JUDICIAL Jackasses

Other Ways Your Tax Dollars Are Bing Squandered When They Could Be Going For Education.....

Route 1 Box 67
Cleveland, OK 74020
John@judicialjackasses.com

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

IN THE

DISTRICT COURT OF PAWNEE COUNTY

STATE OF

OKLAHOMA

John Schoonover ]

Plaintiff ]

]

Vs ] Filed Friday

] March 13, 2009

Pawnee County

Sheriff ]

Steve Melton, Deputy, ]

Pawnee District Attorneys ]

Larry Stuart & Jeff Jones, ] Case # CJ 2009-79

Howard Hendrick, Director, ]

Oklahoma

Department of Human ]

Services, Mikah McCray, ]

A. J. Campbell, Donna Pace, ]

Iris Ballou, Patrick Pickerill. ]

St. Francis Hospital

]

OSU Medical Center

]

*Dr. Debbie Lowen ]

CASA worker Tari Hughes ]

Defendants ]

*{ See note following document }

RELIEF FROM MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Comes now the Plaintiff, John Schoonover, within the protections of Haynes v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 [1972] and Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106 10 Cir. [1991] and prays this court for relief from Malicious Prosecution from the above named Defendants for the reasons and authority cited as follows:

The morning of November 15, 2006, this Petitioner took his only son, 5-month old Elan Lee Montgomery Schoonover, to the Cleveland Area Hospital to check out any possible problems resulting from an accidental rolling off the Petitioner’s bed late November 14, 2006. There being nothing serious beyond this Petitioner’s Son’s right arm was sensitive to manipulation.

The hospital report, attached as exhibit “A” clearly shows “No Signs Of Abuse.” Photographs taken by Steve Melton at the hospital, of this Plaintiff holding his son with exposed arm, attached as exhibit “B” clearly show Elan Lee Schoonover was in no distress. Nonetheless, Mikah McCray, accompanied by a Cleveland Police Officer and Deputy Steve Melton, forcefully took custody of the Plaintiff’s son under the guise of having in her possession a signed “Emergency Protective Order” issued by Judge Mathew D. Henry.

As told this Petitioner by Mikah McCray an X-ray was taken that was not conclusive but ‘indicated’ that the possibility of a radial fracture had possibly occurred from the accidental rolling off the bed [“FELL, INJURY TO ARM” Exhibit “C”] late November 14. Hospital reports further stating inconclusiveness of these X-rays [Exhibit “D”.] Note: Both exhibits state reason for examination as “fall, injury to arm.”

In his Narrative Deputy Steve Melton states, “I was told …that the baby had a spiral fracture…” “I was told …that the hospital had done x-rays on the baby’s arm and the spiral fracture was obvious.” Everything Steve Melton swears to is Hearsay. Steve Melton does not bother to state who told him what. Mikah McCray would be the most likely suspect.

November 15, 2006:

State’s exhibit page # 00102, [Plaintiff’s Exhibit “E”] “No Signs of Abuse/neglect” Page # 00099 [Plaintiff’s Exhibit “C”] “Fell, injury to arm” and “FX Distal humerus – NOT FULLY

VIS.

”* And Page # 0150, [Plaintiff’s Exhibit “D”] “Fracture of distal humerus is noted. The fractures do not fully visualize.* No other fractures seen. No dislocation.” “Fracture distal humerus which is not fully visualized* otherwise unremarkable.” Page # 00144 [Plaintiff’s Exhibit “F”] “IMPRESSION: FX humerus – spiral, non displaced.” * “FX mid shaft humerus. Spiral – non – displaced.” *

*Note here that Deputy Melton states it was necessary to take Elan Schoonover to TRMC for a full body X-ray that was not available at the

Cleveland

facility. Not to confirm/deny the “not fully visualized”

Cleveland

X-rays. Also note the words “non displaced.”

November 21, 2006:

The X-ray taken at

St.

Francis November 21 [Exhibit “G”] is of an arm that is virtually shattered! What conclusion is this Plaintiff to draw from these entries? Especially in light of the fact that the three FX of this Plaintiff’s son taken at OSU [TRMC] November 15 2006 and accompanying report [Exhibit “A”] November 15 2006 show NO fractures. [Exhibit “H”].

Note: This Exhibit “H” is only one of three views; the other two supporting views are on the hospital discs and original films securely kept by this Plaintiff. Duplicates of these untampered X-rays & discs are also available from

OSU Medical Center

Mikah McCray would not allow Plaintiff to see his son but told Plaintiff she was taking him to the

OSU Medical Center

for further examination.

The initial OSU report is that Plaintiff’s son, Elan Schoonover, was admitted as Elan Wheeler, the reason given to be examined was listed as “Child Abuse.” This ‘reason’ is noted on OSU documents; despite the fact that there was no evidence whatever to even suspect same; the

Cleveland

document [exhibit “E”] clearly circling to the form query, “Evidence of Abuse/Neglect”: “NO”

The OSU admission report was that Elan Schoonover [reported as “Wheeler” by Mikah McCray] was carried in “Smiling and alert.” See exhibit “I” and consider this being the demeanor of a child with a “broken arm.” The OSU reports also show, from information given by Mikah McCray that Elan Lee Wheeler has no “next of kin.”

This Plaintiff needs to make clear that Elan Lee’s original State Birth Certificate reads “Elan Lee Montgomery Schoonover.” There has never been any question that this Plaintiff, John Schoonover, is his only son’s Natural Father; most definitely “Next of Kin.” Why Mikah McCray would deliberately deceive the hospital staff is beyond this Plaintiff’s knowledge. It is suspected that, as most child abuse cases involve ‘boyfriends’ or ‘step’ parents; ‘unknown’ parent it would be easier to get a response if claiming the genuine father was unknown and the child had been with some young immature hothead male. Especially in light of the fact that Mikah McCray had brought the child in as “for examination as a declared abused child.”

This Plaintiff went to the

OSU Medical Center

to see his only son as Mikah McCray told this Plaintiff he could. However, this Plaintiff was stopped by an armed guard and ordered to wait in a tiny room for Mikah McCray. The armed guard waited at the door and stayed for the duration of when Mikah McCray came in to advise this Natural Father that Elan Lee Wheeler definitely has a radial/spiral fracture that is more common than not in “Child Abuse” cases and further investigation needs to be done.

Unknown to this Plaintiff / Victim at that time was the fact that of the 11+ X-rays taken at OSU that afternoon of November 15, 2006, there were three exposures of three different angles of this Father / Victim’s only son that are so clear that Ray Charles could see that there was no sign of any fracture . . . accompanied by the radiologist’s report signed by Hooby Yoon D.O., Stanley Handel M.D. for Drs. Hilto Hill D.O and Tony R., in language any 6^th grader could easily understand, that there was no injuries of any kind internally or externally! [Exhibit “A”].

This evidence, being deliberately suppressed by Mikah McCray, was not discovered by this Plaintiff/Victim until April of 2007. One cannot state that had District Attorney Larry D. Stuart known from the genesis of this suppressed evidence he would not have filed the Felony Information: “Injury to Minor Child, a felony, by wilfully sic and maliciously injuring or using unreasonable force upon one Elan Lee Wheeler, who was 5 months old at the that time, by breaking the child’s arm resulting in a spiral fracture of his arm…”

Prior to that discovery a hearing had been held whereby Elan Lee Montgomery Wheeler was declared a “Deprived Child” due to “a spiral fracture of his right humerus.” A fracture that did not exist.

Due to the lack of the above suppressed information by MiKah McCray that this Plaintiff did not have at the time, he was advised to stipulate to causing the injury via negligence by stepping out of the room momentarily to get his son’s bottle and allowing him to roll off the bed and break his arm he so stipulated, A stipulation to something that did not happen and is thus null and void; moot.

An Individual Service Plan was formulated stating Elan Lee Schoonover had been taken into custody due to a “Spiral Fracture” of his right humerus. At this Hearing Case Worker Mikah McCray testified that no physician who examined Elan Wheeler would make any statement that this was a case of “Child Abuse” or state that it was not the result of an accidental fall as rolling off the bed could not be ruled out. [Exhibits “C & D”]. As Mikah McCray gospeled of a fracture it had been erroneously assumed by this Plaintiff at that time that she would not deliberately lie. A false faith in authority that is the worst enemy of the truth, and it was negligence on the part of Larry Stuart not to seek the truth. . . or accept it when the fact was revealed to him by Jon Carter in March, 2007.

December 22, 2006, this Plaintiff was charged with Felony Child Abuse based on an X-ray taken and an examination made by one Dr. Debbie Lowen of the Children’s Justice Center November 21, 2006, eight days after Mikah McCray had taken this Plaintiff’s son away from his Natural Father and placed the innocent victim into DHS custody. The particulars of the charge is “Injury to Minor Child, a felony, by wilfully sic and maliciously injuring or using unreasonable force upon one Elan Lee Wheeler, who was 5 months old at the that time, by breaking the child’s arm resulting in a spiral fracture of his arm…” See exhibit “F” and note that any reference to the results of

OSU Medical Center

’s examination revealing no injury has been omitted by the State.

Dr. Nebergall, the attending physician at OSU did write a report accepting Mikah McCray’s statement that Elan had a “Non-displaced spiral type fracture of the right…” …This Plaintiff can not fully decipher his penmanship. Enough is clear, however, that his report of fracture from a fall can not be ruled out. Legible: “A skeletal survey will need to be reviewed by radiology.” [Exhibit “L”]. This makes it clear his report was prior to OSU taking their X-rays and full report, [Exhibit “A”].

Dr. Nebergall, Exhibit “M,” clearly states “He {Elan Wheeler} experienced the onset of November 15, 2006 secondary to a fall from a bed.” It is quite clear that his conclusion is based on [the inconclusive [Exhibits “C” & “D”] X-rays taken at

Cleveland

hospital November 15, 2006, but not those taken at the

OSU Medical Center

clearly showing no injuries. The third paragraph in his report does not reflect a child with a broken arm as would be supported by Exhibit A and the original accompanying untampered X-rays from OSU November 15, 2006.

It was Dr. Debbie Lowen’s statements that Mikah McCray based her report to

Oklahoma City

of “Confirmed Child Abuse” for which this Plaintiff is prohibited from appealing pending the outcome of the criminal charge. This is a direct violation of Due Process by DHS that equates to no less than Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts declaring “Evidence? We don’t need evidence. Sentence first; evidence later. Off with his head.” There was no evidence of any injury occurring prior to November 21, 2006.

With one exception: Tari Hughes, CASA worker, took the X-rays from the

Cleveland

Area

Hospital

; from

St. Francis Hospital

; from Iris Ballou at Dr. Nebergal’s office and was formally accused by Iris Ballou in a letter to David K. Robertson dated September 11, 2008, of tampering with the X-rays and returning substitutes in their stead. One of the X-rays that had been tampered with is of a shattered arm, the same X-ray taken at St. Francis November 21, overlaid with Elan Wheeler’s name dated November 15, in reverse as it is apparent someone, [Tari Hughes?] got sloppy and did not pay attention to the face when they copied the name/earlier date on the reverse of this November 21 X-ray. [

Exhibit “F” State

’s exhibit page 00178.] A childish attempt to move the occurrence of a severe injury to an earlier date than when it occurred. Or substitute one’s arm. Take your pick. [Exhibit “J”]

In any event, this Plaintiff attempted to view the X-rays Iris Ballou described in her letter of accusation but was refused permission by Iris Ballou despite this Plaintiff showing Iris Ballou Court Authorization. For whatever reason of her own Iris Ballou, wittingly or unwittingly, assisted Tari Hughes by causing the Tampered/Altered X-rays to ‘disappear’ and be replaced by others . . . with instructions from Tari Hughes as to how to read them. This was necessary to protect Tari Hughes from the charge of “Tampering With Evidence.” See [Exhibit “J”]. This could be considered moot by this Court as tampered with or not; the X-rays were taken November 29, 2006, 15 days following the OSU X-rays [with accompanying document of interpretation] showing no fracture or any other injury during the period this Natural Father had custody of his only son [Exhibit “A”].

This ‘eight day later’ X-ray, taken at St. Francis Hospital, November 21, 2006, clearly shows the right arm of a child with a fresh severely broken in pieces humerus and Dr. Debbie Lowen states such a break “in pieces” requires force beyond a child of this age rolling out of a bed.

Dr. Debbie Lowen also testified that Elan Lee Wheeler was cheerful and rolled over multiple times during her examination despite the splint on his arm. Dr. Debbie Lowen also testified she did not examine Elan Lee’s arm for bruises because of the splints. This was gross negligence on her part for revelation of hidden bruises due to the splints would have clearly shown this Plaintiff did not cause this fresh shattering of the humerus as no bruising existed in the photographs taken by Deputy Steve Melton the morning of November 15 as confirmed by the OSU staff [“No evidence of fracture or dislocation identified. The soft tissues are unremarkable.”] [Exhibit “A”].

Perhaps Larry D. Stuart would not have filed the felony complaint had he knowledge of this report . . . when it was made . . . and certainly should have withdrawn the complaint when it was shown to him in April, 2007, by Attorney Jon Carter after this Plaintiff acquired the report . . . with great difficulty . . . because it had been reported to OSU by Mikah McCray that Elan Wheeler had no next of kin [Exhibit “K”] [Father unknown, Mother in jail] and here this 72 year old Plaintiff named Schoonover is claiming to be the Natural Father of 5 month old Elan Wheeler, a claim this Father proved by State documents to be fact. District Attorney Larry D. Stuart did ask the Court to hereafter refer to Elan Lee Wheeler as Elan Lee Schoonover.

District Attorney David K. Robertson sent, as the State reported to this Natural Father, CASA worker Tari Hughes to see what she could do to ‘fix’ this problem but she could not gain access to the X-rays to tamper with them as was reported she did with those she obtained from Dr. Nebergall’s Iris Ballou. What it would appear that Tari Hughes did succeed in doing was, by presenting an original X-ray from St. Francis, November 21, with the date altered to November 15, i.e.; State’s exhibit page 00178, showing a severely broken arm, in an attempt to insinuate that OSU medical staff, radiologists & physicians are incompetent and have them “amend” their report. Tari Hughes had taken her tampered films to OSU for the purpose of influencing OSU to “see,” “A subtle lucent lines traversing the cortex . . .” etc. the “OPINION” is signed by George Erbacher, D.O. in an attempt to controvert the findings of the original study by Drs. Tony R. Hill, D.O., Stanley Handel, M.D. and Hooby Yoon, D.O, and Hilto, first name unknown who seached and found “No evidence of fracture or dislocation identified.” A jury would certainly be interested in why Tari Hughes would attempt to suppress the truth of three, no, four physicians by introducing a differing opinion favourable to her cause 4 months later when this Plaintiff discovers the truth. March 12, 2007, the “amended” report was faxed to Tari Hughes [CASA] 918 762 2498.

“REASON FOR EXAMINATION:” 1. Abuse.

There was no “subtle lucent line” before Tari Hughes introduced it March 12, 2007.

Why would the Pawnee District Attorney’s office want to keep the original X-rays secret another two years!? There are “subtle lucent lines” on virtually every bone in Elan’s body and on virtually every X-ray in existence that are NOT fractures.

What Tari Hughes could NOT do is change the X-rays [three different views of Elan’s right arm, not just two] to show something that did not exist November 15 when they were made showing so clearly Ray Charles could interpret them, that there was no injury, externally or internally, perhaps because OSU would not give them to her to tamper with.

What Tari Hughes DID do is clearly show via her tampering with evidence is that her attempt was made to suppress the truth of no injury November 14 as evidenced by the X-rays of November 15 made at

OSU Medical Center

. It would have worked had this Plaintiff been a classic immature non relative irresponsible ignoramus typical of child abusers. This Plaintiff will plead guilty to the ignoramus part but only to the extent of having a belief there was honor within DHS that extended to Mikah McCray and certainly should have applied to CASA worker Tari Hughes. Mikah McCray did testify that no physician who examined this Father’s only son November 15, 2006, would state this was a case of child abuse. That alone, to say the least, is “Reasonable Doubt.” Tari Hughes has unwittingly proved that the State is prosecuting on an injury, real or imagined, that occurred after November 15 and an opinion by Dr. Debbie Lowen, November 21, that without adequate history, which she did not have because DHS would not provide it, she would automatically assume this injury, after November 15, real or imagined, was child abuse. So much for “Due Process”!

When this discovery was made [Ballou’s declaration of obvious tampering September 11, 2008, {Exhibit J}] this Plaintiff attempted to view the X-rays in question and was denied access to viewing by Iris Ballou citing, for the most part, Tari Hughes “authority” to keep them from view under the child protection act.

This Plaintiff then went to St. Francis to view their X-rays taken November 21, 2006. It was reported that they had been ‘requisitioned’ by Tari Hughes the day they were made and never returned. However,

St.

Francis, after again having to prove “Natural Father” did give this Natural Father a computer disc on which they had copied from their archives that had the X-rays; it is clear enough for Ray Charles to see from this disc a fresh fracture November 21 2006 of a right humerus in multiple pieces. It is this X-ray that is on the web following the one from OSU showing no injury [justice4families.com {X-RAYS}]. What Ray Charles could not see is whether or not this is the same child. As of November, 2008, Tari Hughes has not returned the St. Francis X-rays. Perhaps Tari Hughes needs them for use in future kidnappings of children by DHS who are not injured to overlay their name/date on them to justify the overzealous immoral activities of DHS to destroy future families.

This Father then went to the

Cleveland Area Hospital

to view their X-ray of Elan Wheeler [Schoonover]. A flat NO because they had a document signed by Judge Henry granting Tari Hughes exclusive access for the court. This Plaintiff drove to Pawnee to get a court order and was given the document signed by Judge Henry that was grossly misrepresented by the Cleveland Supervisor; the document states that in addition to the parental rights of the parents Tari Hughes is granted access. However, when returning to the hospital less than an hour later with the document in hand allowing this Plaintiff access to view the X-rays it was reported that the X-rays had been taken by Tari Hughes and not available.

Whether this was true or not is not known; someone did not want John Schoonover to see the X-rays. Why can easily be reasonably concluded but it is an unusually great effort to cover up X-rays that “Are not clearly conclusive” needing better X-rays at OSU to elucidate, that did, see Exhibit “A”. Tari Hughes had wittingly or unwittingly been given further opportunity to tamper with more evidence or undo tampering not reported.

This Plaintiff would submit that his primary concern is not the false felony charges as the State has nothing . . . but threats in that as reported five different times by three different attorneys “The Felony Charges will ‘go away’ if you agree to sign over adoption rights to Elan.” Once, in this Court’s chambers, reporter present, by David K. Robertson. [A sixth time February 27, 2009, witnessed]

This Malicious Prosecution has resulted in giving the Pawnee DHStapo unlimited/unbridled authority to harass this Plaintiff – dictating visiting dates – subjecting to humiliating near strip searches – Denying this Plaintiff the right to have a witness present when visiting to controvert any future false reports by Tari Hughes – and in setting the dates and times always picks “working hours” that force the choice: “Visit when we tell you and lose your jobs or keep your jobs and lose your child.” Absent the physical floggings, tragedies and tactics that wore Jesus down to make the first nolo-contendere plea in recorded history.

This Plaintiff is not alone in this persecution:

“The OKDHS umbrella is the largest human trafficking, child exploitation, and extortion ring in the State of

Oklahoma

.” - Clarence W. Cooper, II, Daily Oklahoman.

www.sq745.org

And if “Give up your babies to us or we will send you to prison for life on false charges” isn’t Malicious Prosecution as well as all of the above, especially extortion, pray tell this Plaintiff what is?

This Plaintiff’s greatest concern is the immeasurable damage being done to his only son (and daughter) by this DHS atrocity. Not just the un natural physical injuries requiring suturing and the facial bruising from ‘falling backwards’ and the potentially life threatening head-first fall of August, 2006, on concrete placed in violation of every state’s health code pertaining to play areas that this Plaintiff sought via a Motion to Judge Mathew D. Henry pleading for professional medical evaluation of the gravity of the cranial injury . . . glossed over by Tari Hughes with different stories; the last one told to Nancy Brook that it was not from a sandbox in a play area onto concrete at all as the ISP states; it was off a couch onto carpet!

When this Plaintiff makes comment of these poorly explained multiple injuries to A. J. Campbell his simple response is “We’ve had him longer than you and accidents happen!” That makes it alright?

The immeasurable damage to this Natural Father / Plaintiff’s only son, Elan Lee Montgomery Schoonover, consists of destruction of the once ‘Gorilla Glue’ solid bond of Father/Son. Further, DHS has not allowed this Plaintiff and his daughter to even form a bond. The emotional trauma of being torn from parent and placed into multiple temporary homes where the policy is, or it was when this Plaintiff was a licensed foster parent over a ten year period in the State of Idaho: Don’t form any attachments as this is just temporary. Forming attachments makes it harder to let the children go. . . A known fact, by this Plaintiff as well as four of his children who returned for visits at the age of majority to express same. .

DHS is necessary. But not for the purpose of going to such great lengths as to fabricating damaging evidence and suppressing exculpatory evidence to manipulate a District Attorney to make the charge of: “Injury to Minor Child, a felony, by wilfully sic and maliciously injuring or using unreasonable force upon one Elan Lee Wheeler, who was 5 months old at the that time, by breaking the child’s arm resulting in a spiral fracture of his arm…” [Exhibit “N”] A charge carrying a life sentence . . . “That will ‘go away’ if you sign over adoption rights.” Something is wrong here.

The poor defenseless waif also needs an attorney to protect his rights. That makes Patrick Pickerill necessary. Just what are this Plaintiff’s son’s rights? Absent any evidence of abuse [including gross neglect] and Patrick Pickerill ignores; our Federal and State Constitution and Oklahoma Statutes:

Title 10. Children
Chapter 70 -

Oklahoma

Children's Code
Section 7003-4.4 - Allegations of Petition not Supported by Evidence
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __

“If the court finds that the allegations of the petition are not supported by the evidence, the court shall order the petition dismissed and shall order the child discharged from any custody. The child's parents, guardian or other legal custodian shall also be discharged from any restriction or other previous temporary order.”

{SECOND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL filed 12/23/08}

And multiple Supreme Court interpretations are to be with his Natural Parent! But it is more profitable for Patrick Pickerill to sit back as a political pork barrel leech, ignore our Laws and draw money, for over two years now, as Elan’s “protector” and Petition the Court to terminate this Plaintiff’s Natural Parent’s Right to raise his son by claiming this Parent has not “corrected the condition” that caused Elan to be purloined November 15, 2006, which was a fracture that did not exist at that time, [Exhibit “A”] rather an X-ray of a fracture that occurred after DHS purloined Elan, including X-rays tampered with by Tari Hughes, resulting in a criminal charge with up to life in prison, {If it was actually broken, just who did break Elan’s arm?} Elan Lee’s Natural Right to be with his Natural Parent, so that Patrick Pickerill can leech more money still from ‘handling’ the adoption process for which he has already prepared to do; to Hell with John Schoonover or his son’s God given, Federal and State supported Right to be raised by his Natural Father. It is obvious to this Plaintiff that Money is more important to Patrick Pickerill than Elan’s Rights. Patrick Pickerill is not representing in the best interests of this Plaintiff’s only son, Patrick Pickerill is not representing in the best interests of Haley Wheeler, Patrick Pickerill is representing in the best interests of Patrick Pickerill! See his ad in the Yellow Pages. Pawnee DHS and adoptions are his bread and butter.

This Petitioner has listed St. Francis and

OSU Medical Center

as “Defendants.” Only for the purpose of information. This Plaintiff does not fault St. Francis for taking X-rays of an injury occurring after November 15, 2006, and certainly does not suggest anyone at OSU was incompetent November 15 2006 because there were no injuries to be found on their X-rays of November 15, 2006. Neither original X-ray [discs] from these facilities could be tampered with by Tari Hughes. Tari Hughes has simply attempted to use the [tampered] films from St. Francis to insinuate “incompetence” of the OSU radiology & physicians. How Tari Hughes tampered with the X-rays [films] of Dr. Nebergall is unknown because Iris Ballou has attempted to ‘gloss over’ her discovery of the tampering and hide the evidence. It is believed these X-ray [films] are of a later date still; moot in light of the untampered with OSU X-rays of November 15 showing no injuries.

The foundation of the Adjudication of “Deprived Child” is a broken arm that did not exist. This fact can not be ignored and to state this Plaintiff has failed to “correct the condition” that caused the child to be adjudicated “Deprived,” this Plaintiff would ask the simpleton question; How does one ‘correct’ an unbroken arm?

Then there is the matter of “Child Support.” As Due Process was violated in the acquisition of Elan Schoonover it follows that “Child Support” has crossed that thin line to ransom/extortion.

“Pay it or you don’t get your son back.”

That takes the decision from this Parent how to spend money in the best interest of his only son.

This Plaintiff has felt, from day one that Haley Wheeler could not possibly be his biological child. Three facts support this belief: One, Pamela Brook spent time with her husband, Richard Brook, during the time when conception was likely to have taken place. Two, this Plaintiff had not recovered from a quadruple by-pass followed by the complication of lungs filling with fluid. Three, Pamela Brook told this Plaintiff he was not the father. Why would this ED infected Plaintiff have reason to disbelieve Pamela Brook? Especially in light of the fact that it would be beneficial to Haley Wheeler if this Plaintiff was the biological father for the benefits she would receive as a dependant of a 100% Service Connected Disabled Veteran! Perhaps this is why DHS is so bent on proving Haley Wheeler as having Schoonover blood.

However, the issue is money, now. Again, if Haley Wheeler is this Plaintiff’s blood there was no justification for DHS interfering with this Plaintiff taking immediate custody of ‘his’ daughter. The infant was never in any danger or threat of danger whatever and there is no evidence to suspect that she was or would be. Absent the fact that this Plaintiff was the victim of having his son, Elan Schoonover, kidnapped by DHS’ Mikah McCray because of a fracture that did not exist!

DHS has decided this Plaintiff must pay $163.50 monthly to support Haley Wheeler. IF Haley Wheeler does belong to this Plaintiff he is entitled to receive compensation from the Veterans Administration for his dependant. This Plaintiff yielded to the State’s claim that Haley Wheeler is a Schoonover. Whether or not she actually is, in fact, is moot in this Plaintiff’s eyes as she is Elan’s sister. Or, at the very least, his half/sister. Considering this fact alone this Plaintiff would gladly welcome her into his home to raise as his own. And does not contest the State’s claim he is this child’s biological father. The mutual benefits to brother and sister being raised together are enormous. Not to mention the joy it would bring this Father. It would be nothing less than a ‘new lease’ on life.

DHS demands $163.50 monthly for Elan and $163.50 monthly for Haley. Elan was no problem as this Plaintiff had Elan’s Birth Certificate AND Social Security #, two documents required to receive Congress awarded compensation for this Disabled Veteran’s dependants. Biological or not. Haley’s last name being “Wheeler” is not a problem. DHS’ refusal to give his daughter’s SS # to him is. It is an impediment to the Veteran’s Administration allowing the benefits; not only monetary, but all other benefits she would be entitled to as this Plaintiff’s biological, or even adopted, daughter. Being Elan’s Sister alone is enough for this Plaintiff to accept this child as his own. Whereas the DHStapo collects Federal Funds for each purloined child; justifiable or not, this amounts to “double dipping” into the allotment Congress has approved in demanding more than Congress allows for this Plaintiff and this Plaintiff should not be forced to pay more than what is allowed by Congress.

This Petitioner’s total monthly reported income to the IRS is his Social Security Disability, $659. DHS has no problem with demanding well over $1,500 now, not tomorrow but now, and threats accompany this demand for ransom. It being factually nothing less than extortion with the added twist of the knife in the back of denying this Plaintiff knowledge of Haley’s Social Security # so he can file for benefits from our Veterans Administration due Haley as his dependant! This is a malicious act of creating a double edge hardship: Demanding funds for Haley while denying this Plaintiff access to those funds to give her. Reporting to credit agencies the arrears of this instant “debt” is nothing short of harassment of extortion as a child taken in violation of State Statute as listed previously,

Title 10. Children
Chapter 70 -

Oklahoma

Children's Code
Section 7003-4.4 - Allegations of Petition not Supported by Evidence

{SECOND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL filed 12/23/08}

That Statute could not be made more clear and it is quite obvious the allegations of the petition and ISP are false and not supported by any evidence.

The claim made by Larry Stuart justifying her kidnapping by DHS (Donna Pace) is that this Plaintiff has committed the act of child abuse on one child [Elan] by “breaking his arm” when this Plaintiff has proof clear enough for Ray Charles to see that there was no injury. That proof being the OSU Medical Center 15”X18” X-ray envelope David Robertson handed this Plaintiff September 10, 2008 containing ALL of the X-rays taken at that facility November 15 2006 including three different views of Elan’s right arm obviating the fact there were no fractures!

How long these untampered exculpatory X-rays had been secreted in the District Attorney’s possession is not known by this Plaintiff. Shame on District Attorney Larry D. Stuart for secreting such exculpatory evidence of innocence.

At the Disposition Hearing of the same date the Prosecutor also handed this Plaintiff a copy of the letter from Dr. Nebergall’s employee Iris Ballou documenting the fact that Tari Hughes had taken the X-rays from that office and kept them over a year, returning not the originals but tampered X-rays that were useless. Mr. Robertson commented, when I started to show the X-rays he had previously given this Plaintiff, “There are more X-rays at St. Francis.”

This comment is what ended the long search for who made the X-rays Dr. Debbie Lowen made reference to that she had made but would not reveal by who, November 21, 2006, one view of which shows with Ray Charles clarity an arm broken in three pieces. Dr. Debbie Lowen is named in this suit for her negligence in not examining Elan’s arm for bruising. The cause of this multiple break would be of such gravity there could not help but be serious bruising. Bruising that does not exist in the photos Deputy Steve Melton took of this Plaintiff holding Elan and showing Elan’s unblemished arm to Steve Melton at the

Cleveland Hospital

November 15, 2006. “Dr.” Melton “Observed that baby boy wheeler was upset and crying and that his right arm had been injured.” See photographs taken by Deputy Melton, Exhibit “B”

For the sixth time, February 27, 2009, in open court, witnessed for the fourth time, this Plaintiff was approached, shown in writing and told again the offer of Larry D. Stuart, the deal first made in April 2007 prior to this Plaintiff’s discovery that his son’s arm had not been broken November 14, 2006, as Larry D. Stuart claims; quoting the witness:

“You know that the offer still stands that if you give up your son the felony charges will go away.” John Schoonover simply replied, “Absolutely Not.”

“The charges carry up to a life sentence.”

“Would you sacrifice your child to avoid a risk of your life or would you risk the sacrifice of your life to save your child?”

Let’s go to trial.

This Plaintiff, at the time of this filing, makes this counter offer: We both know what you have, Fully contained in this suit, and that is that you have no case. Now we both know what I have, and it is damning. Your offer, amounting to nothing less than attempted extortion, is, paraphrased:

“Give us your babies and we will go away”

My counter offer is: “Give me back my babies and I will go away.”

Oklahoma

has twice the per capita of the next highest state in the nation for taking children from their parents. Cases like this is why. Senate investigation committee, KOTV, KJRH & 23, 2/25/09. Bills being formulated will hopefully help future families from similar atrocities.

It is in the lap of this Honorable Court to help this one.

Supporting Authority follows on pages 17,

Respectfully Submitted,

John Schoonover

1 Box 67

Cleveland

Ok.

Exact copies have been mailed or otherwise conveyed to all named Defendants. Copies have also been sent to Jennifer Monies, Press Secretary, Oklahoma House of Representatives, Office of House Speaker Chris Benge, Representative Richard Morrissette and Jay F. Marks, Reporter for The Oklahoman. A copy excluding exhibits has also been posted with the title “Malicious Prosecution” on:

www.justice4families.com

SUPPORTING AUTHORITY

When the dispute concerns whether officers had probable cause to obtain a search or arrest warrant, the district court properly considers hearsay evidence that was used to obtain the warrant in question. See

United States v. Black Ledge Drive

, 897 F.2d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1990);

United States v. 4492 S. Livonia Rd., 889 F.2d 1258 (2d Cir. 1989).

Probable cause exists when an officer has knowledge or

reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a person or reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested.

Martinez v. Simonetti

,202 F.3d 625, 634 (2d Cir. 2000). In evaluating a claim that material evidence has been omitted from (or false evidence has been added to) a warrant application such that probable cause is allegedly absent, a court “put[s] aside allegedly false information, suppl[ies] any omitted information and determine[s] whether the contents of the corrected affidavit would have supported a finding of probable cause.” Soares v. Connecticut, 8 F.3d 917, 920 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d

841, 845 (2d Cir. 1992) and Magnotti v. Kuntz, 918 F.2d 364, 368 (2d Cir. 1990)). If probable cause remains on the face of the corrected warrant, no constitutional violation of the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights has occurred.

Id.

(citing Cartier, 955 F.2d at 845).

DeFelice commenced this action alleging that the defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully

searching and arresting her. DeFelice claims that the defendants omitted information from the search and arrest warrant applications which would have defeated probable cause.

Conversely, in the instant matter “Probable Cause” Information: “Injury to Minor Child, a felony, by wilfully sic and maliciously injuring or using unreasonable force upon one Elan Lee Wheeler, who was 5 months old at the that time, by breaking the child’s arm resulting in a spiral fracture of his arm…” Definitely warranted thorough investigation, though negligence prevailed, and Totally moot when comes the hand delivered ‘gift’ David Robertson conveyed to this Plaintiff September 10, 2008 of the OSU packet containing all OSU X-rays including three untampered X-rays of November 15, 2006, clearly showing no injurys. This Plaintiff maintains possession of these X-rays as well as the two sets of discs [di-com and pi-com] from OSU and the disc from St. Francis that with equal clarity show a freshly splintered arm November 21, 2006. This Petitioner has posted both, though lacking in quality, on his website. This Petitioner has had made “Flash Drives” from these five discs which he will gladly release for viewing.

Ignorance being used as a crutch it has been said in defense by some who choose to ignore the X-rays that they are not qualified to read them [“I’m not a doctor”] Neither is this Plaintiff. However, as clear as they are, Ray Charles can see the difference between a new car off the assembly line and one that has been run over by a truck.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Joe Alfred Ifflen, Jr., et Ufl., Petitioners

Terrance Catalina

QUestion Presented

Whether in an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 [1971], a plaintiff asserting a claim of retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment must prove that there was no probable cause for the criminal charges.

[see also Poole v. County of Otero, 271 F.3d 955, 961 [10 Cir 2001]

The rule applied by the Court of Appeals is that, in the unique context a substantive claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment will not lie if the charges were supported by Probable Cause.

The conundrum here is that absent the suppressed X-rays from OSU taken November 15, 2006, but relying only on the X-ray from St. Francis taken November 21, 2006, with the poor ‘double exposure’ by tampering to show a date of November 15, State’s Exhibit Page # 00178, the handiwork of Tari Hughes as shown by Iris Ballou?, and Mikah McCray’s false and misleading statements, and in light of the in court testimony of Mikah McCray prior to the filing of the arrest warrant that no physician interviewed who examined Elan November 15 could state this as being anything other than an accident; no physician interviewed who examined Elan November 15 2006 would state this was “child abuse.” Arguendo, even if there had been a fracture of any kind anywhere, an accident is not child abuse.

THE RULE APPLIED

BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS THAT, IN THE UNIQUE CONTEXT A SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM OF RETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WILL NOT LIE IF THE

CHARGES WERE SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.

OF PROSECUTORIAL DECISION MAKING (WHICH WAS NOT AT

ISSUE IN CRAWFORD-EL), A SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM OF RETALIATION

IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WILL NOT LIE IF THE

CHARGES WERE SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.

2. IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT BELOW, FOUR OTHER

CIRCUITS HAVE HELD THAT THE ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS

AN ELEMENT OF A CLAIM OF RETALIATORY PROSECUTION.

Salazar v. City of Oklahoma City 1999 OK 20 976 P.2d 1056 70 OBJ 862 03/16/1999 Supreme Court of

Oklahoma

The Warrant for the arrest was perhaps valid in the eyes of Deputy Steve Melton though it contained false information as Deputy Melton had no cause to doubt Mikah McCray’s allegations. Even this Petitioner had no suspicion Mikah McCray would fabricate evidence. Probably, neither did Larry D. Stuart, at the time the warrant was issued. However, when the DOCUMENTS from OSU were discovered by this Petitioner, March, 2007, given to Attorney Jon Carter, who gave them to the District Attorney’s office, it was either negligence on the part of the District Attorney to not investigate and acquire the physical X-rays described in the document or the District Attorney did in fact acquire the X-rays [via Tari Hughes] and kept them secreted for the purpose of continuing the prosecution for an injury he knew did not exist. In light of the fact that six times an offer that the felony charges would “go away” if this Plaintiff would sign over adoption rights to his son the latter is highly suspected.

⁵ Salazar does not need the federal-court judgment roll to press his claims. He only bears the responsibility for incorporating into the record for appeal those materials which he needs for corrective relief in his favor. Davidson v. Gregory, 1989 OK 87, 780 P.2d 679, 682.

Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 509 (7 cir. 2003)

Child welfare case workers are government agents when interviewing concerning child abuse & all protections are attached.

U.S. v. Campbell,

410 F.32 456, 461 (8 cir 2005)

Vindictive prosecution found when the State further punished a defendant by additional charges for exercising his legal rights.

To prevail a vindictive claim, a defendant must show either actual vindictiveness {Ramsey, if we can find Nexus} or facts sufficient to give rise to a rebuttal presumption of vindictiveness.

Neal v. Cain, 141 F.3d 207 214 (5 cir 1998)

Vindictiveness may be demonstrated where a prosecutor brings additional charges {Perjury} against a defendant to punish the defendant for exercising his procedural rights.

U.S. v. Stokes

, 124 F.3d 39, 45 (1 cir 1997)

“It is Hornbook law that a court may dismiss an indictment if the accused procures evidence of actual vindictiveness, or even if he demonstrates a likelihood of vindictiveness sufficient to establish a due process violation sufficient to justify presumption.”

("In order to state a prima facie case for a section 1983 claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish the elements of the common law tort as it has developed over time.").

Georgia

law provides that:

[a] criminal prosecution which is carried on maliciously and without any probable cause and which causes damage to the person prosecuted shall give him a cause of action.

www.justice4families.com

Route 1 Box 67
Cleveland, OK 74020
John@judicialjackasses.com