SELF REPRESENTED
P.O Box 310752
Fontana CA 92331
mdanielson23@live.com
(909) 367-9073
(909) 697-2158 Fax
28(b) and 18 U.S.C 1964 under provisions pursuant to § 2.07 of 18 U.S.C 1961 “Corporate
Crime” The Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson is seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ. 65
(Local Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant (TXI)
ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed, governed by the United States
Constitution Art. § 3
2. The Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson (MDD) herby respectfully asserts the
following cause of actions against the Defendant (TXI) I. Obstruction of Justice “malicious
abuse of process and Fundamental Rights” violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(1)(2)(3), 201(1)(B) II.
Infliction of Emotional Distress, IV. Reserved for additional or furthermore appropriate cause of
PARTIES
Representative as Pro Se, and is a resident of the San Bernardino County, State of California and
at all times relevant herein was a resident of the San Bernardino County, State of California.
Company which is a California general partnership. TXI Riverside Inc is a privately held
Delaware Corporation and a general Partner of Riverside Cement Company. TXI California Inc
is a privately held Delaware Corporation and a general partner of Riverside Cement Company,
Texas Industries Inc. is a publicly held Delaware Corporation which owns 100% TXI Riverside
5. The Plaintiff (MDD) believes and based thereon alleges, each said defendant
(TXI) proximately caused, connived and contributed to the injuries and damages the Plaintiff
sustained.
6. At all times mention herein, the Defendant (TXI) is liable and owed legal duty to
protect the plaintiff from any perpetrated unlawful act committed by each and every said
Defendant.
7. At all times mention herein, the Defendant (TXI) was the agent, servant,
employee, manager, supervisor, joint-venture and or co-conspirator, and at all times acting
within the course and scope of employment with direct authorization and or ratification of each
said defendant, who was a principal, master or employer with managerial authority acting under
8. The Plaintiff (MDD) furthermore believes and based thereon alleges, the officers,
shareholders, partners, owners and managing agents had advance knowledge and proof of the
misconduct and are also responsible for the injuries and damages that were sustained
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
9. The Plaintiff, (MDD) furthermore believes and based thereon, the Defendant TXI
Riverside Cement intentionally formulated and initiated retaliation against the Plaintiff for being
a witness and inquiring on the defendant’s unlawful insider-dealing. While trying to avoid
liability of the obligated requirements as an employer, the defendant would initiate unlawful
enforcement, firms, individuals, employees, officials, and entities to engage in the same corrupt
10. As part of the manipulation, each said defendant acted, knowingly, willfully and
purposefully, with a malicious single purpose trying to escape liability, initiating a widespread
criminal enterprise pattern of racketeering activity. The activity described herein consist of a
landmarks, unmoral testimonies for “undisputed” contracts bribery, political bankrolling and
personal gain, including financial gain which they have so undertaken, inflicting an economic
hardship upon the Plaintiff with the intent of impairing, obstructing and discouraging the
Plaintiff discovering the initial perpetrators, with a conscious disregard of the Rights, Health
11. The defendant (TXI) deliberately used the legal process to accomplish some
ulterior purpose for which it was not designed for, nor intended for, depriving the Plaintiff of
both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection. As a result of the
defendant’s omissions, each act constitute numerous and multiple violations under Federal and
State Laws in addition to the “Victims” Bill of Rights “Marsy’s Rights” California Constitution,
Article I, Section 28(b). Furthermore becoming the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs unforeseen
DOL/OIP-NYAV
FOIA Tracking No: 539537
Citation Order No: 6381194-01
Event No: 1128078
Complaint ID 193192
Pay-to-Play plot
AQMD vs TXI ex-wife 2006 phone bill…
Real Estate fraud. // Deeds Mortgage covered up payoff (2) transfers 5/2006
TXI // Brook hollow properties security exchange…
12. The Superior State Courts have original Jurisdiction to Enforce the Statue 18
U.S.C. 1964. The Plaintiff’s cause of action arising under violations under California
Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b) and 18 U.S.C 1589, 201, 1961, 1513,
13. Venue is proper in this superior court because the unlawful acts were initiated here,
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14. The Plaintiff (MDD) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference, the
allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 above are with the same force and effect as if set forth
herein .
15 The Plaintiff (MDD) was hired as an employee by the defendant (TXI) “High
Desert Oro Grande Facility” in September of 1999 and held the Lead man position in the D/C
Maintenance Department until the Retaliatory Termination of employment in June of 2006. The
Plaintiff’s obligations and responsibility was to lead assist the dept. in preventative maintenance
and on Air Pollution Dust Control Units “D/C” and conduct AQMD quarterly inspection reports
16. On or about January of 2001, the Plaintiff (MDD) was a witness of the
defendants (TXI) Production manager; Kevin Deatley, Plant Manager Mark Smyth,
Super Cross Race Event., “the accused of a muti-million dollar money laundering scheme”. Soon
thereafter, the Defendant terminated the all of them except for Production Manager Kevin
Deatley who later transferred to the Riverside Rubidoux facility as Plant Manager and engaged
in racketeering activity against the Plaintiff in order to hide his involvement and keep the
Plaintiff from disclosing any relevant information. Former Plant Manager Gordon Johnson of the
“Rubidoux facility” then transferred to the “High Desert facility” as Plant Manager…
17. Around 2002 , the Defendant (TXI) had two separate unannounced a.m.“MSHA”
Inspections where the Plaintiff (MDD) was asked to wear a monitoring device that recorded
emissions within his department “Long Kilns Skip Basement” TXI Equipment # NA:. The
Plaintiff was told to do his daily duties like an ordinary day by the “MSHA Inspector”. The
Defendants (TXI) Production Manager Kevin Deatley demanded the Plaintiff to disobey
“MSHA” orders and have the Plaintiff stay out of his designated work area where he was to sit in
an office for the eight hour day in order to avoid being shut down by MSHA.
18. On or around February of 2006 The Plaintiff (MDD) requested the Defendant
(TXI) to stop direct deposit of the plaintiffs payroll due to unknown fraudulent activity. Account
No: 0900439406. The defendants H.R “Rhonda Wright” had the Plaintiff fill out the required
documents and sent to Corporate Office (TXI) Ontario California. The plaintiff was informed it
would be stopped immediately and payroll would be disbursed by check by the following pay
period. The following two pay periods the plaintiff still hadn’t received any pay roll. The
Plaintiff complained to “H.R” Rhonda Wright that he was not receiving any his payroll was still
being wired to the bank and requested the funds be paid in another form. The Plaintiff was
informed corporate office will not disburse another check until funds were wired back to them.
19. The branch manager of “DCB” called local authorities as the plaintiff (MDD)
entered the bank. The Plaintiff approached the teller and requested a cash advance from his credit
card. The teller asked for I.D and his card and immediately walked into an office and closed the
doors and called the local authorities. As the local authorities arrived they asked the branch
manager why they were called and informed her she cannot call the them on the defendant TXI
behalf and sent the Plaintiff on his way. The credit card was never even swiped.
20. The Plaintiff later discovered the branch manager “Monica” of “DCB” was
Involved in the fraud and related to both Plant Managers; Gordon Johnson and Kevin
Deatley.
21. In April of 2006, the Plaintiff (MDD) was given a job assignment at the Pack
House Loading Station 2 and 3. The assignment was to remove sheet metal and insulation
around the draft pipes surrounding the loading stations Air Quality D/C systems and install
inspection ports on each one.. The Plaintiff cut and removed the sheet metal and used a 100 psi
air lance to remove the insulation off the draft pipes. The Plaintiff installed inspection ports on 3
of the draft pipes while working solo, the Plaintiff was stopped and was informed the insulation
was Asbestos. A substance known to the State of California to cause Cancer.” CAL/OSHA
Relations. The Plaintiff never received any sort of training prior to the exposure and removal.
“MSHA” received a complaint early that morning Id 193192 which came out to investigate the
complaint and the results determined the “insulation” was actual Asbestos. The defendant
received three citations and the loading station was shut down while the remaining asbestos
22. In May 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) started being questioned daily about his
personal finances by supervisors and managers. The Plaintiff had a meeting with Plant Manager
Gordon Johnson and requested an explanation why the managers/supervisors are making false
accusations stating the Plaintiff was involved in some “embezzlement scheme”. The Plant
23. In May of 2006 Plaintiff s(MDD), Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” and plant
manager (Gordon Johnson) had a meeting about the Plaintiff being harassed by other employees,
and confrontations with official. The Plaintiff confronted the official with a witness and it was
determined the official was setting up schemes trying to get the plaintiff terminated. Plant
manager Gordon Johnson refused to bring the parties up stairs and said he would handle it in
private with corporate Tom Fritts of Ontario CA. and quotes, “Were not handing out any
freebees here, and if someone kicks your ass across the street at lunch or Joe Blow was to drive a
truck through your house, there’s nothing I can do about it cause it didn’t happen here or I didn’t
24. In May of 2006 Jeanna Wright released private personal information in reference
to Plaintiffs daughters’ daycare, its location and the name of the provider. The Plaintiff
immediately reported to “Personnel Dept” “John Phillips” and Plant Manager Gordon Johnson.
The Plaintiff pulled his daughter from the day care in fear of something would happen to her in
another malicious act of retaliation hurting the Plaintiff. Gordon Johnson pulled Jeanna Wright
25. Plaintiff received multiple phone calls in a two week period while at work by his
alarm system provider (ADT) Monitoring no. X1NO15358229, Customer No: (MD) 5786166
stating alarm was triggered. The Plaintiff requested a week off of work after discovering the
forced entry at his residence. The defendants H. R. Puckett wasn’t able to contact Plant Manager
Gordon Johnson so she granted the week off herself after the Plaintiff let her listen to the
26. On the Plaintiff’s first day return back, plant manager Gordon Johnson
informed the Plaintiff (MDD) if he “was to miss one more day, be 1 minute late, or clock out 1
27. In May of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) was in a confrontation with other employees
over the unlawful misconduct at his residence. The Plaintiff immediately reported the incident he
just encountered to his immediate Supervisor. The Plaintiff was in a “hyperventilating state” and
his Immediate Supervisor took him to electrical MCC room where the plaintiff was told to wait
until he could talk to his manager. Plaintiff was placed on medical leave to seek an evaluation
until given a return back to work “Fit For Duty”. As the Plaintiff was being escorted out by
Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” the Plaintiff was told it is not safe here.
28. In June 2006 Rhonda Wright calls the Plaintiff (MDD) stating he was to go to
Desert Valley Medical Center located on Main St. in Hesperia for an evaluation and the safety
coordinator was to meet the plaintiff in the parking lot. The following morning the plaintiff went
inside to check in and discovered no appointment was made and the “safety coordinator” was
nowhere to be found. The Plaintiff tried calling the Safety coordinator on her cell phone but no
one answered. The Plaintiff received a phone call by H.R. Rhonda Wright two and a half hours
later stating the Plaintiff was supposed to go to the defendant (TXI) personal Dr. in Apple
Valley. Reme Chavez was still there waiting for the Plaintiff to arrived.
29. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) arrived for a scheduled appointment with his
Primary Care Facility. During check-in Plaintiff was told his benefits have been terminated. The
Receptionist stated, “received a call from Riverside Cement and they said your benefits have
been cancelled due to your termination.” The Plaintiff informed the receptionist he was on
disability not terminated. With no notice of any termination or “COBRA” offered. The Plaintiff
30. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff went into the ER at Arrowhead Regional Medical
Hospital requesting “Help” and was escorted to the Physic Unit to obtain an evaluation. The
31. The Plaintiff (MDD) never received a final paycheck due to the defendant (TXI)
32. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) requested an emergency hardship withdraw
from his 401K retirement plan but was informed by the retirement company that it must be done
through the employer. The Plaintiff submitted the documents to the Defendant (TXI) corporate
office in Ontario . The plaintiff received a letter one year later from the retirement company to
the known address asking if the check was lost or if it was even received.
33. June 2006 the Plaintiff MDD received phone call from an employee of the
defendant (TXI) stating plant manager Gordon Johnson put your job up on the bid board and it
34. June of 2006 Plant manager Gordon Johnson who (was in Florida at the time)
made false allegations to local authorities stating the plaintiff MDD came into the plant and
punched his fist through a piece of glass, (Safety Glass), falsified Police reports having the
Plaintiff (MDD) arrested (1st Arrest). The Plaintiff was falsely accused, and booked for
$50,000 plus in vandalism and Receiving Stolen Property with bail set at $50,000
35. In June of 2006, Defendant (TXI) filed a restraining order against the Plaintiff
(MDD) on plant manager (Gordon Johnsons) behalf and again made numerous false allegations
stating the plaintiff was going to kill someone. The Plaintiff requested a meeting without the
plant manager present to discuss the plant mangers family’s involvement of the fraudulent
activity at the Plaintiffs bank and was in Fear and that his wife at the time and daughter had been
attacked by co-workers due to the evidence that was found amongst other acts of wrong doing.
36. In June of 2006 Defendants (TXI) council falsified court documents’ stating the
Plaintiff was called on his cell phone and was he informed of the time of hearing and was given
directions to the court. The Plaintiff never received a phone call or a voice mail of any such
nature.
37. In July of 2006 the defendant had multiple private and mass meetings with the
entire facility and its employees to discuss procedure unwarranted information if and when any
to have the Plaintiff arrested and incarcerated, specifically in July of 2006 the defendant was
claiming the plaintiff was inside the facility destroying and flipping over portable restrooms not
realizing the plaintiff was already in custody due to the last phone call.
39. In August of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) ex-girlfriend “niece” of an official of the
defendant had called the plaintiff at his residence (Landline) stating her uncle A.P just called her
and was told if she came in contact with the plaintiff she must call the local authorities on him …
40. In August of 2006 Plaintiff (MDD) called plant manager (Gordon Johnson)
asking for therapy for his injuries, “Landline”. Plant manager (Gordon Johnson) states he is on
vacation and he was terminated. The defendant called local authorities and falsified Police
Reports and had Plaintiff arrested. The Plaintiff was falsely accused, charged, and imprisoned for
41. After the terrorist threats were dropped to a complaint, Defendant (TXI) had
Personnel “John Phillips” and H.R. Rhonda Wright filed additional counts of terrorist threats in
order to keep the plaintiff confined, while the defendant assisted the plaintiffs spouse in
unlawful deed transfers and other unlawful transactions could be completed. HED 011658
43. The Plaintiff (MDD) was told by the public defender’s office, the defendant (TXI)
gives a lot of money to this court and if the plaintiff doesn’t plea NOLO now and take this deal
the Plaintiff is looking at least a year in county just for the terrorist threats, not including the 5
other arrest that were still pending, as well as a strike on Plaintiffs record. He also informed the
Plaintiff the Plant Manager (Gordon Johnson), Official (A.P), employee (Jeanna Wright) ,
Official (Nathan Hardwick) are all here and are going to testify against him. Plaintiff witnessed
all them inside the court but is not aware if a testimony was given in the court. The Plaintiff was
pulled out of the court room for sending out Hand Gestures to the defendants personnel “John
Phillips” H.R Rhonda Wright. When the Plaintiff was escorted back into the court John Phillips,
Rhonda Wright, Gordon Johnson, A.P, Jeanna Wright and Nathan Hardwick were no longer
present.
44. The Plaintiff (MDD) was imprisoned for over 180 DAYS.
45. The Plaintiff (MDD) discovered the defendant (TXI) attempted to assist in a $30.5
million dollar contract executed on February 20, 2007. The contract was intercepted.
around May of 2006 which the plaintiff was told was falling into
statements to The San Bernardino County to carry out the malicious unlawful transactions
invading the little recovery the plaintiff gained including an employer where the plaintiff held 24
months earning a respected name and multiple promotions until the defendant discovered the
Plaintiff employment and made threats against the owner and bribed the other managerial
individuals for engagement t of unlawful acts against the plaintiff furthermore destroying the
little structure the plaintiff worked two years trying to put his life back with what was left. The
Plaintiff discovered the defendant was involved in another scheme and plot, conspiring against
48. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants omissions, the plaintiff has
suffered from the following damages and injuries set forth below:
a) Since of Security
b) Anxiety
c) Emotional Distress
d) Humiliation
h) Creditability
j) Public Policy
k) Family…
49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 48 above are with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
50. Invasion to the Right to Privacy four factors (1) The use of a persons name or
picture without permission (2) Intrusion upon an individual’s affairs or seclusion (3) Publication
of information that places a person in a false light (4) Public disclosures of private facts about an
supplemented from the The Universal International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
both are rendered supreme law by virtue of the supremacy clause “Pattern of Racketeering
Activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the
effective date of the last of which occurred within Ten Year period (excluding any period of
18. U.S.C. § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses (1) directly or indirectly,
corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who
has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any
person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other
person or entity, with intent— (B) to influence such public official or person who has
been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or
allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United
States
Obtaining labor or services by (1) threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against
victim or another person; (2) scheme, plan, etc. causing victim to believe she’d suffer
The Model Penal Code § 2.07 18 U.S.C 1961 et seq provides that a corporation may be
convicted of a crime in the following situations; (1) the criminal act by the corporations
agent or employee within the scope of there employment and the purpose of the statue
defining the act of the crime is to impose liability on a corporation (2) The crime consist
28 C.F.R. §36.208
29 C.F.R. §1630.2
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i) .
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(iii)
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(1)
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(r)
49 C.F.R. §391.41(b)(1) .
CAUSES OF ACTION
52 The Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 51 above are with the same force and effect as if set forth herein.
The defendant (TXI) deliberately failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the legal
process commission and the defense, among other things, offered testimonies and altered
evidence they knew to be false; corruptly influence and colored a witness’s testimony with the
intent to encourage untruthful testimony (suborn perjury), in violation of 18 USC § 1503 and 18
USC § 1512; furthermore violating the Plaintiffs right to discovery under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)..
The Plaintiff was deprived of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal
protection under Title VII of the Civil Right laws. The due course of justice was impeded, in
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States
53. The defendant had the supervisory authority, over the plaintiff, the authority to
conduct an proper investigation, discover, and attempt to prevent any further acts of wrong
doing including the power of preventing the commission of the said malicious acts which could
have been done by reasonable diligence. The defendant failed there legal duty. As a result of the
defendant’s omissions, they constitute numerous and multiple violations state and federal laws.
The failure of which was the proximate cause of the legal process to be overlooked
54. The Plaintiff used his rights to enforce equal protection and took initiation opening
an investigation himself so the evidence that was being withheld, wrongfully sold, or destroyed
by the defendant and public officials could be exposed in accordance with his constitutional and
statutory rights, privileges, and immunities. As to each and every defendant; there was an
unlawful objective, causing the plaintiff harm and injury that were a direct result of the objective.
55. The plaintiff complained of defendant’s unjust fair treatment through the chain of
command which later discovered in 2008, the chain of command was mislead and prepared for
f) County of Riverside
g) Kaiser
i) EEOC
j) Department of Labor
l) USWA
o) Local Authorities
Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant ensuring the Laws of
the United States are "Faithfully" executed under U.S. Const. Art. § III. The Plaintiff demands a
57. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
Paragraphs 1 through 56 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
Known to the state of California to cause Cancer - Division of Occupational Safety and
Health § 25910 State Department of Industrial Relations (Cal / OSHA). The Plaintiff assignment
was to remove insulation and install inspection ports. After three ports were installed the Plaintiff
was told to stop and was informed the insulation was Asbestos. The phone call to MSHA
(Compliant ID 193192) was placed that morning prior to the Plaintiff even being informed he
was in harms way and at risk. While dealing with the doctrine of primary assumption of risk,
which applies where, by virtue of the nature of the defendant’s unethical misconduct and the
parties’ relationship to the misconduct, the defendant is liable and owes legal duty to protect the
plaintiff from particular risk of harm. Especially placing an employee in harms way deliberately
knowing it was Asbestos. (Event No: 1128078) The defendant ignored the big picture and tried
to set up a lawsuit for the plaintiff exposing him to the substance followed by a 30 min video
about the hazards and risks if an individual is exposed in which the defendant thought it would
be deemed fair just and equitable for the torture the plaintiff was forced with, Specifically
prepping a three year old little girl to tell her Daddy what happen when uninvited intruders
forced themselves into our house and had their way, then having her apologize for their
The Plaintiff was deprived of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to
equal protection. The due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Civ. 65 (Local Rule 65-1) in addition to the Model Penal Code “Corporate Prosecution”
Criminal penalties against the defendant ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully"
executed under U.S. Const. Art. § III. The Plaintiff demands a judgment against the Defendant,
60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 63 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
by maliciously attacking mentally verbally and physically, as well as forcing the Plaintiff to face
life shattering obstacles due to the Defendant abusing the lawful process by an unlawful purpose,
violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, terminating Plaintiff’s medical benefits without prior
notification when trying to seek treatment, refusing to prevent harm injury or death, false arrest
and imprisoning the Plaintiff, interfering with Plaintiff’s state civil rights by threats, coercion,
intimidation using anyone from a toddler to fictitious names and corrupt campaign committees
62. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of
decency and utterly intolerable within a civilized community. The emotional distress sustained
by the Plaintiff was severe and of a nature that NO reasonable man could be expected to endure
and survive what the Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson was forced to face
63. As a result of the Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct, the Plaintiff
was, is, and, with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to
the intentional exclusion. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer mental pain and
65(Local Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant ensuring
the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed. U.S. Const. Art. § 3. The Plaintiff
66. In order to preserve and protect a victim’s rights to justice and due process, a victim
shall be entitled to the following rights: Victims’ Bill of Rights “Marsy’s Rights” California
Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b)
1. To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be free from
2. To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.
3. To have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in fixing the amount of bail and
release conditions for the defendant.
4. To prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant, the defendant’s
attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, which could be used to locate or
harass the victim or the victim’s family or which disclose confidential communications made in the
course of medical or counseling treatment, or which are otherwise privileged or confidential by law.
5. To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney,
or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct
of any such interview to which the victim consents.
6. To reasonable notice of and to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request,
regarding, the arrest of the defendant if known by the prosecutor, the charges filed, the determination
whether to extradite the defendant, and, upon request, to be notified of and informed before any
pretrial disposition of the case.
7. To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at
which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other post-
conviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings.
8. To be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including any delinquency proceeding, involving a
post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in
which a right of the victim is at issue.
9. To a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment
proceedings.
11. To receive, upon request, the pre-sentence report when available to the defendant, except for those
portions made confidential by law.
12. To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or
other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant, and the release of or
the escape by the defendant from custody.
13. To restitution.
A. It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons
who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure
restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.
B. Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of
the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.
C. All monetary payments, monies, and property collected from any person who has been
ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to
the victim.
15. To be informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to provide
information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be
notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the offender.
16. To have the safety of the victim, the victim’s family, and the general public considered before
any parole or other post-judgment release decision is made.
. A victim, the retained attorney of a victim, a lawful representative of the victim, or the prosecuting
attorney upon request of the victim, may enforce the above rights in any trial or appellate court with
jurisdiction over the case as a matter of right. The court shall act promptly on such a request.
CONCLUSION
. With In all Aspects of the Principals, the Law failed itself when the defendant was
using the Legal Process as its body shield, as high rank officials looked the other way when the
Plaintiff was in a desperate plea for help. The defendant went so far in recruiting associates,
neighbors, members, police, the media…anyone they could find to threaten, harass and
manipulate them with the intent to encourage untruthfulness rather than follow their own
Mission Statement “Produce Cement”. The defendant lacks empathy and has dehumanized so
many, as if they’re an extension of themselves, or instruments to be played as they wish
physically, psychologically, and verbally. They view their victims as nothing more than a
comfortable old chair that can be easily discarded should it become uncomfortable. Their level of
comfort is their only concern and they will sell you down the river to hold onto that comfort and
give out their same old speech, “We give our condolences to the families” or “It Was An Act of
God.” The Plaintiff has had accept responsibility for the actions that has taken a toll on so many
which has been difficult to heal from, but will not hold himself accountable for the devastating
affairs that overlooked the legal process. The defendant needs to face responsibility for the
actions they all agreed upon, rather than use a victims life shattering event or a political debate as
a another plot trying escape liability every time there corrupt affairs get revealed.
The Evidence Rest “Prima Facie” and It Clearly Speaks for Itself !
I Mikel Dee Danielson the Plaintiff submit this complaint to the best of my knowledge based
under the circumstances and evidence hereto set forth by reference. I understand that a false
statement or answer to any question in this complaint will subject me to penalties of perjury. I
DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AMERICA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. See 28 U.S.C
1746 and 18 U.S.C. 1621