Page 1 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE
WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Karellen and Renee Stephens 7135 SW 54 th Avenue Portland, OR 97219 503-977-7935 karellen.stephens@comcast.net renee.stephens1@comcast.net
Plaintiffs in Pro Se
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
KARELLEN STEPHENS, RENEE STEPHENS, and QADIRA STEPHENS by and through her guardian ad litem KARELLEN STEPHENS,
Plaintiffs, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, by an through its Judicial Department; Judge DAVID F. REES, in his individual capacity; Judge ADRIENNE NELSON, in her individual capacity; Presiding Judge JEAN K. MAURER, in her individual capacity; JAMES M. CALLAHAN, in his individual capacity; CALLAHAN AND SHEARS, PC; SCOTT KOCHER, in his individual capacity; RICHARD VANGELISTI, in his individual capacity; and VANGELISTI KOCHER, LLP; WASHINGTON COUNTY; NIKE, INC.; PHIL KNIGHT; STOEL RIVES, LLP; AMY JOSEPH Case No. 3:12-CV-00171-MO PLAINTIFF STEPHENS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. 1983); CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. 1985(3)); FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT (42 U.S.C. 1986); INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; RACE DISCRIMINATION (42 U.S.C. 1981(a)); ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION; OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE; CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE; CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD NEGLECT; WILLFUL MISCONDUCT; ATTEMPTED MURDER; HATE CRIME; FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE; FAILURE TO TREAT; CONSPIRACY TO COMMITT RACKATEERING; RACKATEERING; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER; RECKLESS Page 2 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
PEDERSON; P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON; TODD BURKHOLDER; AIMEE MCQUISTON; REX BURKHOLDER; PROVIDENCE ST. VINCIENT HOSPITAL; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SERVICES; OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; DR. JOSEPH E. ROBERTSON, OREGON EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS; JR.; DR. JULIE ANDREWS; DR. SARA TUBBESING; NANCY GORDON- ZWERLING; DR. DAVID R. SOLODNZ; STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; BETH PHIPPS; SUSAN OLEARY; PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS; RUDY R. LACHENMEIER; LACHENMEIER ENLOE RALL AND HEINSON; BETSY FERNLY; JUDGE DALE R. KOCH; JUDGE MICHAEL MCSHANE; JOHN BARKER; SUSAN GLOSSER; CITY OF PORTLAND; PORTLAND POLICE BUEARU; MAYOR SAM ADAMS; CHIEF OF POLICE ROSIE SIZER; CHIEF OF POLICE MICHAEL REESE; OFFICER SGT. DAN LIU; OFFICER MULBERRY; OFFICER HERBERT MILLER; OFFICER JOHN ECKHART; OFFICER BRET SMITH; CHARLIE G. JENKINS; FIRDOUSI CHOWDHURY; KEELY WEST; JACOB WEIGLER; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES COMMISION; FEDERAL BUEARU OF INVESTIGATION; AGENT GLENN G. NORLING; OREGON STATE BAR; SCOTT A. MORRILL; SYLVIA E. STEVENS; JUDGE DONALD R. LETOURNEAU; ANDY SIMRIN; JUDGE SCHUMAN; JUDGE WOLLHEIM; JUDGE ROSENBLUM; JUDGE HASELTON; ENDANGERMENT; PUBLIC CORRUPTION; LIBEL, SLANDER, AND DEFAMATION
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Page 3 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
JUDGE ARMSTRONG; JUDGE DUNCAN; CHIEF JUDGE PAUL J. DE MUNIZ; OREGON MEDICAL BOARD; MITRA SHARI; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; JOHN KROGER; DWIGHT C HOLTEN; MULTNOMAH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; CARES NORTHWEST; AND MANY OTHER UNKNOWN AND UNAMED INDIVIDUALS.
Defendants. I. JURISDICTION 1. This action is brought for violations of the plaintiffs I, VII, XIII, and XIV Amendments U.S. Constitutional rights; conspiracy to interfere with the plaintiffs civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985; for neglect to prevent pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1986; for the deprivation of the plaintiffs rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983; and for race discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981. This Court has original jurisdiction for violations of the United States Constitution and U.S. laws under 28 U.S.C. 1331. II. PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs Renee Stephens, Karellen Stephens and Qadira Stephens are natural born citizens of the United States of America and residents of the State of Oregon in Multnomah County. Qadira Stephens is a 13 year old girl and Renee Stephens is the natural father of Qadira Stephens and Karellen Stephens is the natural mother of Qadira Stephens and her duly appointed guardian ad litem. Karellen and Renee Stephens met at Jefferson High school and began dating in 1995, and subsequently married in 1998 and had four children, Qadira, Kymani, Alma Kamaya, and Qayden. Renee began working at Adidas America through a Page 4 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
joint venture with SEI when he was 15 years of age, and went on to have a successful career at Nike until the year 2007 when he was terminated after complaining about workplace harassment by a senior coworker. Renee was blacklisted after he complained and is now unemployed after being forced to quit his security job fearing for his own physical safety. Karellen Stephens is a native Oregonian who works as a caregiver for the elderly at Benchview Place Elderly Care Home which is run by her mother Audrey Lloyd. Qadira Stephens is the oldest daughter of Karellen and Renee Stephens. She is a wonderful little girl who is good at school, loves Japan, loves her brothers and her sister and has kept an amazing attitude despite all that has happened to her. Everyone who knows Qadira can attest to her upstanding character and poise. Kymani Stephens is 11 years old and a wonderful artist. Kymani likes to play Mindcraft and spend time with his brother and sisters. Alma Kamaya is 8 years old and is Qadiras best friend. Alma Kamaya likes to bake and watch Japanese movies with her sister. Qayden is 7 years old and likes action movies, Legos, cars, and hanging out with his brothers and sisters. The Stephens children have been a wonderful support system for their parents and have sought to bring them many hours of joy throughout this entire ordeal. 3. This court is well aware of whom the Defendants are in this case and they need no introduction. III. INTRODUCTION 4. For the purposes of this complaint, Defendants refer to all named defendants in this case unless so specifically stated. Defendant OHSU refers to all OHSU defendants. Defendant DHS refers to all DHS Defendants. Defendant Nike refers to all Nike Defendants. Defendant Judges refers to all defendant judges. Defendant Vangelisit Kocher refers to the Page 5 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
law firm of Vangelisti Kocher and Scott Kocher and Richard Vangelisti. Defendant Callahan refers to James Callahan and Callahan and Shears PC. Defendant Stoel Rives refers the law firm of Stoel Rives, P.K Runkles Pearson and Amy Joseph Pederson. Defendant Portland Public Police Bureau refers to all Defendant Police officers, and the City of Portland Defendants. Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company refers to all State Farm defendants, including Beth Phipps and Susan OLeary. Defendant Lachenmier refers to Rudy Lachenmier, Besty Fernly and law firm of Lachenmier Enloe and Heinson. Defendant Oregon State Bar refers to all Oregon State bar defendants. IV. SHORT CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS 5. This action arises out of a malicious rumor that was started by Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant Rex Burkholder after Plaintiff Q Stephens was burned in a suspicious manner at the home of Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston on the night of April 12 th 2007 when she was eight years old. Plaintiff Q Stephens was taken to Defendant Providence Hospital for treatment and seen by Defendant Julie Andrews who failed to do her job and appropriately treat Plaintiff Q Stephens injury by having her immediately transferred to the Oregon Burn Unit for an appropriate medical evaluation, and reporting plaintiff Q Stephens injury to the proper authorities. Defendant Andrews instead gave Plaintiff Q Stephens drugs for pain, wrapped her wound and sent her home within the hour to be cared for by Plaintiff K and R Stephens. Plaintiff K and R Stephens were traumatized by the event and did not know what to do which is why they had taken Plaintiff Q Stephens to Defendant Providence hospital in the first place. Plaintiff K and R Stephens were faced with providing care for Plaintiff Q Stephens and Plaintiff R Stephens called Defendant McQuiston/Burkholder early the next morning to get their homeowners insurance because Page 6 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Plaintiff Q Stephens burns were bad and Plaintiff K Stephens needed to take Plaintiff Q Stephens to OHSU that day for further evaluation and a bandage change as Julie Andrews had directed them to do. Plaintiff K Stephens took Plaintiff Q Stephens to OHSU and were seen by Defendant Tubbesing at OHSU who also did not do her job to protect Defendants McQuiston and Burkholder. Tubbesing did not treat Plaintiff Q Stephens or report her injury to anyone. Tubbesing looked at Plaintiff Q Stephens leg and then wrapped her leg back up and told Plaintiff K Stephens to take Plaintiff Q Stephens home and administer three times daily wound care. Defendant Tubbesing directed Plaintiff K Stephens and Plaintiff R Stephens to go to the medical store and buy bandages, crutches, and Silvadene and to take care of Plaintiff Q Stephens burn at their home without any medical supervision. Plaintiff K Stephens called OHSU 2 days later afraid that she was doing something wrong and was told again by Defendant Solondz that she was doing everything just fine and not to bring Plaintiff Q Stephens back to the hospital. Plaintiff K and R Stephens believed Defendant OHSU and continued to do as they were told. 6. Defendant Todd Burkholder was upset that Plaintiff K and R Stephens took Plaintiff Q Stephens to the doctor because Defendant Todd Burkholder felt from his own untrained assessment of the burn that the burn was more like a sunburn and did not really need any medical attention. Defendant Todd Burkholder had insisted to Plaintiff K and R Stephens that they should have just put Aloe Vera on Plaintiff Q Stephens burn instead of take her to the hospital. Defendant Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston decided that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were just blowing the whole injury out of proportion in order to get money from their insurance company and Defendant Providence and Defendant OHSU did nothing to disabuse them of that notion when they failed to treat Plaintiff Q Stephens or elevate her Page 7 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
injury to the proper authorities and medical experts.. Defendant Todd Burkholder repeated the assertion that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were money hungry to Defendant Rex Burkholder, Defendant State Farm, Defendant Portland Public Schools and anyone else who would listen to deflect from the real issue which was what Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston had been doing on the night of April 12 th 2007 with Plaintiff Q Stephens and Sophie Burkholder. 7. Plaintiff Q Stephens and Sophie Burkholder has been playing an adult supervised naked game at the Defendants house in there bathroom when Defendant Todd Burkholder heated up a kettle of scalding hot water and gave it to Defendant McQuiston. Defendant McQuiston took the kettle into the bathroom and burned Plaintiff Q Stephens on her leg. Defendant McQuiston and Defendant Todd Burkholder did not seek medical care for Plaintiff Q Stephens opting instead to wrap her in a towel and put her down into their basement until Plaintiff K Stephens called to say goodnight to Qadira and they had to admit that she was burned. 8. Defendant Rex Burkholder who is a prominent politician in Oregon and personally knows Joe Robertson who is the President of OHSU hospital repeated Defendant Todd Burkholders assertions about the Stephens being money hungry to Defendant Joe Robertson. Defendant Rex Burkholder asked Defendant Robertson to downplay the injury since it was just an accident. Defendant OHSU did nothing to treat Plaintiff Q Stephens because despite the fact that her burns looked really bad and despite their own diagnosis which called for Plaintiff Q Stephenss immediate transfer to the Oregon Burn center Defendant Joe Robertson did not want to be responsible for the criminal prosecution of Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston especially because now Defendant Robertson had it Page 8 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
on good authority from Defendant Rex Burkholder that Plaintiff K and R Stephens just wanted some money. 9. Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston assured all involved parties that what they were doing was innocent and didnt need to be investigated because of who they were, and who they were related to. They used the Odyssey Program at Hayhurst Elementary School with the consent of Defendant Portland Public Schools to help explain away the naked game they had been playing with the two little girls and because Plaintiff Q Stephens is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance and since Defendant Joe Robertson had it on good authority from Todd Burkholder and Rex Burkholder that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were just money hungry they all agreed to just sweep this little matter under the rug. Defendant OHSU did not seek an outside expert opinion of Plaintiff Q Stephens injury because they were concerned that not everyone would understand their position because of the taboo nature of the circumstances of how the burn injury had occurred. Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Robertson were worried that the doctors at the Oregon burn unit would have to admit Plaintiff Q Stephens because her diagnosis called for her to be admitted and if she was admitted to the burn unit or any hospiatl it would be impossible to hide what Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston had done to Plaintiff Q Stephens. 10. Defendant Nike became involved because they were ill equipped when Plaintiff R Stephens complained about workplace harassment in early March 2007. Because of the taboo subject matter of Plaintiff R Stephens complaint Defendant Nike did a shallow investigation and tried to sweep the whole matter under the rug as quickly as possible. Defendant Nike was upset when Plaintiff R Stephens filed an EEOC charge against them because they did not Page 9 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
want anyone to know about Plaintiff R Stephens complaint because not only had Defendant Nike admitted on paper that something had happened Defendant Nike was embarrassed about the subject matter of Plaintiff R Stephens complaint. Defendant Nike was unconcerned for the health and welfare of Plaintiff R Stephens because Plaintiff R Stephens is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. Defendant Nike took Randy Wolfe on his word that his actions amounted to a bunch of crude jokes and that Plaintiff R Stephens was just blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Defendant Nike heard the rumor being passed around by Defendant Rex Burkholder, Defendant Providence, Defendant OHSU, and Defendant State Farm and believed that Plaintiff R Stephens was just money hungry and attempting to exploit his daughter and Defendant Nike because Plaintiff R Stephens is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. Defendant Nike started a campaign to punish Plaintiff R Stephens by refusing to address any of Plaintiff R Stephens concerns and refusing to move Plaintiff R Stephens. Defendant Nike informed all of Plaintiff R Stephens co-workers and anyone that would listen that Plaintiff R Stephens was money hungry and attempting to exploit his daughter and Nike. Defendant Nike did not need any evidence to support its belief because Defendant Rex Burkholder is a prominent Oregon politician and when he speaks people listen. Defendant Providence and Defendant OHSU are prominent hospitals and Defendant State Farm is a reputable insurance company and Plaintiff R Stephens is nobody. In the summer of 2007 Defendant EEOC asked Plaintiff R Stephens to drop his initial charge. Plaintiff R Stephens declined to drop his charge because it had not been investigated and he was still hoping to be moved away from Randy Wolfe. Plaintiff R Stephens was traumatized from Randy Wolfes actions, the death of his father, and his daughter being burned. Plaintiff R Stephens would have welcomed a move away from Page 10 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Randy and all of the individuals involved in his complaint against Randy Wolfe. Defendant Nike interpreted Plaintiff R Stephens refusal as further evidence that he was money hungry and decided to punish plaintiff R Stephens by firing him right before the start of the school year. Plaintiff R Stephens filed a charge of retaliation after he was fired and Defendant Nike was furious and told federal investigator Matthew Cleman to drop all the charges because Plaintiff R Stephens did not deserve anything because he was money hungry and attempting to exploit his daughter and Nike. Defendant Cleman needed more than baseless accusations to absolve Defendant Nike of all the charges because based on the evidence submitted Defendant Nike was guilty and should be reprimanded. Defendant Nike asked Defendant Vangelisti Kocher to file the lawsuit against McQuiston to manufacture tangible evidence to prove to EEOC investigator Matthew Cleman that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were money hungry and attempting to exploit their daughter and Nike. 11. On January 22 2008 Defendant OHSU, Defendant Rex Burkholder, and Defendant Providence became aware that Plaintiff Q Stephens was suffering from a life threatening infection because Plaintiff K Stephens had brought her in to be evaluated for a possible case of Kawasakis syndrome. Defendant OHSU did not inform Plaintiff K and R Stephens that Plaintiff Q Stephens was suffering from severe internal distress because since they had done nothing to treat her burn injury and committed a crime by doing so Defendant OHSU started spreading the rumor that Plaintiff K and R Stephens had done something to harm their daughter. Defendant OHSU and Defendant Providence could not accept that they had done something to further harm Plaintiff Q Stephens when they failed to treat her burn and decided it was plaintiff K and R Stephens that must have done something to harm Plaintiff Q Stephens when they had cared for her burn injury. Defendant OHSU and Defendant Page 11 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Providence wanted to distract all involved parties from what they had done in the event that Plaintiff Q Stephens suddenly passed away from her internal distress. Defendant Nike now informed Defendant EEOC that Plaintiff R Stephens and Plaintiff K Stephens were horrible people who had harmed their daughter in an effort to get money. Defendant Cleman believed this rumor and to punish Plaintiff K and R Stephens he issued three indeterminate findings against Plaintiff R Stephens on January 30 th 2008. Plaintiff K and R Stephens did their best to deal with each oncoming situation, they dealt with the loss of Plaintiff R Stephens father, Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury and Alma Kamayas pneumonia, and the loss of Plaintiff R Stephens job and again Alma Kamayas Kawasakis syndrome which is a rare life threatening autoimmune disorder of which she was diagnosed and treated for in October of 2007. Plaintiff R Stephens relinquished his retirement to save the life of Alma Stephens as the family waited for help from the EEOC. When the EEOC issued its three indeterminate findings Plaintiff R Stephens diligently continued to seek work in his industry and counsel within and without the State of Oregon so that he could get his career back and continue to support his family. 12. In June of 2008 Plaintiff R Stephens filed a pro se lawsuit against Defendant Nike because he no longer had any options for reemployment and because his 15 year work history was destroyed all because he had complained. Plaintiff K and R Stephens were under extreme financial distress as they had quickly depleted Plaintiff R Stephens meager retirement savings just trying to survive. Defendant Nike was outraged when Plaintiff R Stephens filed suit against them because of the nature of his allegations and decided to use Plaintiff Q Stephens trial to destabilize Plaintiff R Stephens. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher and Defendant Lachenmeier diligently tried to dig up adverse information about Plaintiff K and R Stephens Page 12 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
as a favor for Nike but discovered nothing. Defendants put together a mock trial designed to cause the Plaintiffs severe emotional distress so that the Plaintiffs would go crazy with grief or commit a crime so that Defendant Nike would be absolved of Plaintiff R Stephens lawsuit. Defendant Nike did not get the desired response therefore in an effort to ultimately punish Plaintiff R Stephens for complaining and causing so much trouble Defendant Knight gave Defendant OHSU 100 million dollars to make sure Plaintiff Q Stephens died from her internal distress and Defendant Portland Police Bureau agreed never to investigate Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury or any of the circumstances surrounding the injury. 13. The fact is that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were ill equipped to care for Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury because they are not medical professionals in any capacity and had no idea what they were doing or what they were looking at the entire time that they had cared for Plaintiff Q Stephens in their home. Plaintiff Q Stephens suffered a very large burn for a tiny 62 pound eight year old child and the actions taken against her on the night of April 12 th 2007 are outrageous. Nobody needed to be worrying about labeling the injury as anything until Plaintiff Q Stephens had been properly evaluated and stabilized. Sending Plaintiff Q Stephens home to be treated in an unsterile environment by her parents who are not medical professionals in any capacity was criminal. Expecting Plaintiff K and R Stephens to be able to care for and heal Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury was ridiculous. Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury needed far more medical attention than what Plaintiff K and R Stephens were able to provide. Plaintiff K Stephens and R Stephens diligently sought medical care for Plaintiff Q Stephens which was repeatedly denied because the Stephens are not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. The baseless accusations that Defendants have been spreading about Plaintiff K and R Stephens to be absolved of this horrific hate crime Page 13 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
against Plaintiff Q Stephens is nothing short of disgusting. Defendant Providence and Defendant OHSU should have followed protocol and treated Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury appropriately. Plaintiff Q Stephens was obviously fatally injured and in need of expert medical attention. 14. Defendant Nike should have just moved Plaintiff R Stephens because that was the right way to respond to Plaintiff R Stephens complaint. Plaintiff R Stephens was obviously traumatized about the behavior exhibited by Randy Wolfe. It should have been no problem for Defendant Nike to elevate the issue and address the matter appropriately. Just because the Stephens Family is not white, not wealthy, and unrelated to anyone of importance Defendants have been willing to ignore and hide the facts and attempted to cause the death of Plaintiff Q Stephens and cover it up. Defendants have subjected the Stephens Family to prolonged and destabilizing psychological harm as a result of the malicious intentional campaign to destroy Plaintiff R Stephens and Plaintiff K Stephens and to keep covered up the abuse, neglect, and attempted murder of Plaintiff Q Stephens. V. BACKGROUND OF FACTS 15. In March of 2007, Plaintiff Renee Stephens was a footwear designer at Nike, working for Nikes subsidiary Exeter Brands Group. Plaintiff R. Stephens complained to Nike about witnessing and being a victim of sexual harassment on the Nike campus by one of his superiors, Randy Wolfe. 16. On March 9, 2007 Defendant Nike completed an investigation and issued a fact finding determination that revealed that there was behavior inconsistent with Nike Policy. 17. On March 12, 2007 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed a formal charge of discrimination against Nike with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission claiming sex discrimination and Page 14 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
sexual harassment. Plaintiff R. Stephens filed a complaint with the EEOC to help Defendant Nike understand that it was not appropriate for his work relationship with Randy Wolfe to continue and that he should be moved to a different department. 18. Defendant Nike told Defendant EEOC that Plaintiff R. Stephens does not have the right to choose his remedy and that Plaintiff R. Stephens did not even have a right to know if his allegations were substantiated or if a remedy had even been applied. 19. On March 20, 2007 Plaintiff R. Stephens father passed away of which he informed Defendant Nike and Plaintiff R. Stephens took two weeks off to attend the funeral. 20. On April 12, 2007, Plaintiff Qadira Stephens was spending the night at the house of Defendants Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston for an overnight with their daughter Sophie Burkholder. That night Plaintiff K Stephens attempted to contact plaintiff Q Stephens so that plaintiff Q Stephens little sister Kamaya Stephens could say goodnight to plaintiff Q Stephens. Plaintiff K Stephens spoke with defendant McQuiston who stated that plaintiff Q Stephens had been burned and that plaintiff K Stephens should come over. 21. Plaintiff K. Stephens preceded to Defendants Burkholder/McQuistons home where she was led down to their basement to find Plaintiff Q. Stephens naked wrapped only in a towel on a couch, her face swollen and red from crying, and with severe burn on her left leg. 22. Plaintiff K. Stephens brought Plaintiff Q. Stephens home where Plaintiff R. Stephens also saw the burn sustained by Plaintiff Q. Stephens. Plaintiff K. Stephens contacted her mother, Mrs. Audrey Lloyd, for advice of what to do and was told to take Plaintiff Q. Stephens to the hospital. 23. Plaintiff K. Stephens contacted Defendants Burkholder and McQuiston to ask if they would come to the Stephens residence because plaintiff R Stephens and Plaintiff K Stephens had 3 Page 15 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
other small children who were sleeping and could not be left alone and plaintiff Q Stephens needed to be taken to the hospital right away. Plaintiff R Stephens and Plaintiff K Stephens left for the hospital immediately after Defendant Todd Burkholder arrived at their home. Mrs. Audrey Lloyd arrived at the home of plaintiff K and R Stephens shortly after they left for Providence hospital. 24. Plaintiffs K. and R. Stephens took Plaintiff Q. Stephens to the Emergency Room Department of Defendant Providence St. Vincents Hospital where she was seen by Defendant Dr. Julie Andrews. 25. Defendant Andrews diagnosed Plaintiff Q. Stephens with a 10-20%, 2 nd degree burn on Plaintiff Q. Stephens left knee. Plaintiff Q. Stephens was seen by Defendant Julie Andrews who applied silver sulfadiazine cream and gauze wrap to her leg, then discharged her 20 minutes later with orders to apply the same treatment, to give Plaintiff Q. Stephens acetaminophen with codeine for her pain, and to see her regular doctor for follow-up care. 26. On April 13 th 2007 Plaintiff R. Stephens contacted Defendants Burkholder and McQuiston to let them know how Plaintiff Q. Stephens was doing and to ask for their homeowners insurance to ensure Plaintiff Q. Stephens medical expenses would be covered. 27. Defendant Todd Burkholder told Defendant State Farm insurance and Defendant Beth Phipps that Plaintiff R Stephens and Plaintiff K Stephens asked for his homeowners insurance because they were just interested in getting money and that they did not care about Plaintiff Q Stephens. 28. Plaintiff K. Stephens took Plaintiff Q. Stephens to Defendant Oregon Health and Science University Hospitals Gabriel Park Medical Center that day to have her burns evaluated. Page 16 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Plaintiff Q. Stephens was seen by Defendant Dr. Sara Tubbesing, as well as several other unknown doctors and nurses all of whom did nothing to help plaintiff Q Stephens. 29. Defendant Tubbesing and the other individuals did not treat Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn in any way, only examined it. Then, Defendant Tubbesing ordered Plaintiff K. Stephens to buy a list of supplies at the medical store and to administer three times daily wound care for Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn without medical instruction, supervision, or assistance at Plaintiff K and Plaintiff R Stephens home. 30. Plaintiff K Stephens and Plaintiff R Stephens did as defendant Tubbesing ordered and did complicated bandage changes on Plaintiff Q Stephens at their home several times a day without medical instruction, supervision, or assistance. 31. On April 14 th , 2007 Plaintiff K Stephens called OHSU and spoke with Dr. David Solondz and told him she felt like she didnt know what she was doing. Dr. David Solondz assured Plaintiff K Stephens that she was doing everything adequately and that she should just keep doing what she was doing. 32. On April 16, 2007 Plaintiff K. Stephens notified Defendant Portland Public Schools about Plaintiff Q. Stephens injury and the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q Stephens injury, and that she would not be returning until she was healed. 33. In late April 2007 Defendant Beth Phipps, a claims adjuster from Defendant State Farm Insurance Company, visited Plaintiffs K. and R. Stephens home and asked to take pictures of Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn. Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens were uncomfortable with this visit and decided to get legal representation for Plaintiff Q. Stephens to make sure that the situation was being handled appropriately. Page 17 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
34. In early May 2007 Plaintiffs K. and R. Stephens retained Steven P Riedlinger of Susak and Powell, P.C. to represent Plaintiff Q. Stephens. 35. On approximately May 18, 2007 Defendant Kocher contacted Plaintiff K. Stephens and convinced her that she needed a special burn attorney to represent Plaintiff Q. Stephens. After that conversation Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens decided to switch Plaintiff Q. Stephens representation to the firm of Vangelisti Kocher, LLP. 36. Defendant Providence, Defendant OHSU, Defendant Portland Public Schools, Defendant Vangelisti Kocher, Defendant Lachenmeier and Defendant Steven P Riedlinger are all mandatory reporters and had a legal responsibility to report plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury to the proper authorities. 37. On August 16, 2007 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed his second charge of discrimination against Defendant Nike claiming retaliation because Defendant Nike told Plaintiff R Stephens that he was being laid off because all NASCAR positions were being eliminated Plaintiff R. Stephens position was not specific to NASCAR. Plaintiff R Stephens was an Exeter employee working on all aspects of the Exeter business. Plaintiff R Stephens last day at Defendant Nikes corporation was September 28, 2007. 38. Plaintiff R Stephens applied for multiple positions within and without Nike but he could no longer get an interview or job offer of any kind in his industry. 39. In October of 2007 Plaintiff R. and K. Stephens youngest daughter was stricken with a rare life threatening auto-immune disorder called Kawasakis Syndrome and hospitalized at Emanuel Hospital for treatment. Plaintiff R Stephens liquidated his 401 K in order to cobra his health insurance to cover Alma Stephenss hospital stay, treatment, and any further medical expenses that might arise out of her medical condition. Page 18 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
40. On November 15 th Defendant Nike announced the sale of the Starter brand to Iconix. Defendant Nike guaranteed the loan of 60 million dollars for Iconix and Defendant Nike and Iconix agreed to indemnify each other in the event that anything went wrong with the deal. 41. On November 17, 2007 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed his third charge of discrimination against Nike claiming defamation, because he could no longer get work in his industry. 42. On November 17 th 2007 Defendant Kocher contacted Plaintiff K Stephens and told her that Plaintiff Q Stephens needed a guardian ad litem and that Plaintiff K Stephens had to be her guardian ad litem in order to move forward on behalf of Plaintiff Q Stephens. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher had a trained guardian ad litem on the payroll by the name of Patricia Piazza but did not inform Plaintiff K and R Stephens that they had any other options. 43. On November 21, 2007, Defendant Kocher petitioned to have Plaintiff K. Stephens appointed the guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Q. Stephens which was granted by Defendant Dale R. Koch. Defendant Kocher filed suit against Defendant McQuiston in Multnomah County Circuit Court. Defendant Rudy Lachenmeier appeared as counsel for Defendant McQuiston, Defendant Burkholder and Defendant State Farm to help Vangelisti Kocher cover up the abuse and neglect of Plaintiff Q Stephens. 44. In January of 2008 Defendant Nike told the EEOC that they had shutdown Exeter Brands Group LLC and that was the actual reason why Plaintiff R Stephens was laid off from Nike. 45. On January 22, 2008 Defendant OHSU ran a full metabolic workup on Plaintiff Q Stephens and discovered that she was in internal distress and suffering from sepsis, liver damage, low white blood cell count, and kidney distress. Defendant OHSU did not treat Plaintiff Q Stephens and did not inform Plaintiff K and R Stephens of her condition. Page 19 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
46. On January 30, 2008 the EEOC dismissed all of Plaintiff R. Stephens discrimination charges with indeterminate findings. 47. On February 26, 2008 the depositions of Defendant Burkholder, Defendant McQuiston, Sophie Burkholder, Plaintiff Q. Stephens, and Plaintiff K. Stephens were taken. Defendant Kocher advised Plaintiff K. Stephens not to attend the Defendants depositions and she did not attend them. 48. On April 11, 2008 Plaintiff K, R, and Q. Stephens attended a mediation conference with Defendant Lachenmeier held by Defendant John Barker. Defendant Kocher counseled Plaintiff K Stephens to walk out of the mediation. 49. On June 6, 2008 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed suit against Nike/Exeter Brands Group for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and defamation. 50. On June 30, 2008 Defendant Lachenmeier deposed Plaintiff R. Stephens for several hours. 51. On August 11 and 12, 2008 Plaintiff Q Stephens went to trial against Defendant McQuiston, presided over by Defendant Judge Michael McShane. 52. Defendant Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston admitted in sworn testimony to playing a naked game in the bathroom called little house on the prairie with Plaintiff Q. Stephens and Sophie Burkholder. 53. Defendant McQuiston testified that she burned Plaintiff Q. Stephens with scolding hot water from a tea kettle. 54. There were no law enforcement officials, doctors, expert witnesses, or anyone who testified in the trial besides Defendant Burkholder, Defendant McQuiston, Sophie Burkholder, Plaintiff K. Stephens, and Plaintiff R. Stephens. 55. Plaintiff Q. Stephens did not attend the trial. Page 20 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
56. Plaintiff Q. Stephens deposition was read to the court by opposing counsel, Defendant Betsy Fernly. 57. On August 12, 2008 Defendant Susan Glosser, presiding juror, returned a no negligence verdict in favor of Defendant McQuiston. 58. On August 13, 2008, Defendant Kocher told Plaintiff K. Stephens to button it down and walk away after having a meeting with her and Plaintiff R. Stephens at their home. 59. On approximately August 14, 2008 Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens contacted Portland Police Bureau and Defendant Officer Mulberry responded. Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens were informed by Defendant Mulberry that they were not allowed to file a police report. 60. Plaintiff K. Stephens contacted the District Attorneys Office and was told that she could not press charges without a police investigation. 61. On August 16, 2008 Plaintiff R. Stephens took Plaintiff Q. Stephens to the downtown Portland Police station and reported Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury to Defendant Officer Miller. Defendant Miller took the report and told Plaintiff R Stephens that what Q Stephens had experienced was at least reckless endangerment. 62. Plaintiff K and R Stephens pulled Plaintiff Q Stephens court file to try to figure out what had happened. Defendant Paul Schoen told Plaintiff K and R Stephens that there was no record of the evidence that went back to the jury. 63. Plaintiff K Stephens visited the home of Defendant Glosser in an attempt to figure out what evidence had gone back to the jury at trial. Defendant Glosser was very nasty to Plaintiff K Stephens and said that Plaintiff K Stephens was crazy and that Defendant McQuiston and Defendant Burkholder had paid all of Plaintiff Q Stephens medical bills. Defendant Glosser slammed the door in Plaintiff K Stephens face threatening to call the police if Plaintiff K Page 21 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Stephens did not get off her property. Defendant Glossers husband reiterated to Plaintiff K Stephens that Defendant McQuiston and Defendant Burkholder had done nothing wrong and that she should leave the property and Plaintiff K Stephens complied. 64. Plaintiff K. Stephens contacted Defendant Sgt. Dan Lui who is the head of the child abuse team for the Portland Police Bureau and described what happened to Plaintiff Q. Stephens. Defendant Sgt. Dan Lui firmly told Plaintiff K Stephens that the Portland Police do not investigate this type of thing, Defendant Lui was rude and argumentative with Plaintiff K. Stephens and terminated their phone conversation by hanging up on her. 65. After the verdict was rendered in Plaintiff Q. Stephens case, Defendant Kocher refused to prosecute her case any further. 66. On August 18, 2008 Plaintiff K. Stephens filed a bar complaint against Defendant Kocher alleging that he was incompetent or criminally negligent. 67. On August 28, 2008 Defendant Firdousi Chowdhury conducted a home visit and interviewed Plaintiff Q. Stephens. Defendant Chowdhury did not interview Defendant Burkholder, Defendant McQuiston, or Sophie Burkholder. 68. Plaintiff K. Stephens retained Steven P. Reidlinger of Susak and Powell to motion for a new trial, which was denied with extreme bias by Defendant McShane on August 29, 2008. 69. Plaintiff K and R Stephens spoke with Robin Morrison Principal of Hayhurst Elementary School and a representative for Portland Public schools about Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury and the improper use Odyssey Program materials as a defense at the trial of Plaintiff Q Stephens and to inform the school that Stephens children should have no contact with Defendant Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston. Defendant Portland Public Schools stated that they would move Plaintiff Q Stephens out of the Odyssey Program and speak to Page 22 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston. Defendant Portland Public Schools stated that they could not ask Defendants Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston to stop volunteering at the school, and that they could not inform Plaintiff K and R Stephens about any conversation that they had with Defendants Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston, or if any corrective action was taken in the matter. Defendant Portland Public Schools continued to allow Defendant Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston to volunteer at Hayhurst Elementary School despite Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury and despite being informed of the circumstances surrounding the injury. 70. Plaintiff K and R Stephens enrolled Plaintiff Q Stephens into counseling at Lifeworks for the entire year that Plaintiff Q Stephens attended the 4 th grade. 71. On September 2, 2008 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed his third amended complaint against Defendant Nike/Exeter Brands claiming specifically: 1. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Oregon. Plaintiff has been married for ten years and has four children. 2. Defendant is an Oregon corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of an Oregon corporation who does business in the County of Washington. At all material times Defendants acted through agents and employees who at all material times acted within the course and scope of their agency and employment for Defendants. 3. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from February 12th, 2001 until September 29th, 2007 when his position was eliminated. Plaintiffs position was changed on February 20th, 2005 from a Color Designer I at Nike, Inc. to a Footwear Designer I at Exeter Brands Group, LLC, which was his last position, held with the corporation. 5. On February 2, 2007 Plaintiff entered a storage room of his office space to help Randy Wolfe, Senior Designer and Mentor/Supervisor to Plaintiff, mount design boards for a presentation. Defendant Wolfe was speaking with Cory Page 23 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
McCullagh, also Senior Designer and Mentor/Supervisor to Plaintiff, when Plaintiff interrupted and asked, Should I start mounting? Defendant Wolfe said, Hold on, then proceeded to unbuckle his belt, pull down his pants (exposing his underwear,) bent over a table presenting his buttocks to Plaintiff in an apparent solicitation of a sexual advance, and said, Yah, start mounting! Plaintiff was shocked and said, Sorry, Ill choose my words more carefully next time. Then Plaintiff left the room. 6. On or about February 6, 2007 Plaintiff was speaking with Defendant McCullagh in the passage way out front of his cubicle. Defendant McCullagh was leaning over the island table in the passage way when without warning Defendant Wolfe approached him from behind, grabbed Defendant McCullagh by his hips, and began aggressively and repeatedly thrusting his genital area into and against Defendant McCullaghs buttocks, mimicking anal intercourse. Plaintiff was appalled and disgusted. Later that week, Defendant McCullagh and Defendant Wolfe were leaving a meeting in a room parallel to Plaintiffs cubicle. Defendant McCullagh momentarily stopped in front of the island table to answer one of the Plaintiffs questions. Defendant Wolfe approached Defendant McCullagh from behind to re-enter the meeting room. Defendant Wolfe cocked his arm backward and forcefully swung his hand forward and upward into the space between Defendant McCullaghs buttocks violently groping him. The Plaintiff was shocked and disturbed. 7. On or about February 15, 2007 Plaintiff was helping Defendant Wolfe organize the storage room of their office space when Defendant McCullagh entered to begin a conversation with Defendant Wolfe. Defendant McCullagh turned away from Defendant Wolfe to comment to Plaintiff and Defendant Wolfe grabbed Defendant McCullagh by his hips, and began aggressively and repeatedly thrusting his genital area into and against Defendant McCullaghs buttocks, again mimicking anal intercourse. As Defendant Wolfe continued his inappropriate act Defendant McCullagh said, I can feel your little Elvis. Plaintiff was intensely disturbed and became very anxious for his own personal safety in the work place. 8. February 28, 2007 Plaintiff entered the storage room where Defendant Wolfe and Defendant McCullagh were speaking to ask them a technical question about a project the Plaintiff was working on. Defendant Wolfe put on a jogging jacket and pretended to warm up for a run by jumping up and down and stretching his legs. Defendant Wolfe approached Plaintiff from behind and firmly grabbed Plaintiff by his hips and attempted to thrust his genital area into and against Page 24 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Plaintiffs buttocks. Plaintiff put his elbow in between Defendant Wolfe and himself, and then stepped back toward him off. Plaintiff defiantly told Defendant Wolfe, We are not going there! Defendant Wolfe threatened the Plaintiff as he turned to Defendant McCullagh and stated, Ill just try it again when he turns thirty! Then, he turned to the Plaintiff and said, Youre too virile of a young man to not have tried sleeping with another man! The Plaintiff affirmed, I would never do that, and then left the room. Plaintiff was extremely intimidated and disturbed. 9. The Plaintiff avoided interaction with Defendant Wolfe until March 2, 2007. At the end of the work day as the Plaintiff was walking down the hall talking on his cell phone to his wife and preparing to exit the building Defendant Wolfe approached him from behind. Defendant Wolfe cupped Plaintiffs left buttock with his hand and slid his hand upward with a caressing motion to the small of Plaintiffs back. The Plaintiff pushed Defendant Wolfes hand away and said, No! Defendant Wolfe raised his arms and stuck them out at his sides and said, What? Plaintiff was very distressed and intimidated, said nothing and left. 10. On March 5th, 2007 Plaintiff decided to tell his manager Mac Mcdevitt what happened. Plaintiff typed a written statement detailing what Defendant Wolfe did to Plaintiff and read it to Defendant Mcdevitt in Defendant McDevitts office. Defendant Mcdevitt immediately called HR Director Mary Brunke into his office where Plaintiff recounted the story to her. Plaintiff was very nervous and frightened. Defendant Brunke called Melissa Marks, an Employee Relations Director for Nike Inc., and they set up a fact finding meeting with Plaintiff for March 7th, 2007. In that meeting Plaintiff described to both Defendant Brunke and Defendant Marks about what Defendant Wolfe did to Defendant McCullagh and himself.
12. On March 9th, 2007 Plaintiff met with Defendant Brunke for a follow up meeting. She presented Plaintiff with a closure letter written by Defendant Marks that was unsigned and misleading of the allegations. Defendant Brunke told Plaintiff that they handled the matter and would not disclose how to Plaintiff. Defendant Brunke told Plaintiff they determined from their investigation that it was just roughhousing and that Defendant Wolfe did not realize he was offending Plaintiff. She told Plaintiff after he inquired that they would not transfer him or Defendant Wolfe to another department. Plaintiff informed Defendant Brunke that he no longer felt comfortable with the conditions in his work place environment and no longer wanted to work with Defendant Wolfe. Page 25 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff that the validity of his allegations was in question effectively forfeiting Plaintiffs ability to challenge the findings of the investigation. 13. By defining Plaintiff allegations as roughhousing the Defendants conducting the fact finding investigation recklessly down-played Plaintiffs allegations. This action resulted in the Defendants failure to involve the proper authorities and/or mental health professionals. Plaintiff asserts that proper qualified personnel with experience in dealing with male victims of sexual harassment could have conducted a thorough investigation, interviewed all potential witnesses inside the work area, and determined the actual validity of Plaintiffs allegations; and made appropriate corrective recommendations to ensure a productive and positive work environment for all involved parties. 14. Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to repeated displays of sexually aggressive and predatory behavior. Plaintiff contends that if he were female, Defendants would not have categorized such behaviors complained about as roughhousing. Plaintiffs complaint would have been taken seriously and a thorough investigation would have been conducted, with a different remedy applied. Plaintiff felt he had to comply with Defendants decision of returning Plaintiff to work with Defendant Wolfe or risk losing his job and the ability to support his family. Plaintiff drove to Seattle on March 12th, 2007 and filed a charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Defendants. 15. When Plaintiff returned to work he avoided any interaction with Defendant Wolfe. Plaintiff felt extremely intimidated by the entire circumstance and reiterated to Defendants that he no longer felt safe or comfortable in his work environment. Plaintiff requested that all communication between Defendant Wolfe and himself be handled by Management. On March 19th, 2007 Plaintiff emailed Defendant Marks asking her to correct the closure letter to reflect the actual alleged events and to sign the letter. Plaintiffs father passed away on March 20th, 2007. Plaintiff took two weeks off to attend the out of state funeral. 17. Plaintiff returned to work on April 2nd, 2007. Defendant Mcdevitt verbally reassigned Plaintiff to new mentor/supervisor Shawn Wenzel because he complained about Defendant Wolfe. Plaintiff continued to support the Starter Brand, the Tailwind Brand, the Elton Brand Basketball initiative within the Starter Brand, and began supporting the new NASCAR initiative also within the Starter Brand. On April 15th, 2007 Donna Morrow, General Manager for Page 26 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Tailwind, presented Plaintiff with a Milestone Award for his help with the Tailwind Brand. 18. Plaintiff worked with and in close proximity to alleged aggressor, witness, and management who had direct knowledge of Plaintiffs protected activity and full details of allegations. Defendant Mcdevitt, Defendant McCullagh, and other employees (including, but not limited to the President and C. E. O. of Exeter Brands Group, Clare Hamill) continued to verbally harass Plaintiff by their persistent use of the name Big Daddy when referring to Plaintiffs alleged aggressor. Defendants allowed Defendant Wolfe to retain offensive paraphernalia on his desk and allowed him to refer to himself as Big Daddy. 19. On August 13th, 2007 Plaintiff was verbally informed by Defendant Hamill, Defendant Mcdevitt, and Defendant Brunke that the NASCAR initiative was being divested, and that the Plaintiffs position was being eliminated. Defendant Brunke later reiterated to Plaintiff in subsequent emails that his position was being eliminated because all NASCAR positions were being eliminated. Plaintiffs position was not a NASCAR position. Plaintiffs position was as an Exeter Foot-wear Designer I, supporting all aspects of the Exeter Footwear business. 20. Plaintiff met with Defendant Brunke on August 14th, 2007 and was told that he should begin searching for employment outside of the corporation. Plaintiff was not offered a transfer. Plaintiff was also encouraged by Defendant Mcdevitt, Defendant Wenzel, and Eric Happel (a Strategic Planner for Exeter Brands) to seek work outside of the corporation. Plaintiff sent resumes to Ron Vasquez (HR Director), Lisa Olivia (Nike Design Recruiter), Ginny Hopkirk (HR Director), and Peter Hudson (Nike Design Director) informing them of his job loss and his desire to stay employed at Nike. Plaintiff met with several Nike business leads including Ginny Hopkirk, Scott Leclair (Action Sports General Manager), Ted Baldeere (Digital Design Studio Director), Skip Lei (Innovation Lead for Nike Affiliates), E. Scott Morris (Cleated Design Director), and Karen Reuther (Global Color Design Director) in an effort to secure employment. Plaintiff was told that there was no head-count for him despite the fact that Nike was hiring and Plaintiffs exceptional work history with the corporation. 21. Plaintiff applied for three entry level positions during August 2007 which he qualified for and was denied. Defendant Marks sent Plaintiff a formal termination letter on August 26th, 2007. Plaintiff requested a copy of his personnel file and on August 28th, 2007 received a copy which was missing the Page 27 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
last four years of his reviews and other documents. Plaintiff filed a charge of retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 29th, 2007. 22. On September 25th, 2007 Defendant Olivia offered Plaintiff an invitation to apply for a design position that he did not qualify for. Plaintiff declined the invitation to apply to that position. 23. Plaintiff was unable to accept Defendants severance package because it was contingent on a release of claims against Defendants. Plaintiff had two open EEOC charges under investigation when his employment with the corporation ended. 24. Since Plaintiffs last day at Defendants corporation, Plaintiff has applied for six additional positions that he qualified for within Nike, Inc. Plaintiff has received no response (except for the automated responses informing him that his applications were received) from Defendants in regards to any of those positions. 25. As a result of Defendants discrimination, Plaintiff suffered intimidation, humiliation, and degradation. Due to Plaintiffs loss of income and career, Plaintiff and his family have and will continue to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, and loss of quality of life. Plaintiff liquidated his 401K in order to support his family after his loss of income. Plaintiff had to Cobra his health insurance for several months when his youngest daughter was stricken with a life threatening illness shortly after his employment with Defendants corporation ended. Plaintiff has been unable to secure employment. Plaintiff and his family are currently fully dependent on state assistance for food, cash, and health insurance. Plaintiff does not want this to happen to anyone else.
72. On October 13, 2008 Plaintiff K. Stephens sent a comprehensive letter to Defendant Rosie Sizer, alleging that Defendant Kocher and Lachenmeier conspired to cover up a crime and requested a police investigation. 73. On October 29, 2008 Plaintiff K. Stephens complaint was reviewed by Defendant Officer John Eckhart and Defendant Officer Bret Smith and Defendant Portland Police Bureau refused to investigate any of the issues brought by Plaintiff K. Stephens. Page 28 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
74. On October 29, 2008 Defendant Phil Knight donated $100 million dollars to Oregon Health and Science University Hospital. 75. On November 6, 2008 Defendant Charlie G. Jenkins closed Plaintiff Q. Stephens DHS case as unable to determine. 76. Plaintiff K. Stephens contacted numerous local and state officials about what happened to her daughter and the police bureaus failure to investigate and every state and local official that Plaintiff K. Stephens contacted declined to help her or Plaintiff Q. Stephens. 77. On November 12, 2008 Defendant Reidlinger filed a notice of appeal on Plaintiff Q. Stephens behalf. 78. On November 12, 2008 Defendant P.K. Runkles-Pearson and Defendant A. J. Pederson from Stoel Rives, LLP, defense counsel for Nike, began deposing/interrogating Plaintiff R. Stephens for a two day period on camera. The Defendants questioned Plaintiff R. Stephens extensively about his time at Nike, his entire life, his religion, and the lawsuit involving Plaintiff K. and Q. Stephens against Defendant McQuiston. 79. On November 13, 2008 Executive Assistant for the Oregon Department of Justice, Defendant Jacob Weigler, stated in a letter to Plaintiff K. Stephens that the ODOJ has no authority to force the Portland Police to do an investigation into Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury. 80. On November 17, 2008 Assistant General Counsel for the Oregon State Bar, Defendant Scott A. Morrill dismissed Plaintiff K. Stephens Bar Complaint against Defendant Kocher. 81. Plaintiff K. Stephens filed a judicial fitness complaint for willful misconduct against Defendant McShane which was reviewed by the Board of Judicial Fitness on December 12, 2008 and dismissed on December 26, 2008. Page 29 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
82. Plaintiff R. Stephens deposed Claire Hamill, CEO of Exeter Brands Group, LLC on December 17, 2008; Cory McCullagh and Mary Brunke on December 18, 2008; Defendant Randy Wolfe January 7, 2009; Richard McDevitt and Melissa Marks on January 8, 2009; and Allison Daugherty on January 9, 2009. 83. On January 7, 2009 Defendant P.K. Runkles-Pearson and A. J. Pederson deposed Plaintiff K. Stephens. 84. On January 7, 2009 Defendant P.K. Runkles-Pearson while representing Mr. Wolfe in a deposition at the offices of Stoel Rives, LLP jumped across the table and snatched Plaintiff R. Stephens personal recorder and refused to return it until he agreed to let all the information on it be erased. 85. On January 30, 2009 Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens attended a settlement conference with Defendant Nike at Washington County Circuit Court presided over by Judge Mark Gardner and Defendant Nike told Plaintiff R. Stephens to never apply again to their company. Judge Gardner denied Plaintiff R. Stephens counsel when he verbally asked for it at the settlement conference. 86. On February 2, 2009 Defendant Sylvia E. Stevens, General Counsel for the Oregon State Bar, issued a letter closing Plaintiff K. Stephens Bar Complaint against Defendant Kocher. 87. On February 17, 2009 Defendant Stoel Rives, LLP filed its motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff R. Stephens and on March 9, 2009 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed a comprehensive opposition to Defendant Nikes motion. 88. On March 30, 2009 oral arguments were heard before Defendant Judge Donald R. Letourneau and he granted Defendant Nikes motion for summary judgment without issuing a legal opinion or giving any explanation. Page 30 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
89. On March 11, 2009 Plaintiff K. Stephens filed a complaint with the Independent Police Review and they concurred with the Internal Affairs Department not to investigate plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury, and then stated that Plaintiff K. Stephens concerns were not appealable to the Citizens Review Board because there was no formal investigation. 90. On May 26, 2009 Defendant Letourneau dismissed without opinion and with prejudice Plaintiff R. Stephens discrimination lawsuit against Defendant Nike/Exeter. 91. On June 2, 2009 Internal Affairs Division declined to investigate the burn injury or the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q. Stephens trial. 92. On July 24, 2009 Plaintiff K. Stephens retained Defendant Andy Simrin to represent Plaintiff Q. Stephens to appeal Defendant McShanes judgment and in September of 2009 Defendant Simrin filed the opening brief. 93. On August 6, 2010 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed his appeal against Defendant Nike. 94. On July 14, 2010 the Defendants Judge Schuman, Judge Wollheim, and Judge Rosenblum of the Oregon Appellate Court affirmed Defendant McShanes decision without opinion. 95. Plaintiff K. Stephens motioned for appointment of counsel for Plaintiff Q. Stephens to petition the Oregon Supreme Court for review and was denied on September 24, 2010. 96. Plaintiff K. Stephens, on her own, petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review of Plaintiff Q. Stephens appeal. 97. On December 3, 2010 Defendants Judge Haselton, Judge Armstrong, and Judge Duncan of the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of Defendant Letourneau without opinion and while all of the material facts were at issue. 98. On December 23, 2010 Defendant Paul J. De Muniz of the Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear Plaintiff Q. Stephens petition for review. Page 31 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
99. In 2010 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed three additional charges of discrimination against Defendant Nike with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission claiming race discrimination and retaliation. 100. In the summer of 2010 Plaintiff K. Stephens discovered that she was not qualified to have been appointed Plaintiff Q. Stephens guardian ad litem. 101. In August of 2010 Plaintiff K Stephens filed a lawsuit claiming legal malpractice, professional negligence, and emotional distress against Vangelisti Kocher, LLP in 2010. Defendant Callahan appeared as counsel for Defendant Vangelisti Kocher. 102. On March 8, 2011 Plaintiff K. Stephens discovered that the Oregon Department of Human Services closed Plaintiff Q. Stephens investigation as unable to determine for child abuse on November 6, 2008. Plaintiff K Stephens requested DHS reopen Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury case and make a determination but DHS refused. 103. On March 30, 2011 the Portland Police Records Department denied Plaintiff K. Stephens Request for Plaintiff Q. Stephens police report on the grounds that the report contained reports of child abuse. 104. On April 7, 2011 Defendants Kocher and Vangelisti through counsel denied the majority of the Plaintiff K Stephens allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff K Stephens third amended complaint. 105. On April 7, 2011 Defendant De Muniz declined to hear Plaintiff R. Stephens petition for Oregon Supreme Court review 106. Plaintiff K Stephens filed a comprehensive opposition to summary judgment complete with testimony and evidence to support her arguments, claims, and allegations on May 16, 2011. Page 32 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
107. On May 25, 2011 Defendant Rees heard oral arguments on the defendants motion for summary judgment and granted the motion in part and denied it in part without opinion and directed the plaintiff to amend her complaint. 108. Plaintiff K Stephens filed her fourth amended complaint on May 27, 2011 which added additional claims of intentional, reckless, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary. 109. On June 30, 2011 the EEOC determined that Defendant Nike had violated Plaintiff R. Stephens civil rights but rescinded the determination shortly thereafter. 110. In the summer of 2011 the EEOC dismissed Plaintiff R. Stephens additional charges of discrimination based on race and retaliation with three more indeterminate findings. 111. Defendant Callahan filed a motion to dismiss the allegations in Plaintiff K Stephens fourth amended complaint on June 10, 2011. 112. Defendant Rees granted Defendant Callahans motion on July 13, 2011 in whole without legal opinion. Defendant Rees inserted his personal opinion about the validity of some of the plaintiffs allegations with extreme bias, and directed the plaintiff to amend her complaint 113. On July 17, 2011 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed a federal lawsuit, docket #3 11-CV-736-HU, against Defendant Nike based on his fourth, fifth, and sixth EEOC charges. 114. Plaintiff K. Stephens filed her fifth amended complaint against Defendant Vangelisti Kocher on July 29, 2011. 115. Defendant Callahan filed his motion to strike the allegations in Plaintiff K. Stephens fifth amended complaint on August 12, 2011. Page 33 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
116. On August 15, 2011 Plaintiff R. Stephens filed a federal lawsuit, docket #3:11-CV-1013- HU, against the State of Oregon as well as all the judges who oversaw the proceedings in his state case against Nike/Exeter. 117. Plaintiff K Stephens and Plaintiff R Stephens convened with Defendant Maurer, Defendant Callahan, and Defendant Kocher for a status update conference on August 15, 2011. 118. Defendant Maurer attempted settlement negotiations which failed and she reassigned the case to Defendant Nelson based on Plaintiff Stephens informing her that she filed a judicial fitness complaint against Defendant Rees. 119. Defendant Nelson heard and granted, without opinion, Defendant Callahans motion to strike the allegations in Plaintiff K. Stephens fifth amended complaint on September 14, 2011. 120. Plaintiff K. Stephens filed a judicial fitness complaint against defendant Nelson alleging that she was attempting to cover up the abuse of Plaintiff Q. Stephens. Defendant Nelson refused to recuse herself from Plaintiff K Stephens lawsuit and the judicial board of fitness dismissed Plaintiff K Stephens complaint without explanation. 121. Plaintiff K Stephens filed a motion to reconsider Defendant Nelsons ruling on September 30, 2011, specifically requesting that Defendant Nelson explain why and how she granted Defendant Callahans motion to strike. 122. Defendant Nelson denied the plaintiffs motion without legal opinion on November 16, 2011 and directed her to amend her complaint. 123. Plaintiff K. Stephens filed her sixth amended complaint on October 7, 2011, which added Plaintiff Q Stephens and her claims as a plaintiff by and through her duly appointed guardian Page 34 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
ad litem Karellen Stephens. The sixth amended complaint also added Defendant Kocher and Defendant Vangelisti as individual defendants.
124. Plaintiffs K. and R. Stephens requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigate the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q. Stephens injury and how it was handled by the legal system. 125. On March 14, 2011 Defendant Glenn G. Norling on behalf of the F.B.I. refused to investigate and told the plaintiffs to never contact the F.B.I. again. 126. Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens reported to the Office of the Inspector General that the State of Oregon was covering up child abuse and that the local F.B.I. was refusing to investigate and the Office of the Inspector General refused to investigate any of the issues brought by Plaintiff K and R Stephens. 127. On July 5, 2011 Plaintiff Q. Stephens was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes after being rushed to Emmanuel hospital in full blown ketoacidosis. 128. In the summer of 2011 Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens visited Joseph Pulito, M.D., where he told them that Plaintiff Q. Stephens should have been transferred to the Oregon Burn Center for treatment based on the diagnosis of the ER report from Providence St. Vincent Hospital and from OHSU Hospital. 129. Plaintiff K Stephens contacted The American Burn Association and was told that based on the recommendations of the American Burn association plaintiff Q Stephens should have been transferred to the Oregon Burn Center for treatment. 130. Plaintiff K. Stephens filed complaints against all doctors involved and Defendants OHSU and Providence Hospital with the Defendant Oregon Medical Board. The Oregon Medical Board dismissed the complaints without an explanation. Page 35 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
131. On April 22 and May 2, 2011 in a depositions held by Plaintiff K. Stephens, Defendant Kocher testified under penalty of perjury, that he served on a committee with Defendant Rex Burkholder, Defendant Todd Burkholders brother an Oregon politician; he testified that he did work for the law firm that is defending Nike against Plaintiff R. Stephens. 132. On January 13, 2012 Defendant Callahan filed a motion in the current county case #1008-1100 limiting Plaintiff K. Stephens from submitting evidence or commenting at trial on any of the emotional distress she experienced; Defendant Kochers connection to Defendant Rex Burkholder; Plaintiff K. Stephens appointment as Plaintiff Q. Stephens guardian ad litem; the fact that Defendant Kocher did not report Plaintiff Q. Stephens injury to the police; the fact that Defendant Kocher used Plaintiff K. Stephens medical records in Plaintiff Q. Stephens civil trial; any of Defendant Kochers conduct at Plaintiff Q. Stephens civil trial; and the fact that this was a matter of child abuse or that there was a conspiracy to cover it up which was granted by Defendant Nelson without, reason, explanation or opinion. 133. On January 17 th and 18 th Defendant Nelson, Defendant Callahan, Defendant Vangelisti Kocher, Defendant McQuiston, Defendant Burkholder, and Defendant Lachenmeier attempted to hold trial proceedings at Multnomah County Courthouse to force Plaintiff K Stephens to amend her complaint and go to trial against Defendant Vangelisti Kocher with the amended allegations which included none of Plaintiff K Stephens allegations only a claim to recover the money Plaintiffs paid Defendant Andy Simrin to appeal Qadiras case. 134. On January 17 th Plaintiff K Stephens informed Defendant Callahan and Defendant Nelson via email that she would not be participating in the proceedings because she does not engage in covering up crimes. Page 36 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
135. Plaintiff Q. Stephens was denied proper medical attention from Defendants OHSU Hospital and Providence Hospital; denied an investigation from every authority official; has not received compensation in any form from anyone; and has been unable to get any legal assistance. Plaintiff Q. Stephens is 13 years old. 136. Defendant Nike filed documents with the EEOC and the Washington County Court House stating that Plaintiff R. Stephens layoff was due to the shutdown of Exeter Brands Group, LLC, but to this day Exeter Brands Group, LLC is still an active business as so documented by the New York State Department. 137. On January 22, 2012 Plaintiffs K. and R. Stephens discovered that Defendant OHSU Hospital had knowledge based on a comprehensive metabolic test taken on January 22 2008 that Plaintiff Q. Stephens was experiencing internal distress and severe sepsis after her burn injury occurred. Plaintiff K and R Stephens tried to report the crime to Portland Police, FBI, and informed Portland Public Schools of the matter. Portland Police and the FBI hung up on the Stephens repeatedly and refused to investigate or even speak with the Stephens Family. VI. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS 138. Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of rights and sought to inflict severe debilitating emotional distress onto Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs are not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance, because Plaintiff R. Stephens complained and pursued civil action against Nike, Inc. and because defendants intended to cover up the crime of child abuse perpetrated by Aimee McQuiston and Todd Burkholder. 139. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher intended to cause the Plaintiff K. Stephens severe emotional distress by not advising her that her private medical information was breached in Plaintiff Q. Stephens medical report. Page 37 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
140. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher intended not to allow the Plaintiff K. Stephens to sit in on or discuss the depositions of Sophie Burkholder, Todd Burkholder, or Aimee McQuiston because Defendant Vangelisti Kocher intended to cause Plaintiffs severe emotional distress at trial by shocking them with the testimony of Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston. 141. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher intended to cause the Plaintiffs severe emotional distress by advising them to go to trial without the Qadira Stephens, the key witness, so that Qadira would lose her case. 142. Defendants intended to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress by not informing the Plaintiffs of Ms. McQuistons denial of liability and intentionally left Todd Burkholder, a responsible party, off of the complaint, because the Defendants intended for Qadira Stephens to receive nothing for her injuries. 143. Defendants intended not to inform the Plaintiffs they were going to conspire with Rudy Lachenmeier to cover up a crime, so that it would cause the Plaintiffs emotional distress when they could no longer seek criminal prosecution against Qadiras abusers. 144. Defendant Kocher and Defendant Vangelisti Kocher failed to inform the plaintiff that they worked for Stoel Rives, LLP, which was at the time defending a legal action against the plaintiffs husband Renee Stephens which was a serious conflict of interest. 145. Defendants intended to cause the Plaintiff K Stephens severe emotional distress by disseminating plaintiffs private medical information about her anxiety condition with opposing counsel, the court, and the jury. 146. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher intended not to inform the plaintiff that they were going to disseminate her private medical information and knew that it would cause the plaintiff Page 38 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
grave distress if she were to find out that her private medical information was shared with opposing counsel, the court and the jury. 147. The Defendants intended to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress by intentionally losing the plaintiffs daughter case. 148. Defendants intended to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress by making sure that the plaintiffs daughters case was never properly investigated by authorities. 149. Defendants intended to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress by making sure that the people who abused and neglected her daughter received no consequences and that the plaintiffs daughter received no restitution for being the victim of such criminal activity. 150. Defendants intended to cause the Plaintiffs severe emotional distress and an emotional breakdown by taking the Plaintiffs daughters case to trial. 151. Defendant Lachenmier and Defendant Vangelisti Kocher intended to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress by not informing her of the $25,000 offer of judgment which would have ended the litigation and instead encouraging her to attend her daughters trial which the defendant Vangelisti Kocher and Defendant Lachenmier knew was certain to fail. 152. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher used its position, as the Plaintiffs attorney, to protect Todd Burkholder from criminal and civil prosecution because the defendant knew Todd Burkholders brother who is a prominent Oregon politician. 153. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher used its position, as the plaintiffs attorney, to protect Aimee McQuiston from criminal and civil prosecution because the defendant knew Aimee McQuistons brother in-law who is a prominent Oregon politician. 154. Defendants discredited the plaintiff as Qadiras guardian ad litem. Page 39 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
155. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher did not inform the plaintiff or protect the plaintiffs legal rights as Qadiras guardian ad litem. 156. Defendants did not have the plaintiffs daughters case properly investigated. 157. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher used its position as the plaintiffs attorney to manipulate the plaintiff into believing that her daughters case was a simple personal injury case; that it was only an accident; and was only about damages where liability was not at issue. 158. Defendants did not inform the plaintiff that she had an option to prosecute her daughters case criminally. 159. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher failed to involve testimony or documentation from the ER doctor or any doctor at trial. 160. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher improperly led defense witnesses through the trial, not allowing them to tell their version of events. 161. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher failed to file a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict under ORCP rule 63 after the plaintiff asked him to do so and despite the fact that McQuiston proffered no evidence of not being negligent. 162. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher failed to submit critical evidence of a phone call in which McQuiston admitted to Qadira being burned at her house when the Plaintiffs asked him to do so. 163. Defendants recklessly and negligently failed to advise the plaintiff that her private medical information was breached in Qadiras medical report. Defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiff was identified in Qadiras medical report on May 17, 2007 as suffering from anxiety. Page 40 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
164. Defendants recklessly and negligently disseminated plaintiffs private medical information about her anxiety condition with opposing counsel, the court, and the jury. 165. Defendants negligently and recklessly failed to advise plaintiff that Qadiras treating doctors inserted baseless determinations that Qadiras injury was accidental and inserted unverified and unsubstantiated testimony with no known source into Qadiras medical records. 166. Defendants recklessly and negligently failed to advise the plaintiff that it was bringing the testimony of treating doctors via Qadiras medical reports that were adverse to the plaintiffs daughters claim of negligence. 167. Defendanst failed to inform the plaintiff that Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston had committed the crime of child abuse and child neglect under Oregon law and that the case needed to be referred to the authorities for criminal prosecution. 168. Defendants knew or should have known that Dr. Sarah Tubbesing did not interview Qadira or the plaintiff about any account of events and that the evidence contained in her report could not have been obtained from the plaintiff or her daughter and should have been controverted. 169. Defendants knew or should have known that the McQuiston and Burkholder were never identified to the hospital and therefore not a possible source for Dr. Sarah Tubbesings testimony. 170. The Defendants knew or should have known that unverified and unsubstantiated evidence did not belong in Qadiras medical records. 171. Defendants negligently and recklessly failed to advise the plaintiff that any determination about Qadiras injury before litigation should have been established by the Police or DHS Page 41 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
because her treating doctors were not in contact with all responsible parties and did not have all the facts. 172. Defendants knew or should have known that tea kettles do not boil themselves to a scalding level and accidentally walk themselves into bathrooms (where they do not belong) with naked children present. 173. Defendants recklessly and negligently failed to advise the plaintiff that law enforcement would be unlikely to investigate after a ruling in a civil trial. 174. Defendants recklessly and negligently disseminated unsubstantiated testimony and evidence to the opposing counsel, the court, and the jury. 175. Defendants recklessly and negligently failed to inform the plaintiff that it was going to agree with the court and defense counsel that the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q. Stephens injury were not to be considered. Specifically, the fact that McQuiston had a teapot full of scalding water in the bathroom; the fact that the plaintiffs daughter was involved in an adult supervised naked game; the fact that Todd Burkholder walked into the bathroom which contributed to the plaintiffs daughters injury; and the fact that the plaintiffs daughter suffered for an undisclosed amount of time in the Burkholder basement without medical attention. 176. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher knew or should have known since it submitted the unverified report and baseless determination of Dr. Sarah Tubbesing as part of plaintiffs daughters official medical report that the jury would believe that Qadiras injury was accidental and therefore find no liability of McQuiston. Page 42 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
177. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher knew or should have known that no reasonable juror would have made a determination against the report and determination of a medical doctor, especially if they did not know that the report was unverified. 178. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher recklessly and negligently advised the plaintiff go to trial without verbal testimony or attendance of its client Qadira, its key witness for the action, and did not explain the risks of doing so to the plaintiff. 179. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher knew or should have known that defendant should have advised the plaintiff that not bringing Qadira to testify at trial could also be detrimental to Qadiras case. Defendant denied the plaintiff the opportunity to decide whether to settle or take Qadiras case to trial based on that information. 180. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher recklessly and negligently advised John Barker, the mediator, but failed to advise the plaintiff that it believed that a jury would not punish McQuiston. 181. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher knew or should have known that failure to advise the plaintiff of this assessment would deny her the opportunity to question why the defendant believed that a jury would be unlikely to punish Mrs. McQuiston. This failure denied the plaintiff the opportunity to settle or seek an assessment from other counsel. 182. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher knew or should have known that it should have informed the plaintiff of the offer and advised the plaintiff to take the offer because plaintiff had expressed her strong desire not to put Qadira through a trial, which was a change in the circumstances that defendant presented at mediation; and because defendant intended to include Dr. Sarah Tubbesings baseless determination and unsubstantiated report incident, unchallenged without informing the Plaintiffs Page 43 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
183. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher was responsible for recommending the plaintiff to be Qadiras guardian ad litem to the court. Defendant was representing plaintiff in her role as guardian ad litem and failed to advise her that she needed training to be Qadiras guardian ad litem, or that she needed to be a trained CASA or attorney because federal law requires this in cases of child neglect that lead to any judicial proceeding. 184. Defendants negligently and recklessly petitioned to have the plaintiff appointed regardless of her lack of qualifications. Defendant did not present plaintiff with any other options, except that the court required a guardian ad litem and that the plaintiff needed to serve in that role. 185. Defendants knew or should have known that the plaintiff should not have been appointed Qadiras guardian ad litem based on the plaintiffs lack of qualifications; the plaintiffs existing medical condition of anxiety; and the plaintiffs extraordinary life stressors which included dealing with Qadiras burn injury, dealing with the death of her father in-law, dealing with the circumstances surrounding the loss of the family income, dealing with the loss of the family income, dealing with her youngest daughters illnesses including pneumonia and Kawasakis syndrome (which is a life threatening illness from which she almost died), and holding down a job as a caregiver in an adult foster care home on weekends to help support her family, which defendant was aware of. 186. Defendants knew or should have known that by placing the extra burden and responsibility of serving as Qadiras guardian ad litem onto the plaintiff that it was substantially certain to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress because of plaintiffs anxiety condition. Page 44 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
187. Defendant knew or should have known that when the plaintiff was appointed guardian ad litem for Qadira that the plaintiff would be responsible for making sure that Qadiras claim was handled properly. 188. The Defendants knew or should have known that the plaintiff would fail as guardian ad litem for Qadira because of her lack of qualifications. Defendant was aware that the plaintiff was distressed about Qadiras injury and was substantially certain, based on the plaintiffs existing anxiety condition and compound extraordinary life stressors, that if the plaintiff failed in her role as Qadiras guardian ad litem it would cause her grave distress. 189. Defendants knew or should have known based on plaintiff K Stephens existing anxiety condition that if the plaintiff discovered information about Qadiras case that was not presented to her before the trial that it would cause her grave distress. 190. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher recklessly and negligently failed to advise the plaintiff that Scott F. Kocher personally knew Rex Burkholder (a prominent Oregon politician and brother-in-law to McQuiston) and served on a committee with him from approximately 1990- 1992. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher knew or should have known that because of the circumstances surrounding Qadiras burn injury that the plaintiff would have been uncomfortable with that association and would have wanted to seek other counsel based on that information. Defendant knew or should have known that this would be an issue after Rex Burkholders name was mentioned in McQuistons deposition. Defendant knew or should have known that if the Plaintiffs discovered this information after Qadira lost her trial it would cause them severe emotional distress. 191. Defendant Nike was upset that Plaintiff R. Stephens complained to the EEOC and showed the EEOC the letter stating that there was behavior inconsistent with Nike policy. Page 45 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Defendant Nike felt they had handled the situation appropriately and Plaintiff R. Stephens had no right to complain to the EEOC. 192. Defendant Nike was upset when plaintiff R Stephens asked for them to move him or to move Randy Wolfe because Defendant Nike did not feel that plaintiff R Stephens had any right to ask for anything because plaintiff R Stephens is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. 193. Defendant Nike felt as if they had done plaintiff R Stephens a favor for letting him work up at Nike for eight years. Defendant Nike employs very few people of color at their company and most Nike employees are white, upper middle class and with the exception of the many workers who are employed overseas making the product, Defendant Nike does not usually hire individuals who are not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. 194. Defendant Nike decided that they were going to terminate Plaintiff R. Stephens while Plaintiff R. Stephens was attending his fathers funeral. Defendant Nike asked Plaintiff R. Stephens to work with Shawn Wenzel after he returned from his fathers funeral on April 2nd to get plaintiff R. Stephens to believe that he was part of the NASCAR initiative. 195. On the night of April 12 th 2007 after Plaintiff Q Stephens was burned at the home of Defendant McQuiston and Defendant Todd Burkholder, Defendant Todd Burkholder came to the Stephens home not to help Plaintiff K and R Stephens but to find out where Plaintiff K and R Stephens were taking Plaintiff Q Stephens so that Defendant Burkholder could get his brother Rex Burkholder to downplay the situation so that Portland Police and DHS would not be notified. Page 46 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
196. Defendant Todd Burkholder contacted his brother Defendant Rex Burkholder so that he could use his influence as a SW City Councilor to protect Defendants T. Burkholder and McQuiston from criminal prosecution. 197. Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston were facing serious charges and prison time for the crimes that they perpetrated against Plaintiff Q Stephens. Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston downplayed the severity of Plaintiff Q Stephens injury by telling Plaintiffs K and R Stephens that Plaintiff Q Stephens wanted to come home. 198. Defendant Todd Burkholder insisted that Plaintiff K and R Stephens did not need to take Plaintiff Q Stephens to the hospital and suggested they just put Aloe Vera on Plaintiff Q Stephens burn. Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston did not want Plaintiff Q Stephens to be seen at any hospital because they did not want anyone asking questions about what they were doing on the night of April 12 2007. 199. Defendant Todd Burkholder started a malicious rumor that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were out for money and unconcerned about their daughter to distract all involved parties from what defendant Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston had been doing on the night of April12th 2007. 200. Defendant Rex Burkholder began repeating this malicious rumor because he believed his brother and wanted to protect him from criminal prosecution and because the Stephens are not white, wealthy, and unrelated to anyone of importance Defendant Rex Burkholder never questioned the validity of his brothers statement. 201. Defendant Rex Burkholder, Defendant McQuiston, and Defendant Todd Burkholder all downplayed the events surrounding the injury of plaintiff Q. Stephens and Defendant Rex Page 47 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
Burkholder used his credibility as a SW City Councilor to add merit to Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston assertions that what happened to Qadira was just an accident. 202. Defendant Rex Burkholder contacted Providence hospital and told them not to report Plaintiff Q Stephens injury, that it was just an accident, and that he would take care of it. 203. On the night of April 12 th 2007Plaintiff K and R Stephens were in severe shock after Plaintiff Q Stephens was burned and had stayed up most of the night tending to their daughter after being sent home by Defendant Julie Andrews with Plaintiff Q Stephens. Plaintiff R Stephens contacted Defendant Burkholder/McQuiston early on the morning of April 13 th 2007 to ask for their homeowners insurance because Plaintiff K Stephens was going to take Plaintiff Q Stephens to OHSU to have her burn further evaluated and her bandages changed. 204. Defendant Rex Burkholder contacted defendant Joe Robertson and asked him to downplay what happened to Plaintiff Q Stephens, to not transfer her to the burn unit, that this was just an accident and that based on the fact the Stephens had asked for homeowners insurance that the Stephens were just out for money anyway. Defendant Rex Burkholder did not believe that his brother Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston should have to face any prosecution for injuring Plaintiff Q Stephens because Plaintiff Q Stephens is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. 205. Defendant OHSU and Defendant Providence knew that Plaintiff Q Stephens burn could possibly cause her severe internal distress including sepsis, shock, organ failure and death but failed to treat Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury because they were more concerned about protecting Defendants Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston from going to jail and doing Page 48 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
a favor for Rex Burkholder than for the life of Plaintiff Q Stephens. Defendant Joe Robertson now believed the rumor started by Defendant Todd Burkholder because Defendant Rex Burkholder had repeated it and he is a reputable politician in Oregon. Defendant Joe Robertson took Defendant Rex Burkholder on his word. Defendants knew that if Plaintiff Q. Stephens was admitted to any hospital (especially the Oregon Burn Center) that Defendants would not be able to hide the severity of Plaintiff Q. Stephens injury. 206. Defendant Todd Burkholder told Defendant State Farm insurance company and Defendant Portland Public Schools that Plaintiff R. Stephens and Plaintiff K. Stephens asked for his homeowners insurance because they were just interested in getting money and that based on that they did not care about Plaintiff Q. Stephens. Defendant State Farm and Defendant Portland Public Schools believed this rumor as fact because Defendant Todd Burkholder is the brother of Defendant Rex Burkholder and because Rex Burkholder is white, a prominent politician, powerful, and upper middle class and the Plaintiffs are not. Defendants Todd Burkholder and Defendant Rex Burkholder began spreading this malicious rumor about Plaintiff K and R Stephens to distract people from the crime Defendant McQuiston and Defendant Burkholder had committed. 207. Defendant OHSU and Defendant Providence inserted a baseless version of events into plaintiff Q. Stephens medical record in order to make it appear as though there had been an official investigation into the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q. Stephens injury and in order to definitively protect Defendants Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston from criminal prosecution. 208. Defendant State Farm, defendant OHSU, and defendant Providence believed Burkholders assertions about the Stephens family and wanted to punish K and R Stephens Page 49 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
because Rex Burkholder is white and a prominent politician and the Stephens are not white and not related to anyone of importance. 209. Defendant OHSU and Defendant Providence made no effort at any time to get an expert opinion on the actual severity of the burn that Plaintiff Q. Stephens sustained because defendant OHSU and defendant Providence did not want to know the actual severity of Plaintiff Q Stephens injury because the defendants wanted to prevent her transfer to the Oregon Burn Unit and prevent any police involvement at all in order to protect Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuiston. 210. Defendants OHSU and Defendant Providence did not take any vitals, blood work, or do any further physical examination on Plaintiff Q Stephens because they did not want documentation of Plaintiff Q Stephens true physical state after she was burned to exist making it easier for Defendants McQuiston, Burkholder, OHSU and Providence to hide the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q Stephens burn, and to deny any liability if their failure to treat resulted in further illness or the death of Plaintiff Q Stephens. 211. Defendant OHSU sent plaintiff R. Stephens and Plaintiff K. Stephens home to care for Plaintiff Q. Stephens injury alone and without any medical supervision in an effort to inflict severe and debilitating psychological and emotional distress on to the entire Stephens family so they would have no time to process what had occurred and to avoid drawing additional attention to plaintiff Q. Stephens injury. 212. Defendant OHSU and Defendant Providence knew or should have known that burns of the size and nature sustained by the Plaintiff Q. Stephens needed immediate specialized care and that sending her home to be cared for by her unqualified parents was putting her at risk for serious bodily harm including sepsis, shock, organ failure, and death. Page 50 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
213. Defendant Providence and Defendant OHSU did not refer Plaintiff Q. Stephens for proper medical treatment at the Oregon Burn Center or treat her burn because Defendant Rex Burkholder asked them not to and because Plaintiff Q. Stephens is not white, not wealthy and not related to anyone of importance Defendant Providence and Defendant OHSU were unconcerned for her health and welfare and were more concerned that Defendant T. Burkholder and McQuiston would be prosecuted for what they had done. 214. Defendant Nancy Gorden Zwerling who was Qadiras primary care physician until May 2011 hid all of Qadiras medical conditions from her parents, agreeing to keep her condition a secret as a favor for Defendant OHSU, Defendant Knight, Defendant Nike, Defendant Lachenmier, Defendant Vangelisti Kocher and other Defendants that may have been informed of Plaintiff Q Stephens condition. 215. Defendant Portland Public Schools returned Plaintiff Q. Stephens to the Odyssey program while allowing Defendants Todd Burkholder and Aimee McQuistion to continue to volunteer in an effort to inflict severe emotional and psychological damage onto Plaintiff Q. Stephens after she was burned by forcing her to have direct contact with her abusers. 216. In July 2007 the EEOC contacted Plaintiff R. Stephens and asked him if he would be interested in dropping his charge against Defendant Nike because the EEOC wanted plaintiff R Stephens to drop his charge without investigation because Nike was guilty. Defendant Nike had just been penalized for discrimination in their Chicago store and had just signed a consent decree with the EEOC and any further charges of discrimination would not be good for Defendant Nikes image. Defendant Nike told the EEOC that Plaintiff R Stephens was just money hungry and trying to use his daughter to get money from an accident to persuade the EEOC to dismiss Plaintiff R Stephens complaint. Page 51 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
217. Defendant Federal investigator Matthew Cleman believed the assertions of Defendant Nike and Defendant Burkholder and continued not to take any action on behalf of Plaintiff R Stephens to punish Plaintiff R Stephens as a favor For Nike. 218. On August 13 th Claire Hamill contacted Plaintiff R. Stephens via email and asked him to convene in her office for a quick touch base. Plaintiff R Stephens was told that he needed to find another job, Hamill, Brunke, and McDevitt intended to cause Plaintiff R. Stephens severe emotional distress and snickered and laughed at him during the meeting. Defendant Nike knew that Plaintiff R. Stephens father had died and his daughter had been burned and that the school year was about to begin so Defendant Nike felt that is was an optimal time to inflict the highest level of emotional distress onto Plaintiff R. Stephens. Because Plaintiff R Stephens was already experiencing extraordinary life stressors it was a possibility that the loss of Plaintiff R Stephens job on top of everything else would drive Plaintiff R Stephens over the edge which would mean that he was no longer a problem for Defendant Nike. Defendant Nike had heard the rumor that Plaintiff R Stephens was just money hungry and intended to crush Plaintiff R and K Stephens especially because they were not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. 219. After Plaintiff R Stephens was laid off he contacted Defendant EEOC and filed a charge of retaliation because he felt that he was being laid off in retaliation for having filed his initial charge of discrimination and because he was being fired while he had an open EEOC charge pending. 220. Defendant Nike was upset because Plaintiff R Stephens filed a charge of retaliation against them in August 2007 and offered him a severance package contingent on a release of claims to get rid of him once and for all. Defendant Nike believed Plaintiff R. Stephens had Page 52 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
no choice but to accept the severance package because Plaintiff R. Stephens is not white, not wealthy, unrelated to anyone of importance and had many responsibilities including a wife and four small children to provide for. Defendant Nike made sure that Plaintiff R. Stephens had no re-employment opportunities to help ensure that he would sign the release of claims which would have absolved Defendant Nike from both pending EEOC charges. 221. Defendant Nike announced a strategic review of its Exeter Brands Group, LLC in September 2007 while they waited to see if Plaintiff R. Stephens would sign the severance agreement therefore absolving them of the pending EEOC charges. Defendant Nike had no intention of selling Starter and shutting down Exeter Brands Group LLC which was a growing and lucrative business within the company. Defendant Nike had just signed a multi- year contract with Payless Shoe Source to exclusively market the new Tailwind product and the Starter product was doing very well in Wal-Mart. Exeter Brands Group LLC was doing very well in the spring of 2007 when Plaintiff R Stephens complained. Defendant Nike figured that after Plaintiff R Stephens signed the severance agreement they would be able to go back to business as usual. 222. Defendant Nike was upset when plaintiff R. Stephens declined to accept and sign the severance agreement because they were guilty of discrimination/retaliation against Plaintiff R. Stephens and by laying him off Defendant Nike had made the whole situation worse. 223. Defendant Nike had already lied to the EEOC and to Plaintiff R Stephens that Plaintiff R. Stephens was laid off due to the fact that all NASCAR positions were eliminated and Defendant Nike were upset when Plaintiff R. Stephens pointed out this fact to Federal investigator Matthew Cleman. Defendant Nike was faced with shutting down an entire business unit, Exeter Brands LLC in order to rid themselves of Plaintiff R Stephens EEOC Page 53 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
charges and Plaintiff R Stephens once and for all. Defendant Nike was determined that Plaintiff R Stephens would never work in the footwear industry again because they believed the lies and rumors being perpetrated by Defendant Rex Burkholder and because they were angry at Plaintiff R Stephens for filing EEOC charges against them. 224. Defendant Nike wanted to punish Plaintiff R. Stephens for causing so much trouble by complaining. Defendant Nike felt that the events that had transpired were the fault of Plaintiff R. Stephens and since Defendant Nike now had it on good authority from Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Joe Robertson that Plaintiff R Stephens was just money hungry Defendant Nike decided to use Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury case against Plaintiff K and R Stephens. 225. On November 17 th after Plaintiff R. Stephens filed his 3 rd charge of discrimination based on defamation, Defendant Nike contacted Vangelisti Kocher, LLP and asked them to file suit against Defendant McQuiston to publicly make Plaintiff R. Stephens and Plaintiff K. Stephens appear money hungry and unconcerned about their daughter. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher never had any intention of ever prosecuting Plaintiff Q Stephens case. Defendant Vangelisti Kocher made Plaintiff K Stephens Plaintiff Q Stephens Guardian ad litem to make it appear that she was the one who had filed the lawsuit against McQuiston. Defendant Nike needed definitive proof show to EEOC investigator Matthew Cleman that the Stephens were money hungry so that he would absolve Defendant Nike of all of the charges filed by Plaintiff R. Stephens. 226. Defendant EEOC believed Defendant Nikes story about Plaintiff R. Stephens and intended to help Defendant Nike inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff R. Stephens by Page 54 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
ignoring all of the evidence presented by Plaintiff R. Stephens and dismissing all of Plaintiff R. Stephens complaints with indeterminate findings. 227. On January 22, 2008 Defendant OHSU became aware that Plaintiff Q. Stephens was very sick and exhibiting clear signs of internal distress in the form of sepsis, liver damage, low white blood cell count etc. But did not inform Plaintiff K. Stephens and Plaintiff R. Stephens because they did not want Plaintiff K. and R. Stephens to connect Plaintiff Q. Stephens internal damage to their response and failure to treat plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury. Defendant OHSU informed Defendant Lachenmeier and Defendant Vangelisti Kocher of Plaintiff Q Stephens condition and asked them to ask Plaintiff K and Q Stephens about the wound care that Defendant OHSU had ordered Plaintiff K and R Stephens to administer. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff K and R Stephens severe emotional distress with the death of plaintiff Q Stephens. 228. Defendant Kocher and Defendant Lachenmeier deposed Plaintiff K. Stephens, Plaintiff Q. Stephens, Defendant T. Burkholder, Defendant McQuiston, and Sophie Burkholder to try to dig up adverse information about Plaintiffs K. and R. Stephens. Because Plaintiff Q Stephens was now seriously ill and possibly dying Defendant Joe Robertson wanted to see if they could dig up any information that could implicate Plaintiff K and R Stephens in the internal injuries now being suffered by Plaintiff Q Stephens. Defendant Lachenmeier specifically questioned Plaintiff K and Q Stephens about the wound care that Plaintiff K and R Stephens had administered. Plaintiff K and R Stephens had only done what Defendant OHSU had told them to do but because they were not burn experts or medical professionals in any capacity and had absolutely no idea what they were doing or what they were looking at the entire time they had cared for Plaintiff Q Stephens at home all alone there was very Page 55 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
little Plaintiff K and Q Stephens could tell Defendant Lachenmeier and Defendant Kocher about Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury. 229. Defendant Lachenmeier, Defendant Kocher, and Defendant Joe Robertson, along with all of Plaintiff Q Stephens treating doctors agreed to keep Plaintiff Q Stephens health condition a secret from Plaintiff K and R Stephens. The Defendants had no information to suggest that Plaintiff K and R Stephens had done anything wrong and their own inaction on the night of April12th 2007 and in the ensuing months had produced the situation they were now all faced with which was bad. 230. Defendant Nike and Defendant Phil Knight were furious at Plaintiff R. Stephens because Plaintiff R. Stephens was contacting multiple law firms about his EEOC charges and potential case against Nike. Defendant Mitra Shari took Plaintiff R. Stephens case so he would stop talking to attorneys about his case. Defendant Shari intended to protect Defendant Nike and intended to cause Plaintiff R. Stephens severe emotional distress and run out Plaintiff R Stephens statute of limitations so he could no longer file suit against Defendant Nike. Defendant Shari declined to file Plaintiff R Stephens case just 10 days before his statute of limitations ran out to cause Plaintiff R Stephens severe emotional distress and to help Defendant Nike. 231. Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Joe Robertson wanted to settle plaintiff Q Stephens case in the summer of 2008. Defendants had gotten away with covering up the child abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff Q. Stephens and Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Joe Robertson had accomplished their goal of protecting Defendant Todd Burkholder and Defendant McQuiston from criminal prosecution. Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Joe Robertson wanted to wash their hands of the entire matter Page 56 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
because they knew that Plaintiff Q. Stephens was in internal distress and could have a medical emergency at any time. Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Joe Robertson wanted to distance Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury from any medical distress that Plaintiff Q. Stephens was to experience in the near future as a result of her untreated burn injury. 232. Defendant Nike was furious when Plaintiff R. Stephens filed his pro se complaint in June of 2008 because of the nature of the complaint and because Defendant Nike was guilty of all of Plaintiff R Stephens allegations. Defendant Nike hired Stoel Rives as counsel to intimidate and harass Plaintiff R Stephens. Defendant Nike convinced Defendant Vangelisti Kocher LLP , Defendant Joe Robertson, Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Lachenmeier to not settle Plaintiff Q Stephens case but instead to take her case to a trial where the Defendants would bring Plaintiff K Stephens and Plaintiff R Stephens to inflict severe and debilitating emotional distress on them by psychologically and verbally attacking in front of a jury of their peers, making them appear as though they were maliciously going after McQuiston, and by denying them any ability to understand the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q Stephens injury. 233. Defendant Lachenmeier deposed Plaintiff R Stephens to investigate him for defendant Nike and to attempt to dig up information that could be used against him and Plaintiff K and R Stephens at the trial to cause them both severe and debilitating emotional and psychological distress. 234. Defendant Lachenmeier filed the $25,000 offer of judgment, signed by Defendant McQuiston, and defendant Vangelisti Kocher filed Plaintiff Q. Stephens falsified OHSU medical records, stating that Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury was an accident, to make the court and the public believe that Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury was just an accident, Page 57 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
that had been properly investigated and treated appropriately at OHSU hospital and that Plaintiff K. Stephens was blowing it out of proportion because she had anxiety, and that Defendant State Farm had offered a reasonable amount of money to settle the claim and that Plaintiff K and R Stephens had declined the offer because they were money hungry and that Plaintiffs K. and R. Stephens were maliciously prosecuting Defendants T. Burkholder and McQuiston. 235. Defendants Vangelisti Kocher, Defendant Lachenmeier, Defendant Nike and Defendant Robertson informed Defendant McShane that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were just money hungry and unconcerned for their daughter. Defendant McShane believed the story because it was coming from reputable people and agreed to preside over the trial and to help all involved Defendants cause Plaintiff K and R Stephens severe emotional distress because Defendant McShane wanted to help punish K and R Stephens for Defendant Nike and all involved parties. 236. Defendant Nike, Defendant Joe Robertson and Defendant Rex Burkholder intended to use Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury case through Vangelisti Kocher, LLP; Defendant Kocher; Defendant Vangelisti; and Defendant Lachenmeier to cause Plaintiff K and R Stephens severe and debilitating emotional distress so that Plaintiff R Stephens would stop prosecuting his lawsuit against Defendant Nike and so that Defendant OHSU, and Defendant Providence, Defendant Lachenmeier, Defendant Joe Robertson, Defendant Rex and Todd Burkholder, Defendant McQuiston and Defendant Vangelisti Kocher would be protected from all liability in regards to their failure to treat Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury or report it to the proper authorities and definitively protected from criminal prosecution for covering up a crime. Page 58 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
237. Plaintiff K Stephens and Plaintiff R Stephens were subjected to intense emotional and psychological harm at the trial of Plaintiff Q. Stephens where Defendants McShane, Lachenmeier, and Kocher attacked both plaintiffs K and R Stephens on the stand, making fun of their childrens names, insinuating they had further harmed their daughter on the night of April 12 th 2007, making fun of Plaintiff R Stephens position as a welder and making sure the jury knew and understood that Plaintiff R Stephens used to work at Nike but was no longer employed in his industry insinuating he had been fired for cause, insinuating that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were always feuding with their neighbors, that they didnt bring any psychologists, doctors, witnesses or even Plaintiff Q Stephens because Plaintiffs K and R Stephens were really just out for money. 238. Defendant Portland Public Schools allowed the use of Odyssey Program materials to make it appear as those the girls were playing a game called Little house on the prairie. Portland Public Schools also wanted to help inflict severe emotional distress onto Plaintiff K and R Stephens for suing McQuiston and Burkholder and for suing Nike. 239. Defendants downplayed the severity of Plaintiff Q Stephens injury and did not inform the jury that there had never been an actual investigation into the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Q Stephens injury or that the hospitals failed to report or treat Plaintiff Q Stephens injury. Defendant Susan Glosser led the jury behind closed doors to ensure they delivered a defense verdict for McQuiston and did not get caught up in the particulars of the trial. The Defendants conducted the trial with the intention that it would completely destabilize Plaintiff K and R Stephens and cause them to harm themselves, or someone else. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff K and R Stephens to commit a crime or commit suicide so that all involved parties could wash their hands of the entire situation. Page 59 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
240. Defendants did not get the desired response from Plaintiffs K and R Stephens. Defendants were upset when Plaintiff K and R Stephens began filing complaints and attempting to contact officials with news of what had occurred. 241. Defendants told everyone who would listen that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were just money hungry in order to deflect attention from the real crime. Plaintiffs K and R Stephens never had a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting an investigation into Plaintiff Q Stephens injury because they are not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. 242. Defendant Portland Police Bureau declined to investigate Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury, the circumstances surrounding Q Stephens injury and trial to protect all involved parties who had so diligently sought to cause Plaintiff K and R Stephens severe emotional distress because the Portland Police Bureau believed that Plaintiff K and R Stephens were just money hungry and they wanted to protect Nike and all involved parties from any investigation. 243. Defendant Portland Police Bureau refused to investigate because Plaintiff Q Stephens was a victim of child abuse and all involved parties who had failed to report her injury, who had failed to treat her injury and who had sought to exploit Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury case were now looking at federal charges of conspiracy to cover up a crime. The Portland Police Bureau believed Rex Burkholders assertions about the Stephens family because the Stephens family is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance and they wanted to protect their friends. Defendant Portland Police Bureau wanted to protect all involved Defendants because they believed that Plaintiff Q Stephens was not worth convicting all of the involved Defendants. Page 60 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
244. Defendant DHS visited Plaintiff Q Stephens but were told by Defendant Lachenmeier that the Plaintiff K and R Stephens were angry and money hungry and that a civil trial had produced a no negligence finding in favor of Defendant McQuiston. Defendant DHS closed Plaintiff Q Stephens case as unable to determine because they believed Defendant Lachenmeiers assertions about Plaintiff K and R Stephens because they were being backed up by very powerful people and Defendant DHS now wanted to help all involved parties inflict severe emotional distress onto Plaintiff K and R Stephens for being money hungry and suing Nike. Defendant DHS took Rex Burkholder, Defendant Nike, Defendant Vangelisti Kocher and Defendant Joe Robertsons word that what had happened to Plaintiff Q Stephens was just an accident because Defendants are white, wealthy and powerful and Plaintiffs K, Q, and R Stephens are not. 245. Defendant Portland Police Bureau denied Plaintiff K Stephens, Plaintiff R Stephens and Plaintiff Q Stephens equal protection under the law because the Stephens are not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance and because the bureau believed that the Stephens were money hungry as so asserted by defendant Rex Burkholder, Defendant Lachenmeier, Defendant Vangelisti Kocher and Defendant McShane and Defendant Nike. Defendant Portland Police Bureau ignored the fact that Plaintiff Q Stephens had been subjected to abuse and neglect and ignored the fact that Plaintiff K and R Stephens had reported plaintiff Q Stephens injury to many mandatory reporters. Portland Police Bureau discriminated and continues to discriminate against the Stephens family because they are not white, wealthy or related to anyone of importance. 246. Defendant McShane denied plaintiff Q Stephens motion for a new trial because he believed that the Stephens had only sued McQuiston because they were money hungry and Page 61 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
he was angry at K and R Stephens because R Stephens had sued Nike. Defendant McShane was very angry at Plaintiff K Stephens for even attempting to further pursue Plaintiff Q Stephens case because it could mean trouble for a whole lot of powerful people. 247. Defendant Oregon State Bar believed the story that the Stephens were just money hungry and sought to help inflict severe emotional distress onto Plaintiff K and R Stephens by dismissing all complaints against Defendant Vangelisti Kocher without addressing any of the issues Plaintiff K Stephens presented to them. 248. On October 29 th 2008 faced with the uncertainty of the impending lawsuit brought by Plaintiff R Stephens and with the assurance from the Portland Police Bureau that Plaintiff Q Stephens burn injury and the circumstances surrounding the burn injury would never be investigated Phil Knight personally gave Joe Robertson and OHSU 100 million dollars in exchange for OHSUs continued agreement to continue to not treat Plaintiff Q Stephens and to let her die when the infection and internal distress finally overcame her tiny body. 249. Defendant Knight was angry at Plaintiff R Stephens because Defendant Nike was forced to pretend to shut down an entire subsidiary, Exeter Brands Group LLC in order to dodge the charges from the EEOC and the impending lawsuit in Washington County Court. Plaintiff K and R Stephens had made it through the trial which should have pushed them completely over the edge and caused them to go crazy and Defendant Nike was now faced with trying to explain away Plaintiff R Stephens complaint. Defendant Nike explained away their behavior to all involved judges by pointing out that Plaintiff R Stephens was a bad person who was money hungry who had harmed his daughter and tried to exploit her and Nike. Defendant Phil Knight felt that Plaintiff R Stephens deserved to suffer the loss of Plaintiff Q Stephens because Defendant Knight was angry at Plaintiff R Stephens because he Page 62 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
had to pretend to shut down Exeter brands group and this was causing a lot of problems for Defendant Nike. Defendant Robertson agreed because no one really had to harm Plaintiff Q Stephens but just had to continue to not treat the infection that was sure to lead to organ failure and death. Defendants convinced themselves that it was okay to continue to not treat Plaintiff Q Stephens because the Defendants had convinced themselves that it was Plaintiff K and R Stephens that had caused Plaintiff Q Stephens infection in the first place, instead of their own failure to treat. 250. Defendant Scott Kocher and Defendant Lachenmeier encouraged Plaintiff K Stephens verbally and in email communications to spend time with Plaintiff Q Stephens because they knew that Plaintiff Q Stephens was seriously ill and was going to die from OHSUs failure to treat her infection. 251. Defendant Simrin took Plaintiff Q Stephens appeal as a favor to Nike to help further destabilize Plaintiff K and R Stephens. 252. In May 2011 DHS refused to reopen Plaintiff Q Stephens in order to protect all involved Defendants. Defendant DHS intended to inflict severe psychological and emotional distress on the entire Stephens family by refusing to reopen Plaintiff Q Stephens case. Plaintiff R Stephens contacted Cares Northwest to ask them to interview Plaintiff Q Stephens and make a determination as to what had happened to Plaintiff Q Stephens but Cares Northwest declined to even interview Plaintiff Q Stephens to further distress plaintiff K and R Stephens. 253. On May 25 th 2011 Plaintiff K Stephens discovered the baseless information that had been inserted into Plaintiff Q Stephens medical report and contacted Defendant Providence and Defendant OHSU seeking an explanation. Defendant OHSU and Defendant Providence Page 63 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
offered no explanation for their treatment of Plaintiff Q Stephens and Plaintiff K Stephens stopped trusting them as care providers for plaintiff Q Stephens. 254. In the summer of 2011 Defendant Oregon Emergency Physicians, Defendant Providence Hospital, and Defendant Oregon Health and Sciences University adamantly refused to remove the unsubstantiated information from Plaintiff Q Stephens medical records in order to protect all involved parties because Plaintiff Q Stephens is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone with importance and to protect all involved parties who have sought to cover up what happened to Plaintiff Q Stephens 255. On July 5 th 2011 Plaintiff Q Stephens was rushed to Emanuel Hospital near death with a full blown case of ketoacidosis. Plaintiff K and R Stephens no longer trusted OHSU or Providence hospital with their children and took Plaintiff Q Stephens to Emmanuel hospital when she became deathly ill on July 5 th 2011. Emanuel hospital saved the life of Plaintiff Q Stephens diagnosing her condition as Type 1 Diabetes and pulling in a complete team of doctors who saved her life. 256. Plaintiffs K and R Stephens have diligently continued to request that the burn injury and the circumstances surrounding plaintiff Q Stephens burn be investigated. Plaintiff K Stephens has contacted every available agency that she can think off and contacted many reputable State and Local officials and media outlets who have all refused to help Plaintiff K Stephens, Plaintiff R Stephens, and 13 year old Plaintiff Q Stephens. 257. Defendant Stoel Rives and all the Defendant judges involved in Plaintiff R Stephens case against Nike believed the rumor started by Defendant Rex Burkholder and Defendant Todd Burkholder as told to them by Defendant Nike and sought to inflict severe and debilitating psychological distress onto Plaintiff R Stephens and his family. Despite the fact that there Page 64 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
was plenty of evidence and testimony to support Plaintiff R Stephens allegations against Defendant Nike, the Defendant judges disregarded the evidence in an effort to help Defendant Nike punish Plaintiff R Stephens for being money hungry and attempting to exploit his daughter and sue Defendant Nike. Defendant Nike is a billion dollar corporation and Plaintiff R Stephens case against Nike never had any chance of success because Nike has so much money they dont have to abide by the law. 258. Defendant Callahan and all of the Defendant Judges involved in Plaintiff K Stephens case against Vangelisti Kocher believed all of the lies perpetrated about K and R Stephens and despite the fact that a crime was committed and the life of an innocent child put at risk Defendants chose to help cover up the crime because Plaintiff Q. Stephens is not white, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. It is a miracle that Plaintiff Q. Stephens is alive. 259. Defendant Andrews failed to treat Plaintiff Q. Stephens for her burn injury by not transferring her to the Oregon Burn Center and by failing to administer basic trauma care. Defendant Andrews knew or should have known that children diagnosed with severe burn injuries (i.e., partial thickness burns greater than 10% total body surface area (TBSA); burns that involve the face, hands, feet, genitalia, perineum, or major joints; and/or burned children in hospitals without qualified personnel or equipment for the care of children) should be transferred immediately to the nearest specialized burn treatment facility, as recommended by the American Burn Association. 260. Defendant Andrews failed to report Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury to the proper authorities (i.e. DHS or the Portland Police) which is required by state and federal child abuse laws. Page 65 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
261. Defendant Andrews inserted unverified, baseless, and uninvestigated information into Plaintiff Q. Stephens medical record. 262. Defendant OHSU intentionally caused Plaintiff Karellen and Renee severe emotional distress by sending them home to directly care for Q. Stephens burn injury, without professional medical assistance or supervision. Defendant OHSU knew or should have known that Plaintiff Karellen and Renee were not suited to care for such an injury at their home and would suffer undue emotional trauma and hardship caring for Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury. 263. Defendant OHSU failed to treat Plaintiff Q. Stephens for her burn injury by not transferring her to the Oregon Burn Center and by failing to administer basic trauma care. Defendant OHSU knew or should have known that children diagnosed with severe burn injuries (i.e., partial thickness burns greater than 10% total body surface area (TBSA); burns that involve the face, hands, feet, genitalia, perineum, or major joints; and/or burned children in hospitals without qualified personnel or equipment for the care of children) should be transferred immediately to the nearest specialized burn treatment facility, as recommended by the American Burn Association. 264. Defendant OHSU failed to report Plaintiff Q. Stephens burn injury to the proper authorities (i.e. DHS or the Portland Police) which is required by state and federal child abuse laws. 265. Defendant OHSU inserted unverified, baseless, and uninvestigated information into Plaintiff Qadiras medical record. 266. Defendant OHSU failed to treat Plaintiff Q. Stephens multiple times. 267. Defendant OHSU intended to let Plaintiff Q Stephens die from organ failure or sepsis. Page 66 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
268. Defendants think it is okay to play naked games with children, injure them, and take zero responsibility if the act is committed by a person or persons who are white, wealthy, and related to someone importance. 269. Defendants think that it is okay to verbally, physically, and psychologically harass non- white persons on the job and just in general and that such harassment should just be considered a bunch of crude jokes and that non-white persons do not deserve a safe and healthy work environment or the right to life or any rights at all. 270. On or about August 2011 Defendant Cares Northwest refused to interview Plaintiff Q. Stephens to determine whether she had been a victim of child abuse and refused to render her any services because she is not White, wealthy, or related to anyone of importance. VII. DAMAGES 271. The plaintiffs have experienced excess mental suffering and severe emotional distress in the form of unnecessary weight-gain, weight loss, insomnia, depression, feelings of parental inadequacy, loss of quality of life, financial devastation, loss of a societal structure in which to reside, public humiliation, degradation, excessive worry, panic attacks, inconvenience, and loss of the ability to trust an attorney, the judicial process, the government, police, school district, hospital and the entire American system. As a direct result of the defendants negligence Plaintiff Q. Stephens has suffered the development of medical complications stemming from her untreated burn injury such as Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus, Osteopenia, Scoliosis, and other not yet known conditions. Plaintiffs also no longer feel safe or welcome in their own community or in their own country. The Plaintiffs cannot get honest medical attention for Qadira.
Page 67 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief: a. That the Stephens family be placed immediately under federal protection to ensure their safety and the safety of their children. b. That Plaintiff Q Stephens be immediately granted an independent assessment of her health by at least 2 hospitals and 2 burn experts independent of the State of Oregon and Defendant Nike to ensure her ongoing physical safety. c. That the Stephens family be given counsel and crime victims services in order to process the actions taken against them. d. That this Court immediately nullifies all of the proceedings in Plaintiff K, R and Q Stephens State and Federal cases in favor of letting this case move forward unimpeded. e. That this court declare that the practice of courts granting motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss without opinion, explanation, or without addressing the genuine issues of material fact presented by a litigant an unconstitutional practice and in violation of the VII and XIV Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. f. That this court declare that motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss will only be granted with, reason, opinion and explanation to support its rulings that show how the motions are proper and grounded in the law and court rules and how the genuine issues of material fact have been addressed. g. That this Court directs the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation to do its job and to properly and thoroughly investigate this matter and all the surrounding circumstances for potential federal crimes perpetrated by the defendants. h. That this Court impanels a grand jury review of the facts of this case for indictment and prosecution ofpotential state and federal crimes perpetrated by the defendants. 1. That this Court awards the plaintiffs non-economic and punitive damages in the sum of$II,110,000.00 J. That this Court award the plaintiffs costs and court fees. k. That this Court grants the plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. IX. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues of facts and damages in this action. We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 3, 2012 7135 SW 54 th Avenue Portland, OR 97219 503-977 -7935 karellen.stephens@comcast.net renee. stephens 1 @comcast.net Plaintiffs in Pro Se Page 68 COMPLAINT FOR DEPRNATION OF RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CNIL RIGHTS, NEGLECT TO PREVENT, ETC.
PAGE 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Karellen and ReneeStephens, Pro Se, 7135 SW 54 th Ave. Portland, OR 97219 503-977-7935
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served the foregoing PLAINTIFF STEPHENS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following named person(s) on the date indicated below.
[ ] mailing with paid postage [ ] hand delivery [ ] facsimile transmission [ ] overnight delivery [ x ] email to said person(s) a true copy thereof, contained in a sealed envelope, addressed to said person(s) at their last-known address(es) indicated below.
Stephen C. Voorhees, OSB No.794311 svoorhees@kilmerlaw.com Candice Broock, OSB No. 025200 cbroock@kilmerlaw.com Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, P.C. Attorneys at Law 732 N.W. 19 th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97209-1302 Telephone: 503-224-0055 Fax: 503-222-5290 Of Attorneys for Defendants Scott Kocher, Richard Vangelisti, and Vangelisti Kocher, LLP. Ralph C. Spooner, OSB No. 73288 E-mail: rspooner@smapc.com SPOONER & MUCH, P.C. 530 Center Street N.E., Suite 722 Salem, OR 97301 Phone: 503-378-7777 Fax: 503-588-5899 Attorney for Defendants Beth Phipps and Susan OLeary Karen OKasey, OSB No. 870696 E-Mail: kok@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301 Of Attorneys for OHSU Defendants
PAGE 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Karellen and ReneeStephens, Pro Se, 7135 SW 54 th Ave. Portland, OR 97219 503-977-7935
Amber A. Hollister, OSB No. 035458 ahollister@osbar.org Helen M. Hierschbiel, OSB No. 975422 OREGON STATE BAR 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. P.O. Box 231935 Tigard, Oregon 9728-1935 Telephone: (503) 431-6312 Facsimile: (503) 598-6912 Attorneys for Defendants Oregon State Bar, Scott A. Morrill, and Sylvia E. Stevens George S. Pitcher, OSB #963982 gpitcher@williamskastner.com Rachel A. Robinson, OSB #084550 rrobinson@williamskastner.com WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2025 Phone: (503) 228-7967 Fax: (503) 222-7261 Attorneys for defendant John Barker JENNY M. MORF, ACTING COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON Susan M. Dunaway, OSB No. 970506 Assistant County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97214 Telephone: (503) 988-3138 Facsimile: (503) 988-3377 Email: susan.m.dunaway@multco.us Of Attorneys for Multnomah County Peter O. Tuenge, OSB #034814 ptuenge@keatingjones.com Jamie E. Valentine, OSB #075556 jvalentine@keatingjones.com Keating Jones Hughes PC One SW Columbia, Suite 800 Portland, OR 97258-2095 Phone: (503) 222-9955 Fax: (503) 796-0699 Attorneys for Jlie W. Andrews, MD; Oregon Emergency Physicians Elmer M. Dickens, OSB No. 98048 Senior Assistant County Counsel Elmer_dickens@co.washington.or.us Office of Washinton County Counsel 155 N. First Ave., Suite 340-MS 24 Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone (503) 846-8747 Fax (503) 846-8636 Attorney for Defendant Washington County KAREN M. VICKERS, OSB No. 91381 kvickers@mershanlaw.com BLAKE H. FRY, OSB No. 100128 bfry@mershanlaw.com MERSEREAU SHANNON LLP One SW Columbia Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97258-2089 Telephone: 503.226.6400 Facsimile: 503.226.0383 Of Attorneys for Defendant Portland Public Schools Paul Silver, OSB #783791 Email: psilver@lindsayhart.com Katie Eichner, OSB #093405 Email: keichner@lindsayhart.com LINDSAY, HART, NEIL & WEIGLER, LLP 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 Portland, Oregon 97201-5640 Phone: 503-226-7677 Fax: 503-226-7697 Attorneys for Defendants JOHN R. KROGER Attorney General HEATHER J. VAN METER #983625 Senior Assistant Attorney General Department ofJustice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: (503) 947-4700 Fax: (503) 947-4791 Email: heather.j.vanmeter@doj.state.or.us Attorney for Defendants DATED: July 3,2012. Amy Joseph Pedersen, OSB No. 853958 ajpedersen@stoel.com Melissa 1. Healy, OSB No. 102176 mjhealy@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 Facsimile: (503) 220-2480 Attorneys for Defendants Nike, Inc. and Phil Knight DAVID LANDRUM, OSB No. 955425 Deputy City Attorney Email: david.landrum@portlandoregon.gov Office of City Attorney 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Rm 430 OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 823-4047 Facsimile: (503) 823-3089 Attorney for Defendant City ofPortland
RtMee Stephens 7135 SW 54 th Avenue Portland, OR 97219 503-977-7935 renee.stephens l@comcast.net Plaintiff in Pro Se PAGE 3 -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Karellen and ReneeStepbens, Pro Se, 7135 SW 54'" Ave. Portland, OR 97219 503-977-7935
The Corruption at The Los Angeles Superior Court As Lawyers Paz, Mercado, Conway, Maccarley Counts, Shomer, Felton, Overton, Berke, Rykoff, and Judge Hickok Apparently Lie in Court!
Kathy Jo Taylor, A Minor, by and Through David S. Walker, JR., Attorney at Law As Guardian Ad Litem v. James G. Ledbetter, PH.D., 818 F.2d 791, 11th Cir. (1987)