the Riley County District Court, KVC arranged for their placement with
relatives living in the state. KVC then began providing case management and family support services,
Plaintiff Response 2
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 3 of 26
including worker/parent and worker/child meetings, facilitating communications between the Schwab's
and their children, transportation of the children to medical and other appointments, obtaining clothing
vouchers, conducting case planning conferences and reviewing progress toward the goal of
These Statements are mostly fiction. KVC, not only refused to do their jobs in the reintegration
of the children, they instructed others to not do theirs as well. According to one of the CASA workers,
whose recorded call was submitted to the Court in previous litigation, not only was KVC refusing to
case plan appropriately, but they instructed other service providers to not cooperate with the Schwab's,
not to speak to the Schwab's, but colluded with other defendant's to present the Schwab's in a false light
to the Court, while negligently refusing to assist the Schwab's in the reintegration of their children as
was their ethical and statutory obligation to do. These events are outlined in the complaint pages 44-46.
The CASA worker, Cathy Baer stated in the recorded call that she believed KVC had no intention of
attempting to reintegrate the children and their actions were retaliation for the Schwab's going to the
The complaint also demonstrates how the KVC case workers, after a year on the case admitted
in a status hearing April of 2016 they did nothing to assist the Schwab's reintegration of their children,
because of the Schwab's protesting. This was clear retaliation for the Schwab's constitutional right to
protest. This negligence and refusal to do their job directly led to a prolonging of the Schwab children
being in State Custody and contributed to intentional parental alienation and interference with the
Schwab's constitutional right to the care and control of their children and due process.
The event which triggered Mr. Schwab engaging in a hunger strike on the Kansas State Capitol
for 21 days was also attributed to KVC and their caseworkers manipulating the PRFT (Psychological
Resident Treatment Program) criteria and incarcerating the Schwab's son, C.S. , for sixty days where he
was assaulted repeatedly leading to a diagnosis of PTSD. The Schwab's believe the incarceration of
Plaintiff Response 3
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 4 of 26
C.S. Was retaliation against the Schwab's for protesting and demanding that C.S. Be removed from
dangerous medications that he was being given without even the KVC workers knowledge.
During a phone call in March of2016 C.S. spoke of the medication he was taking making him
aggressive. The Schwab's were being told that none of the Schwab children were on any type of
psychotropic drugs. When KVC was pressed on the issue they admitted that C.S. was being given
psychotropic medications without their approval or knowledge. The Schwab's made it clear to KVC
that medication for psychiatric conditions, save for a life threatening condition, was a violation of their
faith and belief system. The Schwab's demanded KVC and Pawnee cease and desist or provide
evidence of attempting other interventions prior to give dangerous medications to a child. KVC set up a
conference call with caseworkers, DCF and defendant PAWNEE who then tried to convince Mrs.
Schwab to resume the medication. Mrs. Schwab refused to authorize the medicating of C.S. without
proof that PAWNEE and other's had tried non-medication interventions for what they were claiming
Within a week defendants EISENBARGER and JACKSON ofKVC filed for C.S. to be placed
in a PFRT program for evaluation based on three critical incidents. They did not evaluate whether the
dangerous medication which C.S. had unknowingly been on could have caused aggressive behavior in
the child. Instead they listed two instances where C.S. had been allegedly playing with fire. One
incident C.S. claimed he heated up a penny and accidentally dropped it causing a burn in the carpet.
The second incident C.S. was accused of lighting a towel on fire. C.S. claimed he was taking a shower
and his towel was by the heater and was scorched. The third critical incident was a manufactured story
where C.S. started a fire in a shed two years prior before he was ever in State custody. The document is
enclosed as exhibit 1. As can be seen from the document these "Critical Incident's" were all discovered
over two days rather than found through a therapeutic process. This document was manufactured
immediately after the Schwab's forced KVC to cease the unnecessary medicating of C.S. The Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Response 4
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 5 of 26
believe C.S. was placed on medication as a method of fraud to increase the amount of Federal
incentives KVC could claim under title IV by designating C.S. as special needs due to the psychotropic
medication.
No due process was afforded C.S. and he was locked up with children who had severe
behavioral issues where C.S. claimed he was assaulted at least seven times. KVC only notified the
parents of one instance. The Schwab's believe the manipulation of facts to achieve a negative diagnosis
is a practice ofKVC as a policy because having children labeled as "Special Needs" qualifies them for
a higher Federal Incentive payment from title IV of the Social Security Act. These events are also
outlined in the Complaint. To say the accusations against KVC are vague or unspecific is inaccurate.
What this Court has to determine is if it is ok for a private contractor who is contracting for a State can
manipulate criteria to lock children up without due process to increase their incentive coffers and
retaliate against parents who are protesting by hurting their children. KVC also made sure to let the
Schwab's know that they would assure their rights would be terminated for going to the press and
When Raymond and Amelia Schwab (The Schwab's) filed their first action in April of2016,
Raymond Schwab, et al. v. State ofKansas, Case No. 16-CV-4033-DDC-KGS, KVC was the primary
service provider on the CINC case, contracted by the State of Kansas to provide a State service of
foster care placement and over site .. The most recent complaint contains information and assertions
The previous case was dismissed, without prejudice, due to rulings of Abstention under
Younger Doctrine, Rooker-Feldman, and failure to state a claim. However, as the defendant's motion
observes there is no current State proceeding occurring as the Schwab's children have been returned.
Younger would no longer be an appropriate abstention and a number of new issues have been raised in
Plaintiff Response 5
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 6 of 26
The Plaintiffs are left to answer the following issues raised by the Defendant's.
A. Whether Plaintiffs' claims and the relief sought against Defendant KVC lack subject
B. Whether Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
A. There is complete diversity of parties and the amount of controversy exceeds 75,000.
There are two statutory bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction: diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For a federal court to have
diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must show the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is
complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants. In this case, that means
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. The Schwab's are citizens of
Colorado and all the defendant's reside or are citizens of Kansas. There is complete diversity between
plaintiffs and defendant's. Also, the amount of controversy exceeds 75,000. This subject matter
jurisdiction is appropriate apart from the 1983 claims, that even if those claims under USC 1983 were
dismissed this Court has primary jurisdiction over the false light, fraud, and negligence claims based on
diversity alone.
However, Defendant's also assert this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to:
Plaintiff Response 6
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 7 of 26
"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine expressly prohibits "a party losing in state court... from seeking
what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court,
based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights."
Landrith v. Gariglietti, 505 Fed.Appx. 701, 2012 WL 6062668, **2 (10th Cir. 2012), quoting Knox v.
Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)."
The Plaintiffs are not claiming that a State Judgement in the CINC proceeding's violated their
rights. They are, however, claiming that behavior and actions by KVC and KVC case workers during
the duration of the family Court proceedings were unconstitutional, neglectful of the ethical and legal
responsibilities ofKVC, fraudulent, and geared toward setting the parent's up for failure so their rights
could be terminated. The Plaintiffs claim they worked in concert with other parties to Alienate the
Schwab's from their children while propagating a false narrative about the Schwab's to the Court, and
service providers. The Plaintiffs claim KVC refused to do their job in retaliation toward the Schwab's
activism and drawing publicity to their case, while working in concert with agencies like Pawnee to
create fictitious diagnosis and force medicate some of the Schwab children which qualified them for a
higher federal incentive payment under title IV for the Schwab children now being designated as
"Special Needs" and this is the definition of fraud. None of these claims revolve around seeking to
The Seventh Circuit suggested that federal courts must closely examine section 1983
the state court judgment in the case. "The fundamental and appropriate question to ask is whether the
injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from
that judgment." Gerry v. Geils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1365 (7th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff Response 7
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 8 of 26
in a recent Third Circuit section 1983 case, fathers of minor children brought actions seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against various defendants, including state court judges, alleging that
although ultimately ruling for the defendants, the Third Circuit pointed out that the plaintiffs did not
challenge state court judgments but the underlying policy that governed them, namely, allegedly
stripping parents of custody in favor of other parents without a plenary hearing and using an improper
"In line with these decisions, our Circuit previously found that Rooker-Feldman did not
bar suit in B.S. v. Somerset County, whose facts were similar to those in the present case. is In
B.S., a mother sued after Somerset County Children and Youth Services obtained an order from
a Pennsylvania state court judge transferring custody of her daughter to her father. We held that
"[b ]ecause the injury Mother claims is likewise traceable to [the defendants'] actions, as
opposed to the state court orders those actions allegedly caused, we reject [the defendants']
contention that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal subject matter jurisdiction."
The Plaintiffs litigation and claims are based in challenging the behavior and actions of
the defendant's as unconstitutional, fraudulent, negligent and malicious, they are not based in
the CINC Court's Judgements and rulings. The Sixth Circuit focuses the inquiry on the "source of the
injury" suffered by the plaintiff. If the source is the state court decision, the Rooker-Feldman bar is
raised. If instead there is some other source, such as the actions of a third party, the plaintiff has
"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine expressly prohibits "a party losing in state court ... from seeking
what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court,
based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights."
Landrith v. Gariglietti, 505 Fed.Appx. 701, 2012 WL 6062668, **2 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Knox v.
Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts
specifically lack the power to review and reject orders issued by a state judge in state domestic
Plaintiff Response 8
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 9 of 26
The Plaintiffs are unconvinced this argument even applies to their complaint. Nowhere do the
defendant's outline what State Court ruling The Schwab's are attempting to have changed or
overturned. The case is closed, the Schwab children are home with their parents so there is nothing to
be overturned, neither is there any request to review any ruling. Plaintiffs are not requesting "to take an
appeal of an unfavorable state- court decision to a lower federal court" or seeking " monetary damages
arising from the CINC court rulings on issues such as temporary custody, adjudication and disposition
orders,". The only manner in which "claims "inextricably intertwined" with a state court's judgment"
is the claim that the Court's judgment came as the result of the Defendant's manipulation of the legal
process, interference with services and service providers, perjury in Court hearing's, and refusal to
acknowledge the Schwab's had any Constitutional rights or protections through consistently ignoring
them. It is not the CINC Court's judgment's which the Plaintiffs are seeking relief for, but the methods
used when the Defendant's colluded to deprive the Plaintiffs of due process, violate their right to
privacy, right to their children, right to religious practice, and right to be secure in their persons against
In the Ninth Circuit, Rooker-Feldman only applies when "plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an
allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that
decision .... If, on the other hand, a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or
omission by an adverse party, Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction." Noel v. Hall, 341F.3d1148,
The damages alleged in the complaint arise from the biased, malicious, negligent, and harmful
conduct of the KVC case workers. The Plaintiffs allege that these violations against them were done
Plaintiff Response 9
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 10 of 26
intentionally with blatant disregard for the Constitutional protections of the parents or children with
knowledge those violations were occurring due to the Schwab's notifying them.
For instance, whenever KVC demanded the Schwab's submit to an unconstitutional seizure of
their bodily fluids through the process of a urinalysis without reasonable suspicion the Schwab's would
notify them in writing they objected to the unconstitutional search. The SCHWAB's would then submit,
under duress, so the plaintiff's could not further falsely accuse them of drug abuse. Never did the
Schwab's give a positive drug test for any illicit substance nor would KVC record what their reasonable
suspicion was by which they demanded the drug test. KVC defamed Mr Schwab throughout their over
site of the case by claiming he failed a drug test where no such lab report exist. Its a fabrication.
Neither was any evidence ever presented that Mrs. Schwab ever used or abused drugs and alcohol. She
The Schwab's also consistently noticed the defendant's for their suppression of the Schwab's
religious participation with their children, or the denial of religious practice to the children. All such
noticing to cease and desist were mocked and ignored. KV C workers consistently responded they had a
right to violate the Schwab's rights in such an arbitrary manner and refused to allow the Schwab's to
We allege that KV C, through fraud, presenting the parents in a false light to the court and to
other service providers , through perjury from the defendant's, by setting up the parent's to fail by
placing unachievable demands on their permanency planning, and by policy and practice violating their
right to due process and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure committed harm to the
The Plaintiff's outline these constitutional violations, violations of policy, law and statue
throughout the complaint and how that behavior by the Defendant's led to the incarceration and assault
of one of the Schwab's children, alienation of the children from their faith, PTSD in the Schwab Family
Plaintiff Response 10
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 11 of 26
and a lengthening of the time the children were forced to stay in foster care due to the inability of the
workers to do their jobs. Eventually upper level decision makers agreed there was bias and near the
end of the case KVC was forced to bring in another contractor to replace the case managers. This was
something they should have done as soon as the workers EISENBARGER, and JACKSON were
KVC hid documents's in collusion with many of the other defendant's (DCF, ST FRANCIS,
INGLES, WILKERSON, PAWNEE, PATHWAYS etc.) from the Schwab's which were essential to
their effective defense, engaged in secret meetings with DCF, prosecutor, Pawnee, and Ad Litem who
then worked in concert against the Schwab's service providers by presenting the Schwab's in a false
light so they would not give favorable reports to the court. It is the assertion of the Plaintiffs that these
action prolonged the time the Schwab children were in State custody, which severed the parental bond
and alienated the family while placing an enormous financial burden on the Schwab's as they kept
Some of the instances which were outlined in the Complaint were also briefly addressed above.
Diversity Jurisdiction gives this Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction however they Court also has
ancillary and pendant jurisdiction due to the 1983 claim for any corresponding State and Federal
Federal courts follow the principles of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction, under which a court's
original jurisdiction over a federal claim "carries with it jurisdiction over state law claims that 'derive
from a common nucleus of operative fact,' such that the relationship between the federal claim and the
state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one
constitutional 'case."' City a/Chicago v. Int'! Coll. a/Surgeons, 522, U.S. 156, 164-65 (1997)
Plaintiff Response 11
------------------------------~----~~=-~~-~--~~~~-~----~--~ --
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 12 of 26
(quoting United Mine Workers ofAm. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). These principles have been
codified under a single "supplemental jurisdiction" statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Under that statute, "in
any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction," district courts have
supplemental jurisdiction "over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy" under Article III of the
So while, not every action can be assigned to relief being requested under U.S.C 1983,
supplemental claims can be brought under the Kansas Tort Law Act which is a mechanism for relief as
well as the Federal Tort Law where complete diversity of parties, and amount of controversy being
above 75,000 allows for the Plaintiff's to file in Court though the Central Issues revolve around
The Plaintiff's are not attorneys, but believe they understand that "Pleadings must be construed
so as to do justice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Accordingly, courts apply a "less stringent standard" to prose
pleadings than they would to those drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106) (1976). It
is especially important for courts to consider the "liberal pleading standards" under Rule 8(a)(2) "when
[the plaintiff] has been proceeding, from the litigation's outset, without counsel." Erikson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106) (internal quotations omitted). They also
believe that they have presented several facts all which could foundationally present a claim for relief.
"Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint that "states a claim for relief must
contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" Fed.
Plaintiff Response 12
------------------------------------~--~~-~~~~~--
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). In determining whether a complaint states a claim that is plausible,
the court is required to proceed 'on the assumption that all the [factual] allegations in the complaint are
true[,'] [e]ven iftheir truth seems doubtful."(court's emphasis) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. At 556).
Because the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, "it is not the province of the court to dismiss
the complaint on the basis of the court's choice among plausible alternatives"; rather, "the choice
between or among plausible interpretations of the evidence will be a task for the factfinder," assuming
that the plaintiff "can adduce sufficient evidence to support its factual allegations."
"A party opposing a complaint may assert by motion that the court should dismiss the complaint
for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To "show that
the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief," and thus survive a 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint must contain
enough facts to make the plaintiffs claim for relief "plausible on its face," not just "speculative" or
conceivable. Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (emphasis added); Ridge at Red
Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). While a court ruling on a motion to
dismiss assumes that all factual allegations in the complaint are true, a plaintiff does not "show" that he
or she "is entitled to relief' simply by reciting legal terms or offering conclusions without supportive
facts. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1183 (10th Cir.
2010)." However a claim has "facial plausibility" when the plaintiff pleads "factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." This
"plausibility" standard is "not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer
A. Violations of the Schwab's Constitutional right to care and control over their children,
Plaintiff Response 13
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 14 of 26
dishonest manner to prejudice the Court, refusing to reintegrate the children (though it was Court
ordered), presenting the Schwab's in a false light secretly to the Schwab's therapist to bias their court
reporting are activities which may give rise to 14'" amendment claims. Though the plaintiffs give a few
instances how this occurred, these behaviors were constant, intentional and malicious to the point that
KVC was replaced after admitting in Court that they had done nothing for a year to facilitate
reintegration of the Schwab Children with their parents causing severe parental alienation. They
refused outright to allow Mr. Schwab contact with the Stepson he had raised since he was a baby,
though they were statutorily, ethically and by policy required to do so. That relationship has never been
repaired, though the Schwab's are rebuilding the relationship, and KVC successfully destroyed the
relationship D.B. Had with the only man who he called "Dad".
Recently the 9'" Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Constitutional rights of familial
associating and be free from perjured testimony at the hands of Social workers in Hardick v. Vreeken
The Court Stated " Over the years, the Supreme Court has recognized this fundamental right in
many cases. For example, in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Lafleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974), the
Court said, "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The Court reiterated this theme three years later in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494,
503-04 (1977): "Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family
precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It
is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and
cultural."
The Court affirmed that parent's have '"the constitutional right to be free from the knowing
Plaintiff Response 14
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 15 of 26
presentation of false or perjured evidence' is clearly established." 588 F.3d at 1035 (citing and quoting
Devereaux, 218 F.3d at 1055-56)," as well as the fact that "Perjury is a crime under both federal and
California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to a court. 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Cal.
Penal Code § 118. Both crimes make no distinction between criminal and civil proceedings.
In the Complaint, it is also pointed out an incident where PRICE and ST FRANCIS had
defendant POSSEN unlawfully sign for special services, and then went to Court in 2016 testifying that
the Schwab children were suffering educationally and being harmed because the Parents refused to sign
special education paperwork. Little did they know the School had already given the Schwab's the
paperwork with POSSON'S signature (pg 36, 50-54 of complaint). KVC was still working in Concert
with DCF and ST Francis at this time and were fully aware of the controversy the Schwab's had with
Possen signing unlawfully for services which then qualified KVC for a higher federal incentive based
on special education needs of the children. JACKSON and EISENBARGER were at the Court hearing
held without the Schwab's present or properly represented by counsel and WILKERSON, FIELDS,
INGLES, KVC, ST FRANCIS, DCF, YOXELL and SUTHER all participated in tandem with the
Court to create a Court Order which they refused to give to the Schwab's but then used to get the
Schools to allow their signature on Special education paperwork. Shortly after, when the Schwab's
discovered that PRICE had committed perjury by claiming the Schwab children were suffering
educational neglect due to the parents refusal to sign special education paperwork, all while the
Children were receiving that benefit due to the fraudulent signing of POSSEN with the document that
all these parties colluded on ... they (The Schwab's) presented the information to the Court in a show
cause motion. POSSON vanished from the case, and from St Francis and when Mrs. Schwab's new
attorney, Jen Chaffee challenged PRICE on her perjury and "Unlawful Signing", PRICE was
immediately removed from the case citing "Safety Concerns" and "Threats" because the Schwab's
Plaintiff Response 15
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 16 of 26
protested publicly for their children to be returned. KVC was complicit in the production of that
It is behaviors such as these, which occurred from the beginning of the case and continued
through the duration, which allows for relief. The Plaintiffs assure the Court that through the discovery
process, even more collusion and sabotage will be uncovered. Currently the Defendant's hold the
majority of the evidence and refuse to release any information or documents about the case.
As the 9"' Circuit further concluded "government perjury and the knowing use of false evidence
are absolutely and obviously irreconcilable with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of Due
Process in our courts. Furthermore, the social workers' alleged transgressions were not made under
pressing circumstances requiring prompt action, or those providing ambiguous or conflicting guidance.
There are no circumstances in a dependency proceeding that would permit government officials to bear
false witness against a parent. " and to them this was a claim by which relief Could be granted under
Constitutional challenges to suspicionless governmental drug testing most often focus on issues
of personal privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against "unreasonable searches." For searches
to be reasonable, they generally must be based on individualized suspicion unless the government can
show a "special need" warranting a deviation from the norm. The Fourth Amendment protects the
"right of the people" to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. This
constitutional stricture applies to all governmental action-federal, state, and local-by its own force
or through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Governmental conduct generally
will be found to constitute a "search" . A mere accusation of drug abuse does not rise to meet the
Plaintiff Response 16
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 17 of 26
Though there was no evidence for reasonable suspicion ever produced, KVC constantly spread
the false report that the SCHWAB'S were methamphetamine addicts. They consistently and
maliciously claimed Mr. Schwab gave a positive drug test early in the case which was then taken by
media and spread internationally (Exhibit 4) . The Schwab's continue to assert that they never, once
gave a positive drug screen for any illicit substance through the duration of the CINC case and neither
do the defendant's have evidence of that claim including even a lab report. Furthermore they used this
false claim to unconstitutionally subject the Schwab's to random drug testing for almost the entire
duration of the case. The Schwab's were never charged with a crime, and even the DCF neglect
investigation determined the allegations of neglect were unsubstantiated and yet KVC and ST
FRANCIS subjected the Plaintiffs to intrusive drug testing for years (Pg 24-26 of complaint).
The Defendant's required the Schwab's give their testing while a monitor was observing their
genitals which was a humiliating and intrusive practice that workers claimed was policy. The Supreme
Court has consistently ruled that drug testing requirements are covered by 4'" Amendment protections
and the fact that KVC colluded with the other defendant's, through slander and presenting the parents
in a false light to the Court, brings this claim to a level which this Court can provide relief whereas the
defendant's conspired to deprive the Schwab's of their 4'" Amendment protections and then used false
information about positive test results to defame the Schwab's in Court, to service providers, and even
to the media in the case of DCF and FREED who leaked information to the press to wage an
information war against the SCHWABS very public campaign to get their children home.
These are only a few of the details and facts presented in the complaint. The Plaintiffs believe
they have presented enough facts for this Court to believe that the complaint is 'more than bare
assertions oflegal conclusions.', and demonstrate a pattern of collusion in violations of the Schwab's
right to parent and have sole care and control over their children without Government interference.
Plaintiff Response 17
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 18 of 26
That this conduct was under the "Color of law" as the defendant's manipulated the legal system with
their fraud on the court in order to maliciously, negligently, and unconstitutionally deny due process of
law to the Schwab's while keeping their children in DCF custody without any lawful reason. That these
actions constituted harm to the Schwab's in severing their parental bond, and placing years of
unreasonable and costly demands upon the Schwab's in order to set them up for failure while trying to
terminate their parental rights. These unreasonable demands also triggered Mr. Schwab's PTSD upon
which he struggled with depression, nightmares, and aggravation of his service connected disability.
All Schwab children have been diagnosed with PTSD due to the behavior of the defendant's and false
information they spread about the parents. This resulted in the Termination of employment with the
Dept. of Veteran Affairs due to performance issues and absenteeism. Mr Schwab was forced retired.
This is a claim upon which this Court can, and should grant relief and it is these types of Governmental
abuse's which U.S.C. 1983 claims are meant to grant relief for.
U.S.C. 1985, 1983 Claim for Deprivation of Religious Participation Causing Parental
The complaint outlines how KVC, completely destroyed the Schwab's relationship with their
children spiritually and refused to allow access to the Schwab's for religious worship with their
children. They allowed ,specifically, the Alli sons to tell the children they would celebrate normal
holiday's like halloween and Christmas when the children were raised in a Messianic Jewish faith that
regarded those holidays as non-sacred and to be avoided. They ignored reports that Michelle Allison
held E.S. Down to chop off her hair which had never been cut due to religious observance. The
Caseworkers witnessed E.S. Ask her mother weeping if she was still a princess because Michelle cut
her hair off. Every response from KVC informed the Schwab's they could not force placement to honor
Plaintiff Response 18
-------------------------------------------~-~---~-~----~-00-~~
When the Schwab's begged and pleaded with Caseworkers to at least allow them access on
holidays, they refused. As the Plaintiffs stated in the complaint, when CASA worker Kathy Baer
contacted the Schwab's and tried to get placement transferred for the Schwab children into her own
custody, she claimed the children were being emotionally abused and coached to support the
defendant's false narrative. When Mr. Schwab addressed the civil rights violations of their religious
freedom and connection to their children, Ms. Baer said in a recorded phone call tha DCF, KVC and St
Francis committed those abuses by policy. Theses are very specific allegations. These were acts where
PAWNEE indirectly and INGLES, FEILDS, KVC, ST FRANCIS, PRICE, EISENBARGER, BOYD
The Plaintiffs plead with this Court to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the
made clear and Plausible allegations against the Defendant's, and in the interest of Justice recognize
that it is a grievous thing to deny parent's their children, and children their parents based on obfuscation
of fact, refusal to follow policy or statue, with acts of defamation and perjury by KVC and its workers.
Unfortunately the Defendant's control much of the documentation and refuse, to this day, to
allow the Schwab's access to the police and Court records. Nevertheless, the Schwab's are confident
that as this litigation progresses the discovery process will uncover greater confirmation of these
intentional deprivations of civil rights, under the Color of law by these defendant's.
Plaintiff Response 19
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 20 of 26
In propria persona
/S/ ~ Sdio,n,_k
AMELIA SCHWAB
In propria persona
Plaintiff Response 20
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 21 of 26
Certification of Service
The Plaintiffs hereby assert that service was made to the following individuals on January 16th,
2019.
Mimi E. Doherty
920 Main Street, Suite I 000
Kansas City, MO 64105-2028 Telephone: (816) 421-4000 Facsimile: (816) 421-7880
med@deacylaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT LORA INGELS
Wichita, KS 67220
sjg@nelsongunderson.com, secretaryr@nelsongunderson.com
John G. Schultz
915 SW Harrison St
Topeka, KS 66612-1505
jschultz@fsmlawfirm.corn
cbrackman@fsmlawfirm.com, mhaler@fsmlawfirm.com
Plaintiff Response 21
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 22 of 26
Corliss Scroggins Lawson Attorney for DCF, ANGIE SUTHER, PHYLLIS GILMORE, KIM
J. Steven Pigg FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER & SMITH, L.L.P. 3550 S.W. 5th Street
Debenham
Plaintiff Response 22
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 23 of 26
Wichita, KS 67220
sjglalnelsongunderson.com, secretarylalnelsongunderson.com
John G. Schultz
915 SW Harrison St
Topeka, KS 66612-1505
jschultzlalfsmlawfirm.com
cbrackmanlalfsmlawfirm.com, mhalelalfsmlawfirm.com
Corliss Scroggins Lawson Attorney for DCF, ANGIE SUTHER, PHYLLIS GILMORE, KIM
Plaintiff Response 23
....
Case 2:18-cv-02488-DDC-GEB Document 80 Filed 01/17/19 Page 24 of 26
report_critical_incidents
I Page 1 of2
~
~J KVC SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT
**THIS SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED**
IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
ID Input By Input Date and Time
51724 reisenbarger 2/25/20I64:14:00 PM
Client's Name DOB KVC# CourtNbr:
c--.scHWAB 07/16/2003 R77283 15JC30
Current Placement
KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN
Placement at Time oflncident
KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN
Location at Time oflncident
Bathroom at placements home.
Date oflncident Time Date of Discovery Time
02/10/2016 19:15 02/24/2016 18:21
Type oflncident
Other. Document specifics. Caught a towel on fire!
~
I<~ KVC SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT
**TIDS SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED**
IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
ID Input By Input Date and Time
51756 reisenbarger 2/26/2016 10:35:00 PM
Client's Name DOB KVC# CourtNbr:
C. . SCHWAB 07/16/2003 R77283 15JC30
Current Placement
KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN
Placement at Time oflncident
KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN
Location at Time oflncident
Placements yard
Date oflncident Time Date of Discovery Time
12/30/2015 13:02 02/26/2016 15:10
Type of!ncident
Other. Document specifics. Setting things on fire
~
t< ~ KVC SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT
**THIS SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED**
IT JS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
ID Input By Input Date and Time
51757 reisenbarger 2/26/2016 10:41 :00 PM
Client's Name DOB KVC# CourtNbr:
C• I • SCHWAB 07/16/2003 R77283 15JC30
Current Placement
KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN
Placement at Time oflncident
KVC - CYNTHIA BAER - RELP GRPUN
Location at Time oflncident
Kitchen of placements home
Date oflncident Time Date of Discovery Time
02/25/2016 16:33 02/26/2016 20:05
Type of Incident
Other. Document specifics. Fire starting
Actions(s) Taken
Ronda Eisenbarger, Deja Jackson, Megan Edmonds, Bethany Fields, Lora Engel, Raymond and Amelia
Schwab. Cindy Baer.