PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Kenneth Sachs

Attorneys’ Business Address

City, ST ZIP Code

Phone | Fax

Email

Plaintiff in pro per

in the united states district court

for the district of arizona

NOW COMES Kenneth Sachs, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint against Raymond E. Branton, Defendant, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

1. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Kenneth Sachs is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of (Address).
3. Defendant Raymond E. Branton (hereinafter referred to as “Raymond”) is a male adult of sound mind whose known address is 1830 S. Alma School Rd., Suite 112, Mesa, AZ 85210.

• JURISDICTION AND VENUE
• This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1343 (civil rights).
• Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b) which states that: “A civil action may be brought in – (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” All the events and/or omissions that give rise to the causes of action in this Complaint took place in the State of Arizona.

• STATEMENT OF FACTS
• During the month of May 2020, Raymond was appointed by the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County to conduct court-ordered independent psychological evaluation of Plaintiff in Re the Matter of: Maryna Sachs and Kenneth H. Sachs, case number FC 2013-053729.
• On 20^th May, 2020, Raymond submitted a report before the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Exhibit 1. The report contained numerous falsities against Plaintiff. (A list of all falsities in the report.)
• The learned judge of the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, Hon. Dawn M. Bergin, relied on the falsities made on Plaintiff’s evaluation report to revoke Plaintiff’s parenting time, leaving him with supervised visits only.
• The falsities are the direct cause for Plaintiff’s parenting time reduction to supervised visits only. Raymond knew that the learned judge would rely on his report to make the decision but he still went ahead and lied on the report to the detriment of Plaintiff.
• James Wees was Maryna Sachs’ attorney in Re the Matter of: Maryna Sachs and Kenneth H. Sachs, case number FC 2013-053729. He made false statements that convinced the learned judge to appoint advocates for Plaintiff’s daughter.

• CAUSES OF ACTION

Perjury

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts in paragraphs 6-10 of this Complaint as though set in full herein.
2. ARS § 13-2702 provides that: “A person commits perjury by making either: (1) a false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, believing it to be false, a false unsworn declaration, or (2) a false unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement in regard to a material issue that the person subscribes as true under penalty of perjury, believing it to be false.”
3. Raymond made statements that he did not believe to be true in the evaluation he was asked to conduct by the learned judge of the Superior County of Arizona, Maricopa County. The statements were used by the learned judge to make a determination that limited Plaintiff’s parental rights to supervised visitation only.
4. By committing perjury in Plaintiff’s evaluation, Raymond committed a class 4 felony under the laws of Arizona.
5. The Court of Appeals of Arizona stated that “perjury has four elements. The defendant must: One. Make or subscribe a material statement; Two. Under oath, affirmation or other legal binding assertion; Three. In any trial, hearing, investigation, deposition, certification or declaration; Four. When in fact the witness or declarant does not believe the statement is true, or knows that it is not true, or intends thereby to avoid or obstruct the ascertainment of the truth.” State v. Miller, 624 P. 2d 309 128 Ariz. 112 (1980).
6. Raymond made false statements in the evaluation he was asked to conduct by the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. The evaluation was crucial as it was relied upon by the judge to make a determination only to allow Plaintiff supervised visits. Raymond knew that the learned judge would rely on his evaluation to make a determination. Despite that, Raymond made false statements in the report. Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and suffering due to his reduction of parenting time to supervised visits only.

Gross Negligence

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts in paragraphs 6-13 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
2. “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228 (2007).
3. Raymond had a duty to ensure that his evaluation reflected a true account of events. This is because his evaluation would be used by the learned judge of the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Raymond breached this duty and included false assertions against Plaintiff in the evaluation. As a result of that breach, the learned judge relied on the falsified evaluation and reduced Plaintiff’s parenting time to supervised visits only. Plaintiff has endured, and continues to endure suffering as he can only see his daughter during supervised visits only.

Subornation of Perjury

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts in paragraphs 6-16 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
2. The elements of subornation of perjury include permitting a person to commit perjury.
3. James Wees permitted Raymond to commit perjury by giving him false information about Plaintiff. Page 4 of the report presented by Raymond states in part of follows:

“Other concerns Mr. Wees presented, which formulate the rationale for this evaluation of Father, include:

• Father’s extreme allegations against Mother that may be signs of significant paranoia and loss of reality testing, such as alleging that Mother is involved in the Paul Manafort scandal, that Mother is prostituting Child, and that Mother is funneling money to terrorist groups such as ISIS.
• Father making excessive reports against Mother to authorities, including DCS, police, and the FBI.”
• James Wees lied to Raymond that Plaintiff was making up allegations against Maryna Sachs, his client. Plaintiff did not make up the allegations against Maryna Sachs. They are events which actually took place and can be proven by Plaintiff.
• James Wees suborned perjury by lying to Raymond in a report that was to be submitted before a court of law. as a result of James Wees’ lie, the evaluation was used by the learned judge to reduce Plaintiff’s parental rights.

Violation of Constitutional Right to Parent a Child

• Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts in paragraphs 6-21 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
• 42 U.S. Code § 1983 provides as follows: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”
• “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978); Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).
• In this lawsuit, Plaintiff avers that his Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution were violated by Raymond. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
• Plaintiff was deprived of the familial right of association embodied in the concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment without due process. “Today we hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands more than this. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
• Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s familial right of association by falsifying Plaintiff’s evaluation, leading to its use by the learned judge to reduce Plaintiff’s parenting time to supervised visitation only.

• PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him the following reliefs:

1. Grant judgment in favor of Plaintiff;
2. Damages for perjury, gross negligence and violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights in the sum of $__________;
3. Award Plaintiff punitive damages;
4. Award Plaintiff pre and post judgment interests, costs of this suit and attorney fees as allowed by law;
5. Award Plaintiff such equitable relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances; and
6. Award Plaintiff such further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated this ____ day of December, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Kenneth Sachs

Plaintiff in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )