Medical Cannabis and Corruption in Pinal County

ARLIN D. TROUTT

pro per

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF ARIZONA

DIVISION TWO

ARLIN D. TROUTT,

APPEALANT,

vs.

STATE OF ARIZONA

APPEALEE

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

Case No.: CV 2012-0369

APPEAL MEMORANDUM

Statement of the Case

On July 10, 2012 at about 9:30 am Mark Osinski came to Plaintiff’s property (without authorization) in a Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) vehicle and in uniform.

After Mark Osinski’s morning visit on July 10, 2012 he returned to Plaintiff’s property at about 2:00 pm. Mark Osinski ordered Plaintiff to produce a medical marijuana card and ordered an inspection of Plaintiff’s medical marijuana garden. While inside the Plaintiff’s enclosed garden area Mark Osinski started inappropriately taking photographs of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s plants and accusing Plaintiff of growing more than the legal limit of marijuana plants. The Plaintiff and his wife recognized this individual that had been involved in heavy-handed visits and physical assaults on Plaintiff’s family members in the past. Plaintiff and his family feel intimidated and threatened by Mark Osinski.

Plaintiff immediately reported Mark Osinski’s actions directly to Sheriff Paul Babeu’s Office and requested the July 10, 2012 Incident Report from the PCSO records department on July 11, 2012. Per request and instruction of Sheriff Babeu’s assistant, Debbie Lopez, Plaintiff forwarded the August 1, 2006 incident report written by Mark Osinski and Plaintiff’s complaints to Robert Carter Olson at the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) and the PCSO Internal Affairs complaints formally filed against Mark Osinski on August 4, 2006 regarding an assault on Plaintiff’s daughter.

On July 16, 2012 Plaintiff submitted a formal complaint against Mark Osinski to Sheriff Paul Babeu’s office. Sheriff’ Babeu’s assistant, Debbie Lopez, advised Plaintiff that the Sheriff would turn this Personnel Complaint against Deputy Mark Osinski over to Lt. Roy Palmanteer of PCSO Internal Affairs. Additionally, Ms. Lopez advised Plaintiff to go to the Pinal County Justice Court and request an Injunction Order against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity to protect Plaintiff’s family.

On July 18, 2012 PCSO records department informed Plaintiff the July 10, 2012 Incident Report Plaintiff had formally requested was being withheld.

On July 25, 2012 Plaintiff filed for an Injunction Order against Mark Osinski for harassment in the Apache Junction Justice Court without the knowledge of the withheld Incident Report, PCSO Dispatcher Recording, Caller Location Verification, 9 inappropriately taken and transmitted photographs and the names of the other parties involved in this incident and complaint. Judge Rodgers refused to issue an Injunction Order at that time. He assigned a case number: CV2012-3018 and set a court date for August 3, 2012 @ 10:00am.

On Monday July 30, 2012 Plaintiff filed: Case No. CV2012-3018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE in the Apache Junction Justice Court and specifically complained and requested the evidence that was being “secreted” by PCSO.

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 Judge Shaun Babeu of the Apache Junction Justice Court “GRANTS” Plaintiff’s motion and issued a Minute Entry/Order on CV2012-3018 closing the case against “Mark Osinski”, vacating the scheduled August 6, 2012 hearing and transferring the case to the Eloy Justice Court for all future proceedings.

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Judge Marie Lorona issued a Hearing Order regarding Injunction Against Harassment for “Mark Osinski” in his individual capacity. A new case number was assigned (CV2012-0369) and a new hearing date was set for August 13, 2012.

On Thursday August 9, 2012 Joe Albo of the PCAO inappropriately filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaints and request for a Harassment Injunction against “Mark Osinski” on behalf of Pinal County.

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 Plaintiff received Defendant’s Motion for a “Summary Judgment and Dismissal” by mail. Plaintiff filed a complaint and Response to Defendant’s August 9, 2012 Motion before the Hearing on August 13, 2012.

On Monday, August 13, 2012 Joe Albo (Pinal County Deputy Attorney) appeared on behalf of James Walsh of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) for Defendant Mark Osinski before the Honorable Victor Sanders at 2:00pm on 08/13/12. The Hearing lasted approximately 70 minutes and the CD recording of this Hearing has 4 Tracks. Transcribed excerpts from the CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing are TRACK, TIME and Speaker labeled for the convenience of the Court by Plaintiff.

Statement of the Facts:

On August 13, 2012 there was a lengthy discussion before Judge Sanders about the many conflicts of interest in this matter:

TRACK-1, TIME 03:30…Joe Albo: Before I begin my statement I would like to disclose to the court and to Mr. Troutt that the civil division of the county attorney’s office is also the legal advisor for the justice courts in Pinal County; and as such I am the attorney assigned to advice and represent the justice courts when they need legal advice.

TRACK-1, TIME 04:31… Judge Sanders: You understand what Mr. Albo said Mr. Troutt?

TRACK-1, TIME 04:35… Arlin Troutt: I believe he’s brought up the conflict of interest about him being also the advisor of the justice courts as well as defending Officer Osinski. And do I, if you read my complaints they’re full of conflicts of interest so I am not really sure on how to proceed on that because a lot of what I have written about deals with a continuum of conflicts of interest that have been overlooked. So, I don’t have any legal expertise or any formal training so I wouldn’t know what to say other than that I do realize there is a conflict of interest.

TRACK-1, TIME 05:55… Judge Sanders: Alright, so the question then, if you feel that there is a conflict of having Mr. Alba proceed today then you should state that now and state your reasons for it because we don’t want to come back later and say well I—but I thought no-no—do you understand? 

TRACK-1, TIME 06:25… Arlin Troutt: Well, as far as that goes in my response I’ve actually asked you to consider sanctions for Mr. Albo because of some of the statements he’s made in defense of Deputy Osinski. So if you want to take that into consideration, I’ve asked you to consider sanctions against him.

TRACK-1, TIME 06:48… Judge Sanders: I read that. I understand that. Alright.

TRACK-1, TIME 07:07… Judge Sanders: Anything further before we proceed by everyone?

After Mr. Albo instructed the Court regarding Defendant Osinski’s “official capacity” argument: A.R.S. § 12-1802(2), Judge Sanders clearly advised Mark Osinski, Joe Albo and the PCAO that Plaintiff’s complaints were against Mark Osinski in his individual capacity.

TRACK-2, TIME 09:14…Judge Sanders: If your petition before the court for an injunction against Mark Osinski as a citizen and not as a deputy, as a deputy coming on your property, as a private citizen I would grant that motion. I would have no problem with that.

TRACK-2, TIME 10:38… Arlin Troutt: I am trying to get protection for my family from the man that’s already been responsible for hurting them and then covered up the actual accounts in his police reports no different than what he has done here. I still haven’t gotten the evidence that I’m asking even to defend myself from this summary judgment that Mr. Albo has filed. You told me that you haven’t really had time to read my response, yet you’re willing to give them, I guess on the face of Mr. Osinski’s word that he’s not trying to hurt my family, or hasn’t, grant him a summary judgment. I would ask you before you would rule in their favor to give them the summary judgment that you would at least take a time out to read the evidence.

TRACK-3, TIME 00:53… Judge Sanders: I just told you, I will grant you an order against harassment, as against Mark Osinski as a private citizen period, that’s it. Mr. Albo, do you have anything?

TRACK-3, TIME 01:13… Joe Albo: Yes your Honor I do. I just want to clarify what it is the Court is ordering. Because in the original pleading that was filed in the Justice Court in Apache Junction Mr. Troutt lists himself as Plaintiff and for Defendant he says Deputy Mark Osinski badge number 1421 which is a Deputy’s badge number. So what I understand the court is doing here is converting this action against a Deputy at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office which is the caption in this case and in entering an order against Mr. Osinski as a private individual, a private person, any order issued by the Court has no effect upon Mark Osinski as a deputy sheriff at the Pinal County Sheriff Office as a Post Certified Peace Officer with a badge number of 1421.

TRACK-3, TIME 02:08… Judge Sanders: That’s absolutely correct. Listen to me Mr. Troutt. Let me and the only reason that I’m doing, well not the only reason but the reason that I feel like I can do this Mr. Troutt, Mr. Albo both Mr. Osinski, is that identifies who this person is and that he is a deputy sheriff etc. etc., it has his badge number.  But this is really his allegations, etc. are really more against Mark Osinski and who just happens to be a deputy sheriff. Do you follow me?  So what I am saying is that based upon—Let me back up. Let’s, suppose that Mr. Osinski was other than a police officer. He’s something whatever it was that identify this specific individual and so on and so forth.  His pleading, sure we can say: well you’ve got to amend to delete it. All I’m saying is that the restraint in this case is solely and specially against Mark Osinski, as a private individual has absolutely nothing to do with him or in his office as a member of the deputy sheriff. So and it should not any doing with his duties as a deputy sheriff. I just I’m just saying that Mr. Osinski as a private individual should not go on that property. 

TRACK-3, TIME 12:55…Judge Sanders: Mr. Osinski do you feel like you need some legal advice? Do you feel like you need an attorney and let me put it in a 2-phase thing? Is there something that you would need rather than just precede here today and do it in your defense or do you need some time?

Judge Sanders asked Mark Osinski if he wished to proceed and try this case (at that time) in his individual capacity or would he need time to get a private attorney. Defendant Osinski stated he would need a month to obtain a private attorney. Judge Sanders issued an Injunction Order against Mark Osinski and set a hearing date for September 10, 2012 under case number CV 2012-0369.

TRACK-4, TIME 04:16… Judge Sanders: I’m saying as a private citizen, I don’t have that I don’t have that ability to keep you off his property as law enforcement.  I think it would be a good idea not to go but that’s another matter. Because obviously there’s some real strong feelings here.  But, the Order is: that pending further Order of the Court and further hearing Mark Osinski, private citizen, is not to go on the property of Mr. Troutt and we’ve got the address here somewhere. Someone put that down.

TRACK-4, TIME 06:24…Judge Sanders: Alright and the clerk just advise me I should have picked up on this. We cannot so this under the same case so this in terms of the motion on this case for your summary judgment will be granted. And what’s going to happen, we’re going to set a new number a new case number as Mr. Osinski as a private citizen. OK we’ll handle that today.

TRACK-4, TIME 08:40… Judge Sanders: Deputy I have to ask you to waive time in other words otherwise we have to set this matter off further than the 10th.cause you have time to prepare.  If you will agree or stipulate that you can do that by the 10th of September then we’ll go ahead and do that. Otherwise?

TRACK-4, TIME 09:20…Defendant Osinski: That will be fine.

TRACK-4, TIME 02:42…Judge Sanders: Ok, I’ll do that but I’m going to make this order. Mr. Osinski, pending that hearing Ok. You are not to go on the property you’re not to go on the property, pending further orders of the Court. Do you understand that?  Alright we’ll set up we see if we can set up a time for a hearing approx 30 days from today. Let’s see hear, so we’re at the 13th. How about what about is the 10th of September, would that work? Could that work for you?  September 10th could that work for you? All right.

TRACK-4, TIME 03:50…Judge Sanders: Mr. Albo I don’t know if you want to be there or not but that’s another issue. But at least we’re gonna eh we’ll set this.

Joe Albo and the PCAO’s inappropriate protection and defense of Mark Osinski is based on PCAO allegations that Mark Osinski’s “single” encounter with Plaintiff on July 10, 2012 was within the scope of Mark Osinski’s duties as a PCSO deputy: “Defendant Mark Osinski, a Pinal County Deputy Sheriff, through undersigned counsel, herein moves this Court to dismiss this matter pursuant to A.R.S. §12-1802(2) on precisely the same basis a previous matter heard by the Honorable Victor Sanders in the Eloy Justice Court (Precinct 3) was dismissed on August 13, 2012. A.R.S. §12-1802(2): “An injunction shall not be granted: 2. To prevent enforcement of public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit”

Mark Osinski, Joe Albo and the PCAO went to great links to hide Mark Osinski’s first unauthorized visit and contact with the Plaintiff and other witnesses on the morning of July 10, 2012. Under direct questioning from the Court Mark Osinski lied to Judge Sanders:

TRACK-3, TIME 14:10… Mark Osinski: I have seen this person twice in my life, once in 2006 ok in an official capacity and once now in July that’s it.

Mark Osinski’s “ 1st visit” on the morning of July 10, 2012 to Plaintiff’s residence was not authorized or reported in Mark Osinski’s incident report and the PCAO still refuse to release the name of the “real estate agent friend” involved that Plaintiff has requested.

The photograph Mark Osinski illegally took clearly showed the Plaintiff was not fully dressed and under duress. On the face value of that photograph Joe Albo could not have ethically filed Defendant’s August 9, 3012 Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal or proceeded into Court to convince Judge Sanders that Mark Osinski made a friendly, consensual and legal visit to the Plaintiff’s property in the name of Pinal County and the State of Arizona.

On September 17, 2012 Joe Albo submitted a Declaration to the Eloy Justice Court (regarding the August 13, 2012 Hearing) admitting he withheld this illegally taken photograph of the Plaintiff in distress before he filed Defendant’s August 9, 2012 Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal in case number CV 2012-0369. (SPECIAL EXHIBIT)

Mr. Albo Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 3: “Even though the PCSO report, #12071019, was released to me by July 27, 2012, I did not review that report until the afternoon of August 8, 2012 when I began to prepare for the hearing in this matter, Case No. CV20120369.”

Mr. Albo Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 4: “On August 9, 2012 Deputy Mark Osinski came to my office to prepare his affidavit in Case No. Cv2012-0369. On that date Deputy Mark Osinski gave me a copy of the photographs taken at the Troutt property on July 10, 2012. On that date my office mailed a copy of the motion for summary judgment and to dismiss to Arlin Troutt.”

Mr. Albo did not include this illegally taken photograph of Plaintiff in his August 9, 2012 Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal. Joe Albo did not promise the Court to turn over the withheld evidence Plaintiff had complained about in his Response Motion filed August 13, 2012 until after Judge Sanders issued an Injunction Order against Mark Osinski and advised Joe Albo that Pinal County could not defend Mark Osinski in this matter.

TRACK-2, TIME 3:59… Arlin Troutt: Can I approach the bench one moment Your Honor? I just got this from Mr. Albo today.

TRACK-2, TIME 04:04… Judge Sanders: Show it to Mr. Albo. Yes go ahead.

TRACK-2, TIME 04:05… Joe Albo: I’ve seen it.

TRACK-2, TIME 04:07… Arlin Troutt: “They’re trying to say this is consensual non…  I just got out of heart surgery Your Honor, I was so sick that day. The last thing I wanted was to get ordered out then; and get ordered back in the house to show him my medical marijuana card.”

TRACK-2, TIME 04:39… Judge Sanders: “I understand Mr. Troutt, I can’t tell anything about by a picture like that. All I can tell is that you are not fully dressed.”

TRACK-3, TIME 06:00… Joe Albo: Before court started today I did give Mr. Troutt those 9 photographs, which were part of Deputy Osinski’s report. I did tell Mr. Troutt out in the corridor that I had just received the audio recording of the person who phoned in the information that ended up in Deputy Osinski being dispatched to the residence of the Troutt’s and that as soon as I got it duplicated I would mail it to him tomorrow.

On August 27, 2012 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal as a result of the August 13, 2012 Hearing and Plaintiff filed: Case No.: CV 20120369: MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL on the grounds that Joe Albo and the PCAO knew there were conflicts of interest and deliberately withheld evidence from Plaintiff and the Court that incriminated Mark Osinski.

TRACK-3, TIME 05:04… Joe Albo: Your Honor, I believe I understand what the court is saying; however the court is making that ruling without hearing all of the evidence in this matter.

TRACK-3, TIME 05:16… Joe Albo: If the court wants to bifurcate this and perhaps allow Mark Osinski as a private person to make his own defense on his behalf at some other hearing, where he might have an attorney if he chooses to have one represent his interest to present evidence that is counter to the allegations and statements that Mr. Troutt has made. I don’t know anything; I will avow to the Court that I don’t know anything at all about the situation other than what I have read in Mr. Troutt’s pleadings, his response to my motion and in the report, which I attached to Mr. Deputy Osinski’s affidavit.

TRACK-3, TIME 06:34… Joe Albo: Realizing that all of this has all happened in a fairly compressed time frame, I’m trying to be as transparent as possible in giving Mr. Troutt the materials that I have available to me so he can litigate his case.

TRACK-3, TIME 06:48… Joe Albo: Your Honor this case has all of sudden been transformed into something against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity, something that hasn’t been plead in this matter.  And Mark Osinski has not had any opportunity to respond other than in his official capacity. So at best I would ask this court give Deputy Osinski some time to prepare his defense in this matter as an individual and not as a member of the PCSO so he can deal the with the allegations and claims that Mr. Troutt has made. That gives both parties some time to sort this out, think through what it is they want the court to consider. And then determine whether or not that sort of order should be issued. But to issue it on the basis of things that go back to 2006, and I don’t know how selective Mr. Troutt has been in assembling his documents in his response. Your Honor I believe he has done so in good faith with no intention to mislead or deceive the parties of the court. But it’s unfair to Mark Osinski to put him in this position. When he has came here as a Deputy Sheriff to defend his actions as a Deputy Sheriff and not to defend himself in his personal capacity. So I would, I ask the court at least consider continuing this matter so that Deputy Osinski in his personal capacity can determine what is in his best interest in terms of defending himself in this matter.

TRACK-3, TIME 08:25… Judge Sanders: And you’re correct Mr. Albo and he is correct.

TRACK-3, TIME 08:44… Arlin Troutt: “First of all he just crossed the line from being Deputy Osinski’s defender of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department to giving you advice as an advisor to the justice courts.”

Judge Sanders completely contradicts himself after Mr. Albo advises the Court to bifurcate this case and misguides the Court: “the court is making that ruling without hearing all of the evidence in this matter.” “this has all happened in a fairly compressed time frame”… “this case has all of sudden been transformed into something against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity, something that hasn’t been plead in this matter.”

Regardless of Judge Sanders’ rulings and warnings of conflicts of interest and complaints of withheld evidence, Mr. Albo and the PCAO again improperly filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and a MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) on behalf of Deputy Mark Osinski on August 29, 2012.

On September 17, 2012 Defendant Osinski and Joe Albo also filed a Response to Plaintiff’s August 4, 2012 Motion stating: “FACTS: Plaintiff seeks an injunction against harassment against Defendant [A similar request was denied in CV2012-0369]” (Pg. 1, lines 25-26). (SPECIAL EXHIBIT)

Plaintiff’s request for an Injunction Order was ruled on and issued during the CV2012-0369 Hearing by Judge Sanders. The Injunction Order against Mark Osinski was not denied after the August 13, 2012 Hearing as Joe Albo and Mark Osinski have stated on the record. Joe Albo misrepresents Mark Osinski’s anger after Judge Sanders ordered him to stay of the Plaintiff’s property.

Mr. Albo Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 10: Judge Sanders and Mark Osinski agreed that Mark Osinski, in his personal, individual capacity would not go onto Mr. Troutt’s property or near Mr. Troutt pending a hearing in a new, separate matter on September 10, 2012.

Mark Osinski became so angry he lied to the Court and changed his story in Court from a friendly, consensual and legal visit to accusing the Plaintiff of making violent threats:

TRACK-4, TIME 03:59… Mark Osinski: But, let me ask you a question. If eh, your asking me not to go on Mr. Troutt’s property as a private citizen or in my official capacity?  Cause Mr. Troutt mentioned that he’s going to arm himself with something and shoot somebody.

ARGUMENT

Allowing a Pinal County Deputy to put this inflammatory and threatening lie on the record unchallenged puts Plaintiff and his family at risk.

Misrepresenting facts to a newly assigned judge and claiming “A similar request was denied in CV2012-0369” by Judge Sanders on the same grounds to get a favorable ruling is unethical and withholding incriminating evidence and tailoring motions to protect a criminal is a crime.

However, this Motion filed by Joe Albo on behalf of Deputy Osinski on August 29, 2012 succeeded in having the Plaintiff’s Injunction Against Harassment Order against Mark Osinski dismissed and “Quashed”. Plaintiff’s complaints of documented misconduct on the part of Pinal County Officials have disappeared under Judge Raymond Jegge’s desk in Pinal County.

This case has had a great deal of political pressure applied because it concerns violations of the new medical marijuana law (Proposition 203) by an old deputy with a history of abuse of his authority. Judge Marie Lorona and Judge Victor Sanders’ handling of this case has shown great prejudice and protection for fellow Pinal County Officials. Ethical and legal lines are being crossed to protect and exonerate Mark Osinski, Joe Albo and other Pinal County Official and to keep evidence of their personal and professional misconduct off the record with this Bifurcate the Blame Game. Plaintiff’s rights to a fair and impartial hearing have been violated.

Judge Sanders should not have ruled in favor of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal after Plaintiff complained of conflicts of interest and presented the Court with evidence of withheld evidence that incriminated Mark Osinski and Joe Albo. Judge Marie Lorona should not have tolerated these unethical violations of professionalism and crimes to be shoved under her judicial desk.

The importance Plaintiff has placed on being truthful to the Court is because these conflicts of interest and withheld evidence that incriminated and protected Mark Osinski have prevented Plaintiff from being able to legally protect Plaintiff’s family from Mark Osinski. Plaintiff has filed Motions and complained of these disadvantages at the August 13, 2012 hearing and after to the Court. Plaintiff has listed the rules in the Codes of Conduct and Arizona Revised Statutes that Mark Osinski, Joe Albo and the PCAO violated.

Plaintiff would remind the Court that Plaintiff is at a financial and legal representation disadvantage. Being forced to respond to inappropriate and disingenuous motions is patently unfair and has come at great expense and physical and emotional suffering to the Plaintiff/Victim and his family in this case.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is requesting that the Injunction Against Harassment be re-instated or issued and that an investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints and evidence of unethical and criminal conduct by Pinal County Officials in this matter be ordered in compliance with: ARIZONA CODE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Part 1: Judicial Branch Administration, Chapter 3: Judicial Officers and Employees, Section 1-303: Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees

Respectfully submitted, on this 22nd day of October, 2012

 

————————————

Arlin Troutt, pro per

 

The foregoing is delivered via certified U.S. Mail on the 22nd of October, 2012 to the Honorable Marie Lorona at the Eloy, Arizona Justice Court and to Mark Osinski through Joe Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office. _____

SPECIAL EXHIBIT…Joe Albo’s Declaration

ARLIN D. TROUTT

 

 

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,

vs.

MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,

Defendants

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0369AND CV 2012-0386

 

NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE RAYMOND JEGGE, THOMAS WEAVER, JOE ALBO AND MARK OSINSKI FOR UNETHCAL AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGIDANCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR JUDGE LORONA TO REVIEW AND REVERSE JUDGE JEGGE’S RULING TO DISMISS INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER COMPLAINTS AGAINST MARK OSINSKI, JOE ALBO AND THOMAS WEAVER

 

Honorable Marie Lorona

 

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2012 at about 9:30 am Mark Osinski came to Plaintiff’s property in a Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) vehicle and in uniform. The Plaintiff and his wife recognized this deputy as an individual that had been involved in a physical assault on Plaintiff’s family members on August 1, 2002.

After Mark Osinski’s morning visit on July 10, 2012 he returned to Plaintiff’s property at about 2:00 pm with another uniformed PCSO deputy named Sean Lennon. Mark Osinski ordered Plaintiff to produce a medical marijuana card and accompany the 2 men to Plaintiff’s garden for an inspection.  While inside the Plaintiff’s enclosed garden area Mark Osinski started taking photographs of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s plants.

Sean Lennon started counting limbs and branches of Plaintiff’s medical marijuana plants claiming they were individual plants and threatening Plaintiff by alleging Plaintiff was growing more than the legal amount of medical marijuana plants. It was clear Mark Osinski and Sean Lennon knew little about medical marijuana and cared little about medical marijuana patients or proposition 203 that was enacted by voter initiative to protect medical marijuana patients from the police and courts.

Mark Osinski’s visits to the Plaintiff’s residence on July 10, 2012 were for the purpose of harassment, intimidation and threats and violated Plaintiff’s rights as a Medical Marijuana patient and a Citizen of Arizona.

Plaintiff immediately reported Mark Osinski’s violations of law directly to Sheriff Paul Babeu’s Office. Plaintiff forwarded the July 10, 2012 PCSO incident report number (120710119) that Plaintiff requested from the PCSO records department on July 11, 2012 to Paul Babeu’s Office on July 11, 2012.

Additionally, Plaintiff reported that Mark Osinski’s involvement as the commanding officer in another incident had resulted in the assault of Plaintiff’s daughter at the same residence on August 1, 2006. Per request and instruction of Sheriff Babeu’s assistant, Debbie Lopez, Plaintiff forward the August 1, 2006 incident report and internal affairs complaints against Deputy Mark Osinski directly to the Sheriff Babeu’s Office.

On July 16, 2012 Plaintiff submitted a formal letter of complaint against Mark Osinski directly to Sheriff Babeu’s Office. Sheriff Paul Babeu’s assistant, advised Plaintiff that the Sheriff would turn this Personnel Complaint against Deputy Mark Osinski over to Lt. Roy Palmanteer of PCSO Internal Affairs. Additionally, Ms. Lopez advised Plaintiff to go to the Pinal County Justice Court to get an Order of Injunction against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity to protect Plaintiff’s family. This letter along with other supporting documents were submitted to the Apache Junction Justice Court as exhibits to support Plaintiff’s original request for an Injunction Order against Mark Osinski (CV2012-3018). (EXHIBIT A)

On July 18, Plaintiff was advised that the July 10, 2012 Incident Report that Plaintiff had formally requested from PCSO records department was being deliberately withheld from Plaintiff by the PCSO. (EXHIBIT B)

On July 25, 2012 Plaintiff filed for an Injunction Order against Mark Osinski without the knowledge of Mark Osinski’s withheld Incident Report and supporting evidence. Judge Rodgers refused to issue an Injunction Order at that time. He assigned a case number: CV2012-3018 and set a court date for August 3, 2012 @ 10:00am.

At this July 25, 2012 Court Hearing Plaintiff recognized Pinal County Attorney Michael Larsen who had been involved in the concealment of misconduct by Mark Osinski and other Pinal County Deputies at Plaintiff’s family residence prior to the July 10, 2012 incidents. Plaintiff also discovered that Judge Phil Rodgers also had a flawed reputation with the Supreme Court of Arizona involving similar complaint issues.

On July 30, 2012 Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Change of Judge and Plaintiff specifically complained that evidence was being withheld from Plaintiff by the PCSO: Case No. CV2012-3018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE PURSUANT TO: Arizona Revised Statutes – Title 12 Courts and Civil Proceedings – Section 12-409 Change of judge; grounds; affidavit

On August 2, Judge Shaun Babeu of the Apache Junction Justice Court “GRANTS” Plaintiff’s motion and issued a Minute Entry/Order on CV2012-3018 closing the case against “Mark Osinski”, vacating the scheduled August 6, 2012 hearing and transferring the case to the Eloy Justice Court for all future proceedings. (EXHIBIT D)

Judge Shaun Babeu lists the Defendant as “Mark Osinski” in his Order transferring CV2012-3018 to Judge Marie Lorona at the Eloy Justice Court. (EXHIBIT F)

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Judge Marie Lorona issued a Hearing Order regarding Injunction Against Harassment. A new case number was issued CV2012-0369 and set a new hearing date for August 13, 2012. Judge Lorona also lists the Defendant as “Mark Osinski”. (EXHIBIT G)

On Thursday August 9, 2012 Joe Albo of the PCAO filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaints against “Mark Osinski” on behalf of Deputy Osinski in his official capacity as a PCSO Deputy.

On August 11, 2012 Plaintiff received Defendant’s Motion for a “Summary Judgment and Dismissal” by mail. Plaintiff filed a complaint and Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal on August 13, 2012 before the scheduled hearing with Judge Victor Sanders at 2:00 pm.  The Plaintiff also complained of these disadvantages at the August 13, 2012 hearing.

On Monday, August 13, 2012 Joe Albo (Pinal County Deputy Attorney) appeared on behalf of James Walsh of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) for Defendant Mark Osinski before the Honorable Victor Sanders at 2:00pm on 08/13/12.

Joe Albo pushed this weekend motion through the Eloy Justice Court on August 13, 2012 while deliberately withholding evidence from the Plaintiff and Court and depriving the Plaintiff of adequate time to respond to a Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal at a Hearing.

At the August 13, 2012 hearing Judge Sanders instructed the Plaintiff and Defendant of conflicts of interest between the PCAO’s representation of Mark Osinski and also being Counsel of Record for the PCSO and the Eloy Justice Court.

When Mr. Albo instructed the court regarding Defendant Osinski’s “official capacity” argument during the August 13, 2012 Hearing, Judge Sanders informed Mr. Albo that the Plaintiff’s use of Defendant Osinski’s title and badge number was a proper means of identification for the Court. Judge Sanders clearly advised Joe Albo and the PCAO that Plaintiff’s complaints were against Mark Osinski in his individual capacity.

Regardless of Judge Sanders’ rulings and warnings of conflicts of interest, Mr. Albo and the PCAO filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and a MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) on behalf of Deputy Mark Osinski on August 29, 2012.

Joe Albo filed these motions after Judge Sanders clearly explained to Joe Albo, the PCAO and Mark Osinski that the PCAO did not have the authority or responsibility to defend Mark Osinski. Mark Osinski advised the Court he would need a month to obtain a private attorney and Judge Sanders set a hearing date for September 10, 2012. (EXHIBIT)

Plaintiff requested in Paragraph 3 of Page 3 in Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Judge filed with the Apache Junction Justice Court on July 30, 2012: “I am requesting a change of judge, an immediate Injunction Order and an Order to compel Sheriff Paul Babeu to release this secreted incident report that Deputy Osinski generated on the altercation that occurred at our residence on July 10, 2012.” (EXHIBIT C)

On August 2, 2012 Plaintiff drove to the Florence PCSO in an unsuccessful effort to acquire the evidence that was being withheld from the scheduled August 6, 2012 hearing at the Apache Junction Justice Court.

Additionally, Plaintiff filed a series of complaints directly to Sheriff Paul Babeu’s Office regarding the withholding of this evidence from the Plaintiff and Court at that same time. Plaintiff did not know that Judge Shawn Babeu had granted Plaintiff’s Motion until August 4, 2012.

The importance Plaintiff has placed on this matter of concealed and withheld evidence is because this evidence supports the Plaintiff’s complaints and claims that Mark Osinski’s visits on July 10, 2012 to Plaintiff’s residence were not brief, friendly, consensual, warranted or legal as Mark Osinski, Sean Lennon, Joe Albo and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) alleged to the Court. Mark Osinski and Joe Albo have made these claims in the darkness of this concealed evidence and in light of the contradictory and disingenuous filings and testimony to the Eloy Court.

Why would Mark Osinski, Joe Albo and the PCAO do this? Joe Albo and the PCAO’s sole defense of Mark Osinski is based on their allegations that Mark Osinski’s encounter with Plaintiff on July 10, 2012 was brief, friendly, consensual and legal and within the scope of Mark Osinski’s duties as a PCSO deputy.

Joe Albo and the PCAO made these representations to the Court knowing their representation of Mark Osinski was a conflict of interest. Additionally Joe Albo knew the PCAO was withholding evidence that contradicted the Defendant and the PCAO’s claims and statements to the Court.

Mark Osinski came to Plaintiff’s residence twice on July 10, 2012 and established contact with the Plaintiff on 2 separate occasions that day and lied to the Court under direct questioning regarding that matter.

Deputy Osinski filed an Incident Report and Declaration that excluded his first visit and contradicted the inappropriate photographs he took of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s property. Additionally, Mark Osinski fabricated information he stated the PCSO dispatcher had relayed to him from a “Concerned Citizen and his Real Estate Friend”.

Plaintiff did not get this evidence until after Judge Sanders issued an Injunction Order against Mark Osinski and Joe Albo promised Judge Sanders he would deliver this withheld evidence to Plaintiff immediately after the August 13, 2012 Hearing. (EXHIBIT CD)

Mark Osinski carefully excluded what had transpired during his first visit to Plaintiff’s property and his conversation with Plaintiff’s neighbor Gerald Kirtland at about 9:30 am on the Morning of July 10, 2012. Mark Osinski attempted to blame the marijuana cultivation complaint on Plaintiff’s neighbor from his earlier visit.

The victims and witnesses Plaintiff has listed have never been interviewed by the PCAO and the identity of this mystery “Real Estate Friend” is still being concealed and withheld from Plaintiff.

On the face value of the photograph that Mark Osinski inappropriately took of the Plaintiff, anyone would have to notice the apparent duress of the Plaintiff. (EXHIBIT D)

This withheld photo alone suggests that Mark Osinski’s visit to Plaintiff’s property on July 10, 2012 was not brief, friendly, consensual, warranted or legally conducted under Arizona Law. The Plaintiff has complained to the Court and asked for discipline on this matter. Plaintiff’s Motions have been inappropriately dismissed denying Plaintiff’s right to a review or to be heard on these matters.

Joe Albo and the PCAO’s sole defense for Mark Osinski has been based on A.R.S. § 12-1802(2): “Defendant Mark Osinski, a Pinal County Deputy Sheriff, through undersigned counsel, herein moves this Court to dismiss this matter pursuant to A.R.S. §12-1802(2) on precisely the same basis a previous matter heard by the Honorable Victor Sanders in the Eloy Justice Court (Precinct 3) was dismissed on August 13, 2012. A.R.S. §12-1802(2): “An injunction shall not be granted: 2. To prevent enforcement of public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit”

On August 9, 2012 Joe Albo and the PCAO inappropriately filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal on behalf of Deputy Mark Osinski. That Motion included an altered version of the real Incident Report (120710119) that Plaintiff did not receive until August 22, 2012 from the PCSO records department. The version of Mark Osinski’s Incident Report that Joe Albo submitted to the Court in Defendant’s August 9, 2012 Motion had the information about the withheld evidence excluded. (Exhibit)

The first page of the true incident report Plaintiff received after the August 13, 2012 Hearing contains the last date Plaintiff formally requested the Incident Report (July 18, 2012) and the dates the PCSO and PCAO withheld this important evidence from the Plaintiff and the court.

Plaintiff does not believe Mr. Albo expected Plaintiff to have a Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal that Mr. Albo filed from his office in Florence at weeks end and only 4 days before the “Monday” Hearing on August 13, 2012. This gave Plaintiff less than 2 days to respond to a Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal at a Hearing. However, Plaintiff complained and accurately described what the withheld evidence could prove in his Response Motion filed before the Hearing on August 13, 2012.

The following excerpts from the CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing will show that Judge Sanders clearly and specifically ruled to issue an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski in his individual capacity and excluded Joe Albo’s participation in his defense well before the Court bifurcated the case from CV 2012-0369 to CV 2012-0386. Additionally, this CD recording will show that Joe Albo, the PCAO and the Pima County Attorney’s Office made deliberate misrepresentations to the Court to get favorable rulings for Mark Osinski and Joe Albo in their individual and professional capacities.

 

The following experts from the CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing will support Plaintiff’s claims that Thomas Weaver of the Pima County Attorney’s Office, Joe Albo and Mark Osinski have misguided the Court with withheld evidence, conflicts of interest, motions, altered Incident Reports and disingenuous Declarations filed from August 9, 2012, August 27, 2012 and on September 17, 2012.

 

Transcribed Excerpts from the CD Recording of August 13, 2012 Hearing:

TRACK-2, TIME 09:14…Judge Sanders: If your petition before the court for an injunction against Mark Osinski as a citizen and not as a deputy, as a deputy coming on your property, as a private citizen I would grant that motion. I would have no problem with that.

TRACK-2, TIME 10:38…Mr. Troutt: I am trying to get protection for my family from the man that’s already been responsible for hurting then covered up the actual accounts in his police reports, no different than what he has done here. I still haven’t gotten the evidence that I’m asking even to defend myself from this summary judgment that Mr. Albo has filed.

TRACK-2, TIME 11:39… Judge Sanders: Ok Mr. Troutt maybe I probably didn’t say this so you understand what I am saying. I don’t have a problem issuing against Mr. Osinski as a public citizen. I can do that.

TRACK-3, TIME 00:53… Judge Sanders: I just told you, I will grant you an order against harassment as against Mark Osinski as a private citizen period, that’s it. Mr. Albo, do you have anything?

TRACK-3, TIME 01:13… Joe Albo: Yes your Honor I do. I just want to clarify what it is the Court is ordering. Because in the original pleading that was filed in the Justice Court in Apache Junction Mr. Troutt lists himself as Plaintiff and for Defendant he says Deputy Mark Osinski badge number 1421 which is a Deputy’s badge number. So what I understand the court is doing here is converting this action against a Deputy at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office which is the caption in this case and in entering an order against Mr. Osinski as a private individual, a private person, any order issued by the Court has no effect upon Mark Osinski as a deputy sheriff at the Pinal County Sheriff Office as a Post Certified Peace Officer with a badge number of 1421.

TRACK-3, TIME 02:08… Judge Sanders: That’s absolutely correct. Listen to me Mr. Troutt. Let me and the only reason that I’m doing, well not the only reason but the reason that I feel like I can do this Mr. Troutt, Mr. Albo both Mr. Osinski, is that identifies who this person is and that he is a deputy sheriff etc. etc., it has his badge number.  But this is really his allegations etc. are really more against Mark Osinski and who just happens to be a deputy sheriff. Do you follow me?  So what I am saying is that based upon—Let me back up. Let’s, suppose that Mr. Osinski was other than a police officer. He’s something whatever it was that identify this specific individual and so on and so forth.  His pleading, sure we can say: well you’ve got to amend to delete it. All I’m saying is that the restraint in this case is solely and specially against Mark Osinski, as a private individual has absolutely nothing to do with him or in his office as a member of the deputy sheriff. So and it should not any doing with his duties as a deputy sheriff. I just I’m just saying that Mr. Osinski as a private individual should not go on that property.

TRACK-3, TIME 05:04… Joe Albo: Your Honor, I believe I understand what the court is saying; however the court is making that ruling without hearing all of the evidence in this matter. And if the court wants to bifurcate this and perhaps allow Mark Osinski as a private person to make his own defense on his behalf at some other hearing, where he might have an attorney if he chooses to have one represent his interest to present evidence that is counter to the allegations and statements that Mr. Troutt has made. I don’t know anything; I will avow to the Court that I don’t know anything at all about the situation other than what I have read in Mr. Troutt’s pleadings, his response to my motion and in the report which I attachment to Mr. Deputy Osinski’s affidavit.

TRACK-3, TIME 06:00… Joe Albo: Before court started today I did give Mr. Troutt those 9 photographs, which were part of Deputy Osinski’s report. I did tell Mr. Troutt out in the corridor that I had just received the audio recording of the person who phoned in the information that ended up in Deputy Osinski being dispatched to the residence of the Troutt’s and that as soon as I got it duplicated I would mail it to him tomorrow. Realizing that all of this has all happened in a fairly compressed time frame, I’m trying to be as transparent as possible in giving Mr. Troutt the materials that I have available to me so he can litigate his case. But your Honor this case has all of sudden been transformed into something against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity, something that hasn’t been plead in this matter.  And Mark Osinski has not had any opportunity to respond other than in his official capacity. So at best I would ask this court give Deputy Osinski some time to prepare his defense in this matter as an individual and not as a member of the PCSO so he can deal the with the allegations and claims that Mr. Troutt has made. That gives both parties some time to sort this out, think through what it is they want the court to consider. And then determine whether or not that sort of order should be issued. But to issue it on the basis of things that go back to 2006, and I don’t know how selective Mr. Troutt has been in assembling his documents in his response. Your Honor I believe he has done so in good faith with no intention to mislead or deceive the parties of the court. But it’s unfair to Mark Osinski to put him in this position. When he has came here as a Deputy Sheriff to defend his actions as a Deputy Sheriff and not to defend himself in his personal capacity. So I would, I ask the court at least consider continuing this matter so that Deputy Osinski in his personal capacity can determine what is in his best interest in terms of defending himself in this matter.

TRACK-3, TIME 12:55…Judge Sanders: Mr. Osinski do you feel like you need some legal advice? Do you feel like you need an attorney and let me put it in a 2-phase thing? Is there something that you would need rather than just precede here today and do it in your defense or do you need some time?

TRACK-3, TIME 13:26… Defendant Osinski: Your Honor I feel like I definitely am not going to accept what Mr. Troutt is saying. That it’s going to take an injunction against as me of Mark Osinski a private citizen. It’s I was there in an official capacity I was doing my job and I never ever go on Mr. Troutt’s property as a private citizen. How’s that he is referring to this totally out of the question. Now for several months whatever the case may be. Has as nothing to do with Mr. Troutt’s property. OK I don’t feel that I should be order this injunction against me. I have seen this person twice in my life, once in 2006 ok in an official capacity and once now in July that’s it. I have no idea and no I’m totally flabbergasted, and what is going on here. I need some time cause in this situation I will need some time cause I will seek legal.

TRACK-4, TIME 02:42…Judge Sanders: Ok, I’ll do that but I’m going to make this order. Mr. Osinski, pending that hearing Ok. You are not to go on the property you’re not to go on the property, pending further orders of the Court. Do you understand that?  Alright we’ll set up we see if we can set up a time for a hearing approx 30 days from today. Let’s see hear, so we’re at the 13th. How about what about is the 10th of September, would that work? Could that work for you?  September 10th could that work for you? All right. 

T-4 03:50…J: Mr. Albo I don’t know if you want to be there or not but that’s another issue but at least we’re gonna eh we’ll set this…

TRACK-4, TIME 03:59…Defendant Osinski: But, let me ask you a question. Is eh, your asking me not to go on Mr. Troutt’s property as a private citizen or in my official capacity?  Cause Mr. Alvar– Mr. Troutt mentioned that he’s going to arm himself with something and shoot somebody.

TRACK-4, TIME 04:16… Judge Sanders: I’m saying as a private citizen, I don’t have that I don’t have that ability to keep you off his property as law enforcement.  I think it would be a good idea not to go but that’s another matter. Because obviously there’s some real strong feelings here.  But, the Order is: that pending further Order of the Court and further hearing Mark Osinski, private citizen, is not to go on the property of Mr. Troutt and we’ve got the address here somewhere. Someone put that down.

TRACK-4, TIME 06:24…Judge Sanders: Alright and the clerk just advise me I should have picked up on this. We cannot so this under the same case so this in terms of the motion on this case for your summary judgment will be granted. And what’s going to happen, we’re going to set a new number a new case number as Mr. Osinski as a private citizen. OK we’ll handle that today.

TRACK-4, TIME 08:40… Judge Sanders: Deputy I have to ask you to waive time in other words otherwise we have to set this matter off further then the 10th.cause you have time to prepare.  If you will agree or stipulate that you can do that by the 10th of September then we’ll go ahead and do that otherwise.

TRACK-4, TIME 09:20…Defendant Osinski: That will be fine.

 

 

 

 

First Plaintiff would bring the Court’s attention to Plaintiff’s: RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGUIDENCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS filed on September 4, 2012 (CV 2012-0386).

Mr. Albo admits in his undated Declaration attached to Defendant’s response Motion filed September 17, 2012 at Page 1, Paragraph 3: “Even though the PCSO report, #12071019, was released to me by July 27, 2012, I did not review that report until the afternoon of August 8, 2012 when I began to prepare for the hearing in this matter, Case No. CV20120369.

However, Mr. Albo tells Judge Sanders that: “this has all happened in a fairly compressed time frame”… “this case has all of sudden been transformed into something against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity, something that hasn’t been plead in this matter.” “the court is making that ruling without hearing all of the evidence in this matter.”

Mr. Albo received evidence and knowledge of this civil action on July 27, 2012 by his own admission. Mr. Albo used Plaintiff’s July 30, 2012 Motion to the Apache Junction Justice Court for Change of Judge and release of secreted Innocent Report that was granted as an exhibit in his August 29, 2012 filing to the Eloy Justice Court.

Mr. Albo used an incomplete and altered version of Incident Report 120710119 in his August 9, 2012 Motion to the Court that concealed the fact that the evidence Plaintiff continually requested for Court had been withheld.

Mr. Albo Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 4: On August 9, 2012 Deputy Mark Osinski came to my office to prepare his affidavit in Case No. CV20120369. On that date Deputy Mark Osinski gave me a copy of the photographs taken at the Troutt property on July 10, 2012.

On the face value of the photo that Joe Albo alleges he received from Defendant Osinski on August 9, 2012 of Plaintiff on July 10, 2012, he could not have ethically proceeded into Court to convince Judge Sanders that Mark Osinski had made a single, brief, friendly, consensual and legal visit to the Plaintiff’s property on July 10, 2012. (EXHIBIT A)

Mr. Albo withheld evidence from the Plaintiff and the Court that he knew contradicted his defense of Defendant Mark Osinski his Motions filed on August 9, 2012 and the testimony that was given August 13, 2012 before Judge Sanders in the Eloy Justice Court.

According to Mr. Albo’s Declaration that was filed on his behalf to the Eloy Court on September 17, 2012, he alleges or admits he saw the photograph Mark Osinski inappropriately took of the Plaintiff on July 10, 2012. This photo was taken of a crime victim in distress that had reported Mark Osinski to the authorities. By Mr. Albo’s own admission he is stating that 4 days after he saw evidence of this crime he convinced a judge four days later that this crime was a friendly and consensual visit to Plaintiff’s residence by a Deputy just performing his duty and he won a Summary Judgment and Dismissal Ruling for his efforts.

Joe Albo’s Declaration misrepresents what transpired between Judge Sanders and Defendant Osinski at the peril of the Plaintiff’s family and down plays Defendant Osinski’s anger after Judge Sander’s sternly ordered Defendant Osinski to stay off Plaintiff’s property.

Mr. Albo Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 10: Judge Sanders and Mark Osinski agreed that Mark Osinski, in his personal, individual capacity would not go onto Mr. Troutt’s property or near Mr. Troutt pending a hearing in a new, separate matter on September 10, 2012.

Mr. Albo is misleading the Court here. There was no agreement to stay off Plaintiff’s property, it was an outright and adamant order from Judge Sanders and that order angered Defendant Osinski.

Defendant Osinski has also made a “new” Declaration that was filed with the Defendant’s September 17, 2012.

Defendant Osinski Declares on Page 1, Paragraph 3: “My routine patrol assignment require that I drive near the Arlin Troutt residence on Yaqui Lane in the Gold Canyon area of Pinal County.”

The Plaintiff has lived at the end of the same long and private drive for over 40 years and the Pinal County road grader stops a long way from where my family is located.

 

Defendant Osinski Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 5: I have been to Arlin Troutt’s residents[sic} twice.

Deputy Osinski never mentioned his first visit to my property the morning of July 10, 2012 in his Incident Report and he lied about it to Judge Sanders at the August 13, 2012 Hearing.

Defendant Osinski did not mention his conversation with Plaintiff’s neighbor Gerald Kirtland about Plaintiff’s medical marijuana garden that morning prior to his “second” afternoon harassment invasion of Plaintiff’s residence.

 

 

The PCSO and PCAO have avoided taking witness and victim statements that I listed in my complaints regarding Defendant Osinski’s invasion of my residence on July 10, 2012. Defendant Osinski, Joe Albo, the PCAO and the PCSO have gone to great lengths to keep these politically charged and highly questionable invasions of my residence off the record.

 

 

Now Defendant Osinski Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 5: “The first time was in 2006 when I was dispatched to assist the responding deputy on a domestic call. I have limited of that event, as I had limited involvement.”

On August 1, 2006 Defendant Osinski was the “Responsible Officer” of record. He came to the residence with a SWAT team because he got a report from the PCSO Gold Canyon dispatcher that Plaintiff’s aging mother had reported a “verbal dispute” with her grandson (the owner of the property) over the telephone.

Plaintiff would hope the Court would re-instate the Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski. Defendant Mark Osinski is a danger to my family and me.  He is especially angry because the Plaintiff has hauled him into court and exposed him. Defendant Osinski’s false statement to the Court and on the record regarding Plaintiff threatening to shoot someone makes my family a target for law enforcement and we are terrified by Deputy Osinski’s last acts of defiance in Court on August 13, 2012.

Defendant Osinski was furious when Judge Sanders adamantly told him to stay off Plaintiff’s property and then repeated it. In the Defendant’s anger he lied to the Court about Plaintiff threatening to shoot someone: Cause Mr. Alvar-- Mr. Troutt mentioned that he’s going to arm himself with something and shoot somebody.

Plaintiff considers Defendant Osinski’s false statement to the Court an outright treat of violence against the Troutt family. This statement is inflammatory and could be used by law enforcement to justify unwarranted violence. For a law enforcement officer to make a statement like that on the record puts Plaintiff’s family at risk in a politically charged atmosphere that is already deceitful and dangerous enough.

Plaintiff expects the Court to hold Mark Osinski accountable for this statement and take notice on the record of this specific incident complaint.

Plaintiff remembers too well what Defendant Osinski did to his family on August 1, 2006. After the July 10, 2012 Plaintiff immediately reported Mark Osinski’s actions directly to Sheriff Babeu’s Office.

Per instruction from Sheriff Babeu’s personal staff, Plaintiff filed this complaint against Defendant Osinski in his individual capacity in the Pinal County Justice Court of Apache Junction on July 25, 2012.

Additionally, Judge Sanders made it clear by his rulings that he was not buying the “one” friendly, consensual and legal visit defense.

Plaintiff and his family are in a political crossfire over Pinal County’s clear violation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Plaintiff believes this has guided the PCSO and PCAO’s misconduct in their personal, individual and collective efforts to protect Deputy Osinski. As victims my wife and I were entitled to protection and a meaningful investigation that would have included witness and victim statements.

This case has had a lot of political pressure applied and ethical lines are being crossed. Plaintiff understands the Eloy Court’s role and limited authority in this matter. Under very unusual circumstances Judge Sanders asserted his authority and stood up for my family when the PCSO and PCAO would not.  The CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing is evidence that Judge Sanders thoroughly considered and weighed his decisions that day.

Defendant’s clearly inappropriate Motion for a Change of Judge filed August 29, 2012 was an intimidating harassment for the Plaintiff and an insult to the Eloy Justice Court.

Plaintiff is requesting the Defendant’s Motion be denied and an Injunction Order be extended against Defendant Osinski for the longest period possible.  Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court recognize and report this misbehavior Plaintiff has complained of to authorities at an appropriate level for an unbiased, independent and meaningful investigation.

Additionally, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court acknowledge that the Plaintiff and his wife have been victims in this matter and that the evidence supports the fact that the Troutt’s meetings with Defendant Osinski have not been brief, friendly, consensual or legal.

 

Mr. Albo withheld evidence from the Plaintiff and the Court that he knew contradicted his defense of Defendant Mark Osinski. Mr. Albo walked into the Eloy Court on August 13, 2012 with 9 photographs that Defendant Osinski inappropriately took of my property and me and then electronically distributed on July 10, 2012. Joe Albo knew the evidence he withheld contradicted the Defendant’s police report and sworn Declaration that Mr. Albo filed with the Court on August 9, 2012 and was testified to on August 13, 2012 in Court.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s September 17, 2012 Motion was not a genuine response to Plaintiff’s Motion complaining about Joe Albo trying to get a new judge after Judge Sanders specifically and clearly told him to butt out. This was a “Hail Mary Pass” to a new judge with an invitation to play ball.

Mr. Weaver has misrepresented what transpired in Judge Sander’s Court and used his September 17, 2012 Motion to simply get another Judge to rule in his favor because he’s misrepresenting what Judge Sanders stated and ruled on at the August 13, 2012 Hearing.

Joe Albo’s inappropriate August 29, 2012 Motion requesting a “Change of Judge” was the first failed “Hail Mary Pass” to try to shove these crimes under a friendly judicial desk. That was what the Plaintiff had complained about in his August 4, 2012 Response Motion.

Mr. Weaver muddies the water on both Response Motions he filed on behalf of Defendant Osinski and Joe Albo on September 17, 2012. In Defendants’ September 17, 2012 Response TO: MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MOTION TO SUMMARY JUDMENT AND D8ISMISSAL[sic] AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL filed August 27, 2012, Defendant states: “FACTS: Plaintiff sought an injunction against harassment and after a hearing the matter was dismissed. See minute entry order dated August 13, 2012. (Page 1, lines 23-26)

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s August 1, 2012 Motion states: “FACTS: Plaintiff seeks an injunction against harassment against Defendant [A similar request was denied in CV2012-0369]” (Pg. 1, lines 25-26).

Plaintiff’s request for an Injunction Order was ruled on and issued during the CV2012-0369 Hearing. The August 13, 2012 Hearing Order Regarding: Injunction Against Harassment states: (B.) The Order of Protection or Injunction Against Harassment “previously issued by this Court” is dismissed.(Exhibit ?)

The Injunction Order against Mark Osinski was not denied, it was ruled on and issued under CV2012-0369. To tell a new Judge he should dismiss a case because the last Judge did when the last judge did not dismiss the case is unethical at the least.

The Court made it clear at several junctures that Plaintiff’s complaints against Defendant Osinski and the request for an Order of Injunction were filed against Deputy Osinski in his personal capacity as “Mark Osinski, private citizen”. Judge Sanders made this ruling during the CV 2012-0369 hearing before this case was bifurcated and CV 2012-0386 was assigned.

Defendant Mark Osinski was supposed to be getting his own attorney for a court date that was set by Judge Sanders for September 10, 2012.

Joe Albo filed Motions for a Change of Judge and Dismissal on August 29, 2012 after Judge Sanders had repeatedly told him there was a conflict of interest and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office could not represent Defendant Osinski in CV 2012-0386. The Defendant’s Response Motions are unethical, frivolous, intimidating and damaging.

 

====================================================================================================

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,

vs.

MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,

Defendants

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0369 

RESPONSE TO: DEFENDANT OSINSKI, PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO AND PIMA COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY THOMAS WEAVER’S RESPONSE TO: MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MOTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND DISMISSAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL

 

 

Honorable Marie Lorona, Victor Sanders and or Raymond Jegge

 

Joe Albo attended a special meeting on August 23, 2012 with Lt. King of the PCSO Gold Canyon substation and other high level Pinal County officials.

The discrepancies in the July 10, 2012 PCSO incident reports, the evidence the PCSO and PCAO are withholding and the witness and victim statements the PCSO and PCAO are avoiding was a main topic at the August 23, 2012 meeting. Mr. Albo was well aware he was continuing down a dark road when he filed his August 29, 2012 Motions for a change of judge and dismissal in defiance of the Court’s instruction on August 13, 2012, Mr. Albo was well aware that the evidence that was being withheld from the Plaintiff and the Court contradicted Defendant Osinski’s report, his declaration, his testimony at the August 13, 2012 hearing and the Motions that Mr. Albo and the PCAO filed on his behalf.

Though I have made it clear at every juncture that I want this important evidence turned over for these hearings the Plaintiff cannot compel the PCSO or PCAO to turn over this withheld evidence or take witness and victim statements.

I have tried to explain in prior motions to the Court that my family is caught up in an election time political crossfire and a blatant violation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

This matter has now taken on a stronger appearance of political pressure and professional impropriety on the part of Mr. Weaver and the Pima County Attorney’s Office. Again I would remind the Court of just how disingenuous Mr. Weaver’s calm was on the first page of his Response Motion.

Plaintiff is aware that CV 2012-0369 is in the Appeal process however, Plaintiff believes this matter of blatant violations of Arizona’s medical marijuana laws, the political pressure, and the unethical and criminal acts of Defendant Osinski and Pinal County Deputy Attorney Joe Albo in the Eloy Justice Court requires further steps outside of the Appeal process.

The State Bar of Arizona has published their professional Code of Conduct on line: http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct

ER 3.4.     Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.  A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused…

Comment

[1] The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively by the contending parties.  Fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like.

[2] Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense.  Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right.  The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed.  Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen.  Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense.  Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including computerized information.  Applicable law may permit a lawyer to take temporary possession of physical evidence of client crimes for the purpose of conducting a limited examination that will not alter or destroy material characteristics of the evidence.  In such a case, applicable law may require the lawyer to turn the evidence over to the police or other prosecuting authority, depending on the circumstances.

Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct has been published on line by the Arizona Supreme Court: http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/37/2010EmployeeCodewithCoverPage.pdf

 

Canon 1. A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Compliance with the Law:

Canon 2. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

RULE 2.16. Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities

(A) A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.

(B) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer.

(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

(E) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities required or permitted by Rule 2.15 are part of a judge’s judicial duties and shall be absolutely privileged, and no civil action predicated thereon may be instituted against the judge.

Comment

Cooperation with investigations and proceedings of judicial and lawyer discipline agencies, as required in paragraph (A), instills confidence in judges’ commitment to the integrity of the judicial system and the protection of the public.

Comment

Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation. Paragraphs (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one’s judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judge’s responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent.

A judge who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have committed misconduct, but receives information indicating a substantial likelihood of such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action under paragraphs (C) and (D). Appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who may have violated this code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. Similarly, actions to be taken in response to information indicating that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may include but are not limited to communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body.

CONCLUSION

Though CV 2012-0369 is in the Appeal process, I believe the issues at hand are still within the realm of this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction to make rulings on misconduct that occurred in this Court or to at least acknowledge and report this attorney misconduct to the proper authorities.

The crux of this complaint centers around the evidence that was withheld from me by the Defendant and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) and the tailored motions and testimony introduced at our scheduled court hearing on August 13, 2012 in the Eloy Justice Court.

Plaintiff asked for a reconsideration of the Court’s Dismissal ruling because favorable rulings should not be granted to individuals under these circumstances. Mr. Weaver’s assertion that this specific matter is “more properly addressed in other forums” or “this matter is outside this Court’s jurisdiction simply is not correct.

In short, time is short, evidence is still being withheld and now the PCSO, PCAO and even the Pima County Attorney’s Office is pushing for a dismissal on September 25, 2012.

Again Plaintiff would remind the Court that I am at a fianacial and legal knowledge disadvantage. Being forced to respond to motions of this nature is patently unfair. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court deny the Defendant’s Motion and reprimand Mr. Weaver for making a false statement to the Court.

Everything I have stated in this Motion is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify on this matter I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 20th day of September 2012

 

——————————

Arlin Troutt, pro per

The foregoing Original certified and mailed this 20th day of September 2012 via U.S. Postal Service to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judges/Raymond Jegge of the Eloy Justice Court and a copy certified and mailed to Thomas Weaver of the Pima County Attorney’s Office.

—– ADT

EXHIBIT

Exhibit A: Injunction Order Issued August 13, 2012

Plaintiff was in Judge Raymond Jegge’s Court on September 25, 2012 to hear motions filed regarding an Injunction Order Against Harassment that was issued in Judge Victor Sanders Court on August 13, 2012.

 

 

Judge Jegge was adversarial, he would not let me question the defendant he would not let me call witnesses hew introduce evidence.

 

He knew without a doubt that the defendant and county attorney Joe Albo had broken the law and lied to the court on August 13, 2012 and he knew I was there with the evidence to prove it.

 

This was a crimal slap in my families face.

I am requesting that you personally review this case and what Judge Jegge did in the name of your court yesterday.

 

This is dirty business and it will not disappear to the stroke of a pen in the Eloy Courts.

 

Septemberpast.had a case that involved afederal Law Suit

 

I have witnessed and I have evidence that serious crimes were commited in your court by public officials.

 

 

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1811&context=ulj

 

 

EXHIBIT

Exhibit A: Photo

Exhibit B: Easement/Maps

Exhibit C: Defendant Osinski’s Driving Record

Plaintiff filed a formal complaint against Mark Osinski directly with Sheriff Chris Vasquez and PCSO Internal Affairs on August 4, 2006 regarding this assault that took place while Mark Osinski was the “Responsible” officer listed on the August 1, 2006 Incident Report number?.

 

Defendant Mark Osinski lied about bfeing the Responsible officer during the assault of Plaintiff’s daugher on August 1, 2006 while on the stand in Judge Jegge’s court on September 25, 2012. Judge Jegge deliberately protected Mark Osinski from being impeached.

 

ARLIN D. TROUTT

3267 SOUTH YAQUI LANE

GOLD CANYON, ARIZONA

85118

PRO PER

 

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,

vs.

MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,

Defendants

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0386 

RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGUIDENCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS.

 

Honorable Marie Lorona and Victor Sanders

 

BACKGROUND

 

This matter was complained of in Plaintiff’s MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MOTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL (CV2012-0369.)

Plaintiff’s Motion was filed with the Eloy Justice Court regarding this Courtroom Misconduct on August 27, 2012 (CV 2012-0369). Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal was also filed with the Court that same day and copies were sent to Defendant Osinski via certified mail to Joe Albo of the PCAO that same day.

The Hearing on August 13, 2012 resulted in Judge Sanders’ ruling in favor of Defendant’s Motion for Summery Judgment and Dismissal of CV2012-0369.  CV 2012-0369 is now in the Appeal process. However, the Court also issued an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski for the protection of my family and for good reason at that hearing.

The Court advised Defendant Osinski and Mr. Albo of the PCAO that Defendant Osinski should seek private council on this matter and that it would be a conflict of interest for the PCAO to represent Defendant Mark Osinski in Case: CV2012-0386.

Mark Osinski clearly advised the Court that he wanted 30 days to obtain a private attorney and a hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2012. Mr. Albo was well informed by Judge Sanders that as far as Case Number CV2012-0386, and the Injunction Order issued against Defendant Osinski: Mr. Albo and the PCAO have a conflict of interest and advised Mr. Albo that he could not represent Defendant Osinski.

Regardless of Judge Sanders’ warnings, the PCAO has now filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and a MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) again on behalf of Defendant Osinski on August 29, 2012.

The PCAO cited Civil Rule 42(f), 16 A.R.S., Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Administrative Order 2005-22. This Civil Rule does not apply to this case or give James Walsh, Joe Aldo or Mark Osinski authority to shop Pinal County for a friendly judicial desk to shove these abuses of power under.

On one hand these matters are very complicated and involve several conflicts of interest, unethical acts, Code of Professional Conduct violations and concealed physical assaults on my family that started with Deputy Mark Osinski back on August 1, 2006.

Judge Sanders had the insight to take the initiative to include my daughter in this Injunction because of the evidence I presented to the Court exposing Mark Osinski’s concealment of the assault on my daughter by another deputy under his command on August 1, 2006.

However, CV20120386 is also a very simple case of Mark Osinski coming to my property at about 9:30am on July 10, 2012 to investigate his personal purchase of real estate. He came in a Pinal County uniform and vehicle while he was on duty. He then orchestrated an invasion of my family’s privacy and property for the sake of harassment, intimidation, threats and the possibility of a lucrative property seizure based on falsified and tailored reports to police.

Joe Albo crossed the line of ethical practice and broke the Code of Professional Conduct in an effort to conceal the motive and what Mark Osinski had done to orchestrate of this harassment on July 10, 2012.

Defendant Osinski and Joe Albo’s plan did not fully succeed. Judge Sanders reviewed the evidence, asked questions and concluded correctly that my wife, daughter and I needed Court protection from Mark Osinski more than Mark Osinski needed protection from the PCAO.

Plaintiff formally requested the transcripts from the August 13, 2012 hearing on that same day. As of August 31, 2012 I was informed that the Court has not signed for the release of these transcripts required for my Appeal and as evidence of these particular claims of misconduct.

These Court Transcripts are valuable evidence that Judge Sanders instructed Defendant Mark Osinski and Joe Albo that the Defendant could not be represented by the PCAO on CV2012-0386.

Mark Osinski requested 30 days to find private legal counsel and then a Hearing date was set for September 10, 2012.

CONCLUSION

 

This case has serious implications and a very real possibility of retaliation on my family and me because of our efforts to confront this abuse in a court of law. My family and I are caught up in a very volatile political cross-fire in a Pinal County turf war for control of the Sheriff’s Office and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office.

Plaintiff Arlin Troutt, pro per, hereby Motion this Honorable Court to Discipline and Sanction Pinal County Deputy Attorney Joe Albo for unethical practices and violations of the Professional Code of Conduct and against Deputy Osinski for knowingly providing incorrect and deliberately misleading information and abuse of the judicial system.

I humbly request the Honorable Maria Lorona and the Honorable Judge Sanders to deny both of these inappropriately submitted Motions by Joe Albo and the PCAO on behalf of Defendant Mark Osinski dated August 29, 2012.

Additionally I request this Honorable Court postpone rulings on these Motions and this upcoming Hearing on August 10, 2012 until I can acquire the Hearing Transcripts and be allowed a reasonable time to process this evidence and file the appropriate Motions.

I additionally request that this Honorable Court schedule a Hearing on these issues of Judicial and Plaintiff abuse that is at hand before proceeding further or transferring this matter to another Court

Again I would remind this Honorable Court that I am not an attorney nor do I have any formal legal training.  I hope this Honorable Court will forgive any inadvertent errors I may have made in my humble attempts to protect my family through the Eloy Justice Court.                            I am requesting a Hearing on this specific matter and an opportunity to address these unethical, unprofessional and what I believe to be criminal tactics employed against my family, our property, the Court and me.

Everything I have stated in these complaints and pleas are true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify in these matters I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

 

Respectfully submitted, on this 1st day of September 2012

 

——————————–

Arlin Troutt, pro per

 

ORIGINAL of the foregoing are mailed this 1st day of September 2012 to the Eloy Justice Court and COPIES of the foregoing are mailed this 1st day of September 2012 via U.S. Postal Service to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judges of the Eloy Justice Court and to Joe Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office

—– ADT

From Plaintiff’s first direct complaint to Sheriff Babeu on July 11, 2012, to the complaint Plaintiff filed in the Apache Justice Court and all the pleadings the Plaintiff has submitted from Apache Junction to the Eloy Justice Court, there was never a question that Plaintiff was alleging that Mark Osinski was authorized or instructed by the PCSO to trespass, harass, intimidate, threaten and assault the Plaintiff or his family.

 

 

Mr. Albo withheld evidence from the Plaintiff and the Court that he knew contradicted his defense of Defendant Mark Osinski, their testimony on August 13, 2012 and the Incident Reports and Declaration Mr. Albo prepared for Mark Osinski and filed with the Court on August 9, 2012.

 

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,vs.MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,Defendants )))))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0386PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO: DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY COUNTY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGIDANCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. 

Honorable Marie Lorona, Victor Sanders and or Raymond Jegge

 

BACKGROUND

First Plaintiff would bring the Court’s attention to Plaintiff’s use of “Deputy Osinski” instead of “Defendant Osinski” in the Caption of Plaintiff’s RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGUIDENCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS filed on September 4, 2012 (CV 2012-0386).

Plaintiff’s use of “Deputy” in the caption of his September 4, 2012 Motion however, was simply an unintentional clerical error. Mr. Albo and Mr. Weaver have an error in Motion caption filed September 17, 2012 and in the first sentence of Mr. Albo’s Declaration attached as an exhibit. Defendant’s Motion caption: PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY COUNTY JOE ALBO… and Mr. Albo’s undated Declaration: I am a Pinal County Deputy County employed in the Civil Division”.

Plaintiff questions the origin, independence and veracity of Defendant Osinski and Mr. Albo’s Declarations, their Response Motions and Mr. Albo’s role in generating Mr. Weaver’s Response Motion and defense of Defendant Osinski.

When Mr. Albo instructed the court regarding Defendant Osinski’s “official capacity” argument during the August 13, 2012 Hearing, Judge Sanders informed Mr. Albo that the Plaintiff’s use of Defendant Osinski’s title and badge number was a proper means of identification for the Court.

The following excerpts from the CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing will show that Judge Sanders ruled to issue an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski in his individual capacity and excluded Joe Albo’s participation in his defense well before the Court bifurcated the case from CV 2012-0369 to CV 2012-0386.

The following experts will support Plaintiff’s claims that Thomas Weaver of the Pima County Attorney’s Office, Joe Albo and Mark Osinski have misguided the Court with their Response Motions filed September 17, 2012 and the Declarations they attached as exhibits.

Transcribed Excerpts from August 13, 2012 CD Recording:

 

TRACK-2, TIME 09:14…Judge Sanders: If your petition before the court for an injunction against Mark Osinski as a citizen and not as a deputy, as a deputy coming on your property, as a private citizen I would grant that motion. I would have no problem with that.

TRACK-2, TIME 10:38…Mr. Troutt: I am trying to get protection for my family from the man that’s already been responsible for hurting then covered up the actual accounts in his police reports, no different than what he has done here. I still haven’t gotten the evidence that I’m asking even to defend myself from this summary judgment that Mr. Albo has filed.

TRACK-2, TIME 11:39… Judge Sanders: Ok Mr. Troutt maybe I probably didn’t say this so you understand what I am saying. I don’t have a problem issuing against Mr. Osinski as a public citizen. I can do that.

TRACK-3, TIME 00:53… Judge Sanders: I just told you, I will grant you an order against harassment as against Mark Osinski as a private citizen period, that’s it. Mr. Albo, do you have anything?

TRACK-3, TIME 01:13… Joe Albo: Yes your Honor I do. I just want to clarify what it is the Court is ordering. Because in the original pleading that was filed in the Justice Court in Apache Junction Mr. Troutt lists himself as Plaintiff and for Defendant he says Deputy Mark Osinski badge number 1421 which is a Deputy’s badge number. So what I understand the court is doing here is converting this action against a Deputy at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office which is the caption in this case and in entering an order against Mr. Osinski as a private individual, a private person, any order issued by the Court has no effect upon Mark Osinski as a deputy sheriff at the Pinal County Sheriff Office as a Post Certified Peace Officer with a badge number of 1421.

TRACK-3, TIME 02:08… Judge Sanders: That’s absolutely correct. Listen to me Mr. Troutt. Let me and the only reason that I’m doing, well not the only reason but the reason that I feel like I can do this Mr. Troutt, Mr. Albo both Mr. Osinski, is that identifies who this person is and that he is a deputy sheriff etc. etc., it has his badge number.  But this is really his allegations etc. are really more against Mark Osinski and who just happens to be a deputy sheriff. Do you follow me?  So what I am saying is that based upon—Let me back up. Let’s, suppose that Mr. Osinski was other than a police officer. He’s something whatever it was that identify this specific individual and so on and so forth.  His pleading, sure we can say: well you’ve got to amend to delete it. All I’m saying is that the restraint in this case is solely and specially against Mark Osinski, as a private individual has absolutely nothing to do with him or in his office as a member of the deputy sheriff. So and it should not any doing with his duties as a deputy sheriff. I just I’m just saying that Mr. Osinski as a private individual should not go on that property

TRACK-3, TIME 05:04… Joe Albo: Your Honor, I believe I understand what the court is saying; however the court is making that ruling without hearing all of the evidence in this matter. And if the court wants to bifurcate this and perhaps allow Mark Osinski as a private person to make his own defense on his behalf at some other hearing, where he might have an attorney if he chooses to have one represent his interest to present evidence that is counter to the allegations and statements that Mr. Troutt has made. I don’t know anything; I will avow to the Court that I don’t know anything at all about the situation other than what I have read in Mr. Troutt’s pleadings, his response to my motion and in the report which I attachment to Mr. Deputy Osinski’s affidavit. 

TRACK-3, TIME 06:00… Joe Albo: Before court started today I did give Mr. Troutt those 9 photographs, which were part of Deputy Osinski’s report. I did tell Mr. Troutt out in the corridor that I had just receive the audio recording of the person who phoned in the information that ended up in Deputy Osinski being dispatched to the residence of the Troutt’s and that as soon as I got it duplicated I would mail it to him tomorrow. Realizing that all of this has all happened in a fairly compressed time frame, I’m trying to be as transparent as possible in giving Mr. Troutt the materials that I have available to me so he can litigate his case. But your Honor this case has all of sudden been transformed into something against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity, something that hasn’t been plead in this matter.  And Mark Osinski has not had any opportunity to respond other than in his official capacity. So at best I would ask this court give Deputy Osinski some time to prepare his defense in this matter as an individual and not as a member of the PCSO so he can deal the with the allegations and claims that Mr. Troutt has made. That gives both parties some time to sort this out, think through what it is they want the court to consider. And then determine whether or not that sort of order should be issued. But to issue it on the basis of things that go back to 2006, and I don’t know how selective Mr. Troutt has been in assembling his documents in his response. Your Honor I believe he has done so in good faith with no intention to mislead or deceive the parties of the court. But it’s unfair to Mark Osinski to put him in this position. When he has came here as a Deputy Sheriff to defend his actions as a Deputy Sheriff and not to defend himself in his personal capacity. So I would, I ask the court at least consider continuing this matter so that Deputy Osinski in his personal capacity can determine what is in his best interest in terms of defending himself in this matter.

TRACK-3, TIME 12:55…Judge Sanders: Mr. Osinski do you feel like you need some legal advice? Do you feel like you need an attorney and let me put it in a 2-phase thing? Is there something that you would need rather than just precede here today and do it in your defense or do you need some time?

TRACK-3, TIME 13:26… Defendant Osinski: Your Honor I feel like I definitely am not going to accept what Mr. Troutt is saying. That it’s going to take an injunction against as me of Mark Osinski a private citizen. It’s I was there in an official capacity I was doing my job and I never ever go on Mr. Troutt’s property as a private citizen. How’s that he is referring to this totally out of the question. Now for several months whatever the case may be. Has as nothing to do with Mr. Troutt’s property. OK I don’t feel that I should be order this injunction against me. I have seen this person twice in my life, once in 2006 ok in an official capacity and once now in July that’s it. I have no idea and no I’m totally flabbergasted, and what is going on here. I need some time cause in this situation I will need some time cause I will seek legal.

TRACK-4, TIME 02:42…Judge Sanders: Ok, I’ll do that but I’m going to make this order. Mr. Osinski, pending that hearing Ok. You are not to go on the property you’re not to go on the property, pending further orders of the Court. Do you understand that?  Alright we’ll set up we see if we can set up a time for a hearing approx 30 days from today. Let’s see hear, so we’re at the 13th. How about what about is the 10th of September, would that work? Could that work for you?  September 10th could that work for you? All right. 

T-4 03:50…J: Mr. Albo I don’t know if you want to be there or not but that’s another issue but at least we’re gonna eh we’ll set this…

TRACK-4, TIME 03:59…Defendant Osinski: But, let me ask you a question. Is eh, your asking me not to go on Mr. Troutt’s property as a private citizen or in my official capacity?  Cause Mr. Alvar– Mr. Troutt mentioned that he’s going to arm himself with something and shoot somebody.

TRACK-4, TIME 04:16… Judge Sanders: I’m saying as a private citizen, I don’t have that I don’t have that ability to keep you off his property as law enforcement.  I think it would be a good idea not to go but that’s another matter. Because obviously there’s some real strong feelings here.  But, the Order is: that pending further Order of the Court and further hearing Mark Osinski, private citizen, is not to go on the property of Mr. Troutt and we’ve got the address here somewhere. Someone put that down.

TRACK-4, TIME 06:24…Judge Sanders: Alright and the clerk just advise me I should have picked up on this. We cannot so this under the same case so this in terms of the motion on this case for your summary judgment will be granted. And what’s going to happen, we’re going to set a new number a new case number as Mr. Osinski as a private citizen. OK we’ll handle that today.

TRACK-4, TIME 08:40… Judge Sanders: Deputy I have to ask you to waive time in other words otherwise we have to set this matter off further then the 10th.cause you have time to prepare.  If you will agree or stipulate that you can do that by the 10th of September then we’ll go ahead and do that otherwise.

TRACK-4, TIME 09:20…Defendant Osinski: That will be fine.

Mr. Albo admits in his undated Declaration attached to Defendant’s response Motion filed September 17, 2012 at Page 1, Paragraph 3: “Even though the PCSO report, #12071019, was released to me by July 27, 2012, I did not review that report until the afternoon of August 8, 2012 when I began to prepare for the hearing in this matter, Case No. CV20120369.

However, Mr. Albo tells Judge Sanders that: “this has all happened in a fairly compressed time frame”…

“this case has all of sudden been transformed into something against Mark Osinski in his personal capacity, something that hasn’t been plead in this matter.”

“the court is making that ruling without hearing all of the evidence in this matter.”

Mr. Albo received evidence and knowledge of this on July 27, 2012 by his own admission. He attached 2 pages of Defendant’s Osinski’s Incident Report to his August 9, 2012 Motion that was altered from the 6-page Incident Report that included the dates the withheld evidence was released by PCSO and PCAO.

The real Incident Report was released to Plaintiff August 22, 2012 from the PCSO Records department.  Mr. Albo used an incomplete and altered version of Incident Report 120710119 in his August 9, 2012 Motion to the Court that concealed the fact that the evidence I continually requested for Court had been sat on and withheld.

Mr. Albo Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 4: On August 9, 2012 Deputy Mark Osinski came to my office to prepare his affidavit in Case No. CV20120369. On that date Deputy Mark Osinski gave me a copy of the photographs taken at the Troutt property on July 10, 2012.

On the face value of the photo that Joe Albo alleges he received from Defendant Osinski on August 9, 2012 of Plaintiff on July 10, 2012, he could not have ethically proceeded into Court to convince Judge Sanders that Mark Osinski had made a single visit and that visit was friendly and consensual. (EXHIBIT A)

According to Mr. Albo’s Declaration, he saw an illegally taken and electronically transferred photograph of a crime victim in distress and he then attempted to convince a judge four days later that this crime was a friendly and consensual visit to Plaintiff’s residence by a Deputy just performing his duty.

Joe Albo’s Declaration misrepresents what transpired between Judge Sanders and Defendant Osinski at the peril of the Plaintiff’s family and down plays Defendant Osinski’s anger after Judge Sander’s sternly ordered Defendant Osinski to stay off Plaintiff’s property.

Mr. Albo Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 10: Judge Sanders and Mark Osinski agreed that Mark Osinski, in his personal, individual capacity would not go onto Mr. Troutt’s property or near Mr. Troutt pending a hearing in a new, separate matter on September 10, 2012.

Mr. Albo is misleading the Court here. There was no agreement to stay off Plaintiff’s property, it was an outright and adamant order from Judge Sanders and that order angered Defendant Osinski.

Defendant Osinski has also made a “new” Declaration that was filed with the Defendant’s September 17, 2012.

Defendant Osinski Declares on Page 1, Paragraph 3: “My routine patrol assignment require that I drive near the Arlin Troutt residence on Yaqui Lane in the Gold Canyon area of Pinal County.”

The Plaintiff has lived at the end of the same long and private drive for over 40 years and the Pinal County road grader stops a long way from where my family is located. The Troutt’s spent over 5 years and a fortune in Judge William O’Neil’s Court over this same long, well posted and private driveway.

Now Defendant Osinski is incorrectly telling the Court that he is free to come and go across my property as part of his routine patrol and duty. (EXHIBIT B)

Defendant Osinski Declares on Page 1, Paragraph 4: Earlier on the morning of July 10, 2012, while on patrol I drove onto Yaqui Lane and went to a residence near the Troutt residence. That property was for sale and I took a look at it.

      On September 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm, Chief Grizzle of PCSO called and advised Plaintiff that the Internal Affairs Complaint had been dismissed because Defendant Osinski’s vehicle GPS locator verified that Defendant Osinski was telling the truth about not coming across Plaintiff’s property to look for real estate earlier that morning of July 10, 2012 while he was on duty.

Defendant Osinski Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 5: I have been to Arlin Troutt’s residents[sic} twice.

Deputy Osinski never mentioned his first visit to my property the morning of July 10, 2012 in his Incident Report and he lied about it to Judge Sanders at the August 13, 2012 Hearing.

Defendant Osinski did not mention his conversation with Plaintiff’s neighbor Gerald Kirtland about Plaintiff’s medical marijuana garden that morning prior to his “second” afternoon harassment invasion of Plaintiff’s residence.

Now after concealing his morning visit on July 10, 2012 to my residence in his reports, declarations, motions and court testimony, Defendant Osinski and Joe Albo are trying to compress those 2 visits they mislead the Court about into 1 visit with word games.

On the morning of July 10, 2012, Deputy Osinski came across my property and parked his squad car in front of the house where Plaintiff and his wife’s grandbaby and her mother live. Defendant Osinski walked to the carport and talked to Plaintiff’s next-door neighbor, Jerry Kirtland, about buying the house next door and the Plaintiff’s medical marijuana garden.

The Defendant spent about an hour looking around at my property, neighbors, friends and family. Many people watched Defendant Osinski come and go that morning before he returned a second time in the afternoon to illegally harass us.

When Defendant Osinski returned that afternoon he attempted to intimidate my wife and I by trying to make us believe that our neighbor Jerry Kirtland had reported my medical marijuana garden to Defendant Osinski.  The Kirtland’s are very unhappy with Defendant Osinski for staging that scene and what he has done. Plaintiff’s grandbaby’s family and friends in this community are also very concerned about Defendant Osinski being in our neighborhood. Deputy Osinski’s Arizona driving record doesn’t speak well of his respect for the law either. (EXHIBIT C)

The PCSO and PCAO have avoided taking witness and victim statements that I listed in my complaints regarding Defendant Osinski’s invasion of my residence on July 10, 2012. Defendant Osinski, Joe Albo, the PCAO and the PCSO have gone to great lengths to keep these politically charged and highly questionable invasions of my residence off the record.

Now Defendant Osinski Declares at Page 1, Paragraph 5: “The first time was in 2006 when I was dispatched to assist the responding deputy on a domestic call. I have limited of that event, as I had limited involvement.”

On August 1, 2006 Defendant Osinski was the “Responsible Officer” of record. He came to the residence with a SWAT team because he got a report from the PCSO Gold Canyon dispatcher that Plaintiff’s aging mother had reported a “verbal dispute” with her grandson (the owner of the property) over the telephone.

During Defendant Osinski’s heavy-handed maneuver Deputy Alvarado went ballistic and assaulted my daughter. Plaintiff complained about this on behalf of the family to PCSO Internal Affairs on the August 4, 2012.

Defendant Osinski covered up Deputy Alvarado’s actions and his heavy-handed raid on my family in his incident report. Again PCSO and PCAO refused to interview witnesses and victims.

Plaintiff would hope the Court would re-instate the Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski. Defendant Mark Osinski is a danger to my family and me.  He is especially angry because the Plaintiff has hauled him into court and exposed him. Defendant Osinski’s false statement to the Court and on the record regarding Plaintiff threatening to shoot someone makes my family a target for law enforcement and we are terrified by Deputy Osinski’s last acts of defiance in Court on August 13, 2012.

Defendant Osinski was furious when Judge Sanders adamantly told him to stay off Plaintiff’s property and then repeated it. In the Defendant’s anger he lied to the Court about Plaintiff threatening to shoot someone: Cause Mr. Alvar-- Mr. Troutt mentioned that he’s going to arm himself with something and shoot somebody.

Plaintiff considers Defendant Osinski’s false statement to the Court an outright treat of violence against the Troutt family. This statement is inflammatory and could be used by law enforcement to justify unwarranted violence. For a law enforcement officer to make a statement like that on the record puts Plaintiff’s family at risk in a politically charged atmosphere that is already deceitful and dangerous enough.

Plaintiff expects the Court to hold Mark Osinski accountable for this statement and take notice on the record of this specific incident complaint.

Plaintiff remembers too well what Defendant Osinski did to his family on August 1, 2006. After the July 10, 2012 Plaintiff immediately reported Mark Osinski’s actions directly to Sheriff Babeu’s Office.

Per instruction from Sheriff Babeu’s personal staff, Plaintiff filed this complaint against Defendant Osinski in his individual capacity in the Pinal County Justice Court of Apache Junction on July 25, 2012.

Judge Sanders made it clear to Joe Albo and the PCAO that they had no authority to defend Mark Osinski from the beginning. Additionally, Judge Sanders made it clear by his rulings that he was not buying the “one” friendly, consensual and legal visit defense.

Plaintiff and his family are in a political crossfire over Pinal County’s clear violation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Plaintiff believes this has guided the PCSO and PCAO’s misconduct in their personal, individual and collective efforts to protect Deputy Osinski. As victims my wife and I were entitled to protection and a meaningful investigation that would have included witness and victim statements.

This case has had a lot of political pressure applied and ethical lines are being crossed. Plaintiff understands the Eloy Court’s role and limited authority in this matter. Under very unusual circumstances Judge Sanders asserted his authority and stood up for my family when the PCSO and PCAO would not.  The CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing is evidence that Judge Sanders thoroughly considered and weighed his decisions that day.

Defendant’s clearly inappropriate Motion for a Change of Judge filed August 29, 2012 was an intimidating harassment for the Plaintiff and an insult to the Eloy Justice Court.

Plaintiff is requesting the Defendant’s Motion be denied and an Injunction Order be extended against Defendant Osinski for the longest period possible.  Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court recognize and report this misbehavior Plaintiff has complained of to authorities at an appropriate level for an unbiased, independent and meaningful investigation.

Additionally, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court acknowledge that the Plaintiff and his wife have been victims in this matter and that the evidence supports the fact that the Troutt’s meetings with Defendant Osinski have not been brief, friendly, consensual or legal.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s September 17, 2012 Motion was not a genuine response to Plaintiff’s Motion complaining about Joe Albo trying to get a new judge after Judge Sanders specifically and clearly told him to butt out. This was a “Hail Mary Pass” to a new judge with an invitation to play ball.

Mr. Weaver has misrepresented what transpired in Judge Sander’s Court and used his September 17, 2012 Motion to simply get another Judge to rule in his favor because he’s misrepresenting what Judge Sanders stated and ruled on at the August 13, 2012 Hearing.

Joe Albo’s inappropriate August 29, 2012 Motion requesting a “Change of Judge” was the first failed “Hail Mary Pass” to try to shove these crimes under a friendly judicial desk. That was what the Plaintiff had complained about in his August 4, 2012 Response Motion.

Mr. Weaver muddies the water on both Response Motions he filed on behalf of Defendant Osinski and Joe Albo on September 17, 2012. In Defendants’ September 17, 2012 Response TO: MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MOTION TO SUMMARY JUDMENT AND D8ISMISSAL[sic] AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL filed August 27, 2012, Mr. Weaver states: “FACTS: Plaintiff sought an injunction against harassment and after a hearing the matter was dismissed. See minute entry order dated August 13, 2012. (Page 1, lines 23-26)

Mr. Weaver’s Response to Plaintiff’s August 1, 2012 Motion states: “FACTS: Plaintiff seeks an injunction against harassment against Defendant [A similar request was denied in CV2012-0369]” (Pg. 1, lines 25-26).

Plaintiff’s request for an Injunction Order was issued and it was ruled on and granted during the CV2012-0369 hearing.

This Motion that Defendant Osinski is now responding to in an untimely and disingenuous manner should concern the fact that Mark Osinski (in his personal capacity) was supposed to be getting his own attorney for a court date that was set by Judge Sanders for September 10, 2012.

The Court made it clear at several junctures that Plaintiff’s complaints against Defendant Osinski and the request for an Order of Injunction were filed against Deputy Osinski in his personal capacity as “Mark Osinski, private citizen”. Judge Sanders made this ruling during the CV 2012-0369 hearing before this case was bifurcated and CV 2012-0386 was assigned.

Pinal or Pima County attorneys’ claims to the contrary are purely game playing with words and the Court. That was the reason Judge Sanders bifurcated and assigned and new case number: CV 2012-0386.

Joe Albo filed Motions for a Change of Judge and Dismissal on August 29, 2012 after Judge Sanders had repeatedly told him there was a conflict of interest and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office could not represent Defendant Osinski in CV 2012-0386. The Defendant’s Response Motions are unethical, frivolous, intimidating and damaging.

Again Plaintiff would remind the Court that I have no legal training, I am at a legal and financial disadvantage and that everything I have presented to this Honorable Court is the truth to the best of my knowledge. If I am called on to testify in these matters I will do so in good faith and conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 25th day of September 2012

 

——————————

Arlin Troutt, pro per

The foregoing Original is hand delivered or certified and mailed this 25th day of September 2012 via U.S. Postal Service to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judges/Raymond Jegge of the Eloy Justice Court and a copy will be hand delivered or certified and mailed to Thomas Weaver of the Pima County Attorney’s Office via U.S. Postal Service.

—– ADT

EXHIBIT

Exhibit A: Photo

Exhibit B: Easement/Maps

Exhibit C: Defendant Osinski’s Driving Record

ARLIN D. TROUTT

PRO PER

 

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,vs.MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,Defendants )))))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0369RESPONSE TO: DEFENDANT OSINSKI, PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO AND PIMA COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY THOMAS WEAVER’S RESPONSE TO: MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESONSE MOTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND DISMISSAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL 

Honorable Marie Lorona, Victor Sanders and or Raymond Jegge

 

BACKGROUND

Pima County Deputy Attorney, Thomas Weaver has started the caption page of his Motion to defend Mark Osinski and Joe Albo with an erroneous and misleading statement: “FACTS: Plaintiff sought an injunction against harassment and after a hearing the matter was dismissed. See minute entry order dated August 13, 2012. (Page 1, lines 23-26)

Mr. Weaver’s leading statement is the exact opposite of the truth. Plaintiff sought an injunction against harassment and after a review of evidence and a hearing on August 13, 2012 an injunction against harassment was issued against Defendant Osinski for the protection of my family. That is a “FACT”.

Is the Pima County Attorney claiming the Court is providing him with ex parte communications on rulings? Plaintiff has not received a “minute entry order” from the Court dismissing the Injunction Order that Judge Sanders issued against Defendant Osinski on August 13, 2012.

Plaintiff is attaching a copy of that Injunction Order issued against Defendant Osinski by Judge Sanders on August 13, 2012. (EXHIBIT A) Plaintiff would hope this Honorable Court would at least admonish Mr. Weaver for starting our day like this. These County Attorneys do not have the right or authority to use these tactics to protect other County Employees from criminal violations.

Mr. Weaver dismisses my complaints to the Court as a lengthy litany of accusations against Deputy Pinal County Attorney Joe Albo. This lengthy litany is a long list of specific incidents where Joe Albo crossed the ethical, professional and legal line of conduct to conceal criminal acts that Defendant Osinski and others committed against the Plaintiff.

Mr. Albo withheld evidence from the Plaintiff and the Court that he knew contradicted his defense of Defendant Mark Osinski. Mr. Albo walked into the Eloy Court on August 13, 2012 with 9 photographs that Defendant Osinski inappropriately took of my property and me and then electronically distributed on July 10, 2012. Joe Albo knew the evidence he withheld contradicted the Defendant’s police report and sworn Declaration that Mr. Albo filed with the Court on August 9, 2012 and was testified to on August 13, 2012 in Court.

Mr. Albo admitted he found a draft of my Response to his August 9, 2012 Motion posted on the Internet the morning of the Hearing. I don’t think Mr. Albo expected Plaintiff to have a Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal that Mr. Albo slipped into the Court 4 days before the “Monday” Hearing on August 13, 2012. However, Plaintiff accurately described what the withheld evidence would prove in his Response Motion filed before the Hearing on August 13, 2012.

Not until after Mr. Albo read an Internet draft of my Response Motion (complaining of withheld evidence) to Defendant’s August 9, 2012 ambush Motion for Dismissal did he hand over the 9 photographs and admit that the “Concerned Citizen” that called the PCSO dispatcher turned out to be another “Deputy and a Real Estate Agent” that are involved in these crimes.

Joe Albo attended a special meeting on August 23, 2012 with Lt. King of the PCSO Gold Canyon substation and other high level Pinal County officials.

The discrepancies in the July 10, 2012 PCSO incident reports, the evidence the PCSO and PCAO are withholding and the witness and victim statements the PCSO and PCAO are avoiding was a main topic at the August 23, 2012 meeting. Mr. Albo was well aware he was continuing down a dark road when he filed his August 29, 2012 Motions for a change of judge and dismissal in defiance of the Court’s instruction on August 13, 2012, Mr. Albo was well aware that the evidence that was being withheld from the Plaintiff and the Court contradicted Defendant Osinski’s report, his declaration, his testimony at the August 13, 2012 hearing and the Motions that Mr. Albo and the PCAO filed on his behalf.

Though I have made it clear at every juncture that I want this important evidence turned over for these hearings the Plaintiff cannot compel the PCSO or PCAO to turn over this withheld evidence or take witness and victim statements.

Plaintiff believes the testimony of this newly discovered Higgins and his Real Estate Friend would help explain why Defendant Osinski is still doing these things to my family and why we need an injunction order against him. The lengths Defendant Osinski, Joe Albo, the PCAO and the PCSO have gone to keep this evidence out of Court should send up red flags.

Regardless of Judge Sanders’ rulings and warnings of conflicts of interest, Mr. Albo and the PCAO filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and a MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) on behalf of Defendant Osinski on August 29, 2012. Defendant Osinski advised the Court he would need a month to obtain a private attorney and Judge Sanders set a hearing date for September 10, 2012.

Now Mr. Weaver of the Pima County Attorney’s Office has filed a Notice of Appearance dated September 17, 2012 on behalf of Defendant Osinski and Deputy Pinal County Attorney Joe Albo.  I have tried to explain in prior motions to the Court that my family is caught up in an election time political crossfire and a blatant violation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

This matter has now taken on a stronger appearance of political pressure and professional impropriety on the part of Mr. Weaver and the Pima County Attorney’s Office. Again I would remind the Court of just how disingenuous Mr. Weaver’s calm was on the first page of his Response Motion.

Plaintiff is aware that CV 2012-0369 is in the Appeal process however, Plaintiff believes this matter of blatant violations of Arizona’s medical marijuana laws, the political pressure, and the unethical and criminal acts of Defendant Osinski and Pinal County Deputy Attorney Joe Albo in the Eloy Justice Court requires further steps outside of the Appeal process.

The State Bar of Arizona has published their professional Code of Conduct on line: http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct

ER 3.4.     Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.  A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused…

Comment

[1] The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively by the contending parties.  Fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like.

[2] Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense.  Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right.  The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed.  Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen.  Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense.  Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including computerized information.  Applicable law may permit a lawyer to take temporary possession of physical evidence of client crimes for the purpose of conducting a limited examination that will not alter or destroy material characteristics of the evidence.  In such a case, applicable law may require the lawyer to turn the evidence over to the police or other prosecuting authority, depending on the circumstances.

Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct has been published on line by the Arizona Supreme Court: http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/37/2010EmployeeCodewithCoverPage.pdf

 

Canon 1. A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Compliance with the Law:

Canon 2. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

RULE 2.16. Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities

(A) A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.

(B) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer.

(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

(E) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities required or permitted by Rule 2.15 are part of a judge’s judicial duties and shall be absolutely privileged, and no civil action predicated thereon may be instituted against the judge.

Comment

Cooperation with investigations and proceedings of judicial and lawyer discipline agencies, as required in paragraph (A), instills confidence in judges’ commitment to the integrity of the judicial system and the protection of the public.

Comment

Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation. Paragraphs (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one’s judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judge’s responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent.

A judge who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have committed misconduct, but receives information indicating a substantial likelihood of such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action under paragraphs (C) and (D). Appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who may have violated this code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. Similarly, actions to be taken in response to information indicating that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may include but are not limited to communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body.

CONCLUSION

Though CV 2012-0369 is in the Appeal process, I believe the issues at hand are still within the realm of this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction to make rulings on misconduct that occurred in this Court or to at least acknowledge and report this attorney misconduct to the proper authorities.

The crux of this complaint centers around the evidence that was withheld from me by the Defendant and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) and the tailored motions and testimony introduced at our scheduled court hearing on August 13, 2012 in the Eloy Justice Court.

Plaintiff asked for a reconsideration of the Court’s Dismissal ruling because favorable rulings should not be granted to individuals under these circumstances. Mr. Weaver’s assertion that this specific matter is “more properly addressed in other forums” or “this matter is outside this Court’s jurisdiction simply is not correct.

In short, time is short, evidence is still being withheld and now the PCSO, PCAO and even the Pima County Attorney’s Office is pushing for a dismissal on September 25, 2012.

Again Plaintiff would remind the Court that I am at a fianacial and legal knowledge disadvantage. Being forced to respond to motions of this nature is patently unfair. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court deny the Defendant’s Motion and reprimand Mr. Weaver for making a false statement to the Court.

Everything I have stated in this Motion is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify on this matter I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 20th day of September 2012

——————————

Arlin Troutt, pro per

The foregoing Original certified and mailed this 20th day of September 2012 via U.S. Postal Service to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judges/Raymond Jegge of the Eloy Justice Court and a copy certified and mailed to Thomas Weaver of the Pima County Attorney’s Office.

EXHIBIT

Exhibit A: Injunction Order Issued August 13, 2012

ARLIN D. TROUTT

PRO PER

 

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,vs.MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,Defendants )))))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0386NOTICE OF LOST MAIL TO COURT AND WITH COPY OF RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGUIDENCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL MAILED AUGUST 1, 2012 AND NOTICE OF RECIEPT OF CD RECORDING FROM COURT AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE FROM DEFENDANT AND PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

Honorable Marie Lorona, Victor Sanders and or Raymond Jegge

 

BACKGROUND

 

There was an Injunction Hearing at the Eloy Justice Court before the Honorable Victor Sanders at 2:00pm on August 13, 2012.

At the August 13, 2012 hearing Judge Sanders properly apprised the Plaintiff and Defendant of conflicts of interest between the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) representing Mark Osinski.

The Hearing on August 13, 2012 resulted in Judge Sanders’ ruling in favor of Defendant’s Motion for Summery Judgment and Dismissal of CV2012-0369.  CV 2012-0369 is now in the Appeal process. However, the Court also issued an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski in his individual capacity and assigned a new case number (CV 2012 0386).

Defendant Osinski advised the Court he would need a month to obtain a private attorney and Judge Sanders set a hearing date for September 10, 2012.

However, regardless of Judge Sanders’ rulings and warnings, Mr. Albo and the PCAO filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and a MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) on behalf of Defendant Osinski on August 29, 2012.

On September 1, 2012 Plaintiff mailed: RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGUIDENCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL to the Court and also sent a copy to Joe Albo and the PCAO via Certified U.S.P.S. (Exhibit 1)

September 5, 2012  @ 10:47am Plaintiff called Eloy court and spoke to Mary about concerns on the need for Hearing transcripts and Appeal deadlines. Mary and Plaintiff discussed the August 1, 2012 Motion regarding the need for Hearing Transcripts from August 13, 2012 and Plaintiff’s request and need for a Continuance.

September 7, 2012  @ 9:25 Mary called Plaintiff on behalf of the Eloy Court.  Mary advised the Plaintiff that the Judge had granted Plaintiff’s August 1, 2012 Motion for a Continuance. Mary also advised Plaintiff that she would send the CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing and Plaintiff should receive the CD recording before or by September 10, 2012.

At that point Plaintiff had no reason to believe the Court had not received and read Plaintiff’s August 1, 2012 Response Motion. September 8, 2012 Plaintiff received the CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing. However, to the present Plaintiff has not received any information or notices from the Court other than the envelope containing a CD recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing.

This CD had the case number written on the face but there was no explanation or verification information with the CD recording.  The envelope containing the CD was stamped with an incorrect return address for the Eloy Court which made the Plaintiff start doubting the receipt of Plaintiff’s information and pleadings to the Court.

Plaintiff is now mailing another copy of the Response Motion mailed out on September 1, 2012 from the Superstition Springs Branch of the U.S.P.S. in Mesa, Arizona. Plaintiff is including receipts from this mailing and the mailing of a following Response Motion to Defendant Osinski and the PCAO Motion dated August 29, 2012 requesting a Dismissal.

September 14, 2012 @ 1:57 Plaintiff called the Eloy Court and spoke with Mary. Plaintiff explained that he had not received any information from the Court on the new Hearing date or any responses or rulings on Plaintiff’s August 1, 2012 Motion. Mary advised Plaintiff that the Court had not received the Plaintiff’s Motion mailed on August 1, 2012 Motion.

Additionally Mary stated that the Judge had set a Hearing date for September 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm before the Court would dismiss the case.

I would ask the Court to note that Plaintiff has complained about Defendant Osinski and the PCAO withholding evidence in pleadings.  Plaintiff is still having considerable trouble with this matter.  Specifically the identification and investigation of 2 participants and witnesses to the July 10, 2012 incident is being withheld. They are only identified as Higgins P138 and his “real estate friend” in evidence that was withheld until after the August 13, 2012 Hearing.

Additionally there was a closely associated incident that followed the day after Judge Sanders issued the Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski. On August 14, 2012 another man trespassed onto our property, became aggressive and threatened my wife. The PCSO was called and an incident report was generated. My wife was listed as the victim with victim’s rights.  However, we were informed by mail that the PCAO had dropped this case knowing how closely associated this complaint is to the case before the Court. Additionally, the PCAO has put a hold on this Incident Report where the victims cannot have access to evidence.

In short, time is short, evidence is not forthcoming from the Defendant or the PCAO and both are pushing for a Dismissal on September 25, 2012.

I am requesting the Court Order all information pertaining to this series of Complaints that involve Defendant Osinski released to Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that the Troutt family should also have rights as victims of crimes and a right to due process.

Again I would not only remind this Honorable Court that I am not an attorney or do I have any formal legal training, I would also remind the Court of my family’s financial disadvantage.  The paper, ink, stamps and energy it is taking to Respond to Motions that the Court has warned the Defendant and the PSAO not to file is coming out of our family and friends grocery money. We have battled these unethical tactics and criminal assaults until we have nothing left.

Everything I have stated in this Notice is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify in this matters I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 15st day of September 2012

 

——————————–

Arlin Troutt, pro per

The foregoing Original mailed this 15st day of September 2012 via U.S. Postal Service to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judges/Raymond Jegge of the Eloy Justice Court and a Copy to Joe Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office.

ARLIN D. TROUTT

PRO PER

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,vs.MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,Defendants )))))))

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0386RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) AND SEPARATE REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST MARK OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR DELIBERATE CONSEALMENT OF EVIDENCE, MISGUIDENCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR HEARING 

Honorable Marie Lorona, Victor Sanders and Raymond Jegge

 

BACKGROUND

 

There was an Injunction Hearing at the Eloy Justice Court before the Honorable Victor Sanders at 2:00 pm on 08/13/12.  Joe Albo (Pinal County Deputy Attorney) appeared on behalf of James Walsh of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) for Defendant Mark Osinski.

The Hearing on August 13, 2012 resulted in Judge Sanders’ ruling in favor of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Case CV2012-0369 dated August 9, 2012. Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss shortly before the Hearing on August 13, 2012.  Plaintiff’s (my) understanding is: CV 2012-0369 is now in the Appeal process.

However, Judge Sanders recognized my complaints against Deputy Osinski were directed at him in his individual capacity and outside his scope of authority as a PCSO deputy. The Court issued an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski under CV2012-0369.(EXHIBIT #1)

However, the Court assigned a new case number: CV2012-0386 on August 13, 2012. The Court properly advised Defendant Osinski, Mr. Albo and the PCAO that Defendant Osinski should seek private council on this matter because of the clear conflicts of interest with Joe Albo and or the PCAO representing Defendant Mark Osinski as a PCSO deputy in Case: CV2012-0386. (EXHIBIT #1 CD)

Defendant Osinski requested 30 days to find private legal counsel and then a Hearing date was set for September 10, 2012. (EXHIBIT #1 CD Track 4)

Regardless of Judge Sanders’ rulings and clear warnings on August 13, 2012 Joe Albo and the PCAO filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and a MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) on behalf of Defendant Osinski dated August 29, 2012.

Joe Albo and the PCAO filed this Motion with full knowledge that the withheld evidence from the Court and Plaintiff clearly contradicted Deputy Osinski’s July 10, 2012 Incident Report, Defendants’ August 9, 2012 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND DISMISSAL, And his August 13, 2012 testimony before Judge Sanders. (Exhibit #3 and #1)

On August 21, 2012 Plaintiff met with Lt. King at the PCSO Gold Canyon substation from about 10:30am to 11:53am. Lt. King stated that his reason to move Deputy Osinski’s patrol out of the Gold Canyon area was because Deputy Osinski had alleged that he came to my property on July 10, 2012 earlier than his incident report indicated to investigate buying personal real estate while he was on duty.

Though Defendant Osinski’s admission was a concealment of something much more serious; this still supports the other evidence that Mark Osinski had not been honest in his claims that his “visit” to my home was brief, consensual or legal, on July 10, 2012. Lt. King advised me that there would be a meeting on this matter and Lt. King confirmed that meeting took place. (Exhibit #2)

On August 22, 2012 at about 11:25 am Joe Albo (Pinal County Deputy Attorney) called me and stated that he would be meeting with Lt. King and other Pinal County Officials on August 23, 2012 in an effort to resolve these issues at an administrative level. He claimed he understood my concerns for my family’s safety and we even discussed our grandkids.

After Mr. Albo’s meeting with Lt. King on August 23, 2012 he was aware that Defendant Osinski’s claims defied the withheld evidence, his testimony on August 13, 2012 and the accounts of the witnesses and victims that were available to sign sworn statements supporting the fact that this invasion of my residence was not warranted, brief, friendly, consensual or legal.

Plaintiff emailed Lt. King on August 22, 2012 @ 3:35pm subject: Meeting Tomorrow Transcripts; On August 22, 3012 @ 6:53:53pm subject: Meeting Tomorrow IP Trace on Higgins phone; On Aug 24, 2012 5:25pm subject: RE: Incident #120710119 Complaint against Higgins (P138), Deputy Mark Osinski, Officer Sean Lennon, Captain Doug Brown and others Pinal County Officials. “. (EXHIBIT #2)

At this late date I’m still trying to get the PCSO to release evidence regarding this alleged “concerned citizen and his real estate friend” that complained about a “marijuana grow operation” to the PCSO dispatcher on July 10, 2012. This concerned citizen turned out to be a PCSO officer that specifically requested Deputy Osinski show up at my residence at 1:56 pm on the afternoon of July 10, 2012. I cannot compel the PCSO or the PCAO to simply take statements from the witnesses and victims. This concealment of evidence and breech of responsibility violates my family’s rights as victims of crime. (Exhibit #6)

Mr. Albo relied on Exhibit 1 in Defendant’s August 9, 2012 Motion to Dismiss knowing the withheld evidence of the recorded call to the dispatcher from this alleged “Concerned Citizen” never reported: “CONCERNED CITIZEN (P138) CALLED OUR DISPATCH AND EXPLAIN THAT WHILE HE WAS PASSING BY THE ABOVE ADDRESS, APPROXIMATELY 15YARDS FROM THE ROAD IN PLAIN VIEW HE OBSERVED A SMALL GARDEN WHICH APPEARED TO BE A MARIJUANA PLANTS GROW.” (Exhibit #3 and #6)

Mr. Albo only offered to deliver this withheld evidence to the Plaintiff after Judge Sanders issued an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski and Plaintiff complained to the Court that Mr. Albo had admitted just before the Hearing that the Concerned Citizen turned out to be a PCSO Deputy.

(Exhibit #1 and #6)

Mr. Albo relies on A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) in Defendants August 9, 2012 Motion and states: ”Deputy Osinski conducted a brief, non-confrontational, consensual inspection of Plaintiff’s property and marijuana plants grown on the property based on a report received by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office earlier that day.” (Pg.2, Lines 10-16)

Deputy Lennon’s supplemental Narrative that was attached to this same motion states: “Our overall encounter with Mr. Troutt was very friendly and Mr. Troutt was not only cooperative but seemed pleased to explain his grow.” (Exhibit #3)

Plaintiff showed the Court, as proof that this visit was not consensual or friendly, one of the 9 photos that Defendant Osinski illegally took of me on my property. When the Court saw that photograph Judge Sanders stated: “I can tell you aren’t fully dressed”. (Exhibits #1 and #4)

Defendant Osinski and Deputy Lennon’s sworn statements that this harassment was friendly and legal may fit Mr. Albo’s fantasy for A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) however Defendant Osinski’s fabrications and exclusions in his Motions, reports and Declaration to the court are easily documented.

Two things that still haunt, harass, intimidate and threaten my wife and I: when Deputy Osinski stood up and blatantly lied to the Court about being on our property the morning of July 10, 2012. The most alarming is this statement Defendant Osinski made to Judge Sanders:  “Let me ask you a question. You are asking me not to go on Mr. Troutt’s property as a private citizen or in an official capacity?  Cause Mr. Troutt mentioned that he was going to arm himself with something and shoot somebody.” (CD TRACK 4  @ 4:01 to 4:18)

This Complaint, Injunction Order and Motion boil down to 2 issues:  Is Mark Osinski a danger to my family and did he tell the truth about coming to my property legally. I have complained about Defendant Osinski attempting to provoke my family into violence. Defendant Osinski supervised the assault of my daughter in a clearly orchestrated effort to provoke my family and justify violence against us on August 1, 2006. Deputy Osinski has been to my property several times since 2006. I have never “mentioned that I was going to shoot somebody” nor has anything like this ever appeared in Defendant Osinski’s reports or pleadings.

A serious threat to “shoot someone” would certainly be required in a PCSO incident report. However, I never made this statement. This statement was a veiled threat of violence against my family that Defendant Osinski made out of anger for having his authority to harass and harm my family challenged.

Deputy Osinski was so angry after the Hearing that he refused to wait to receive the Injunction Notice as Judge Sanders had instructed him to do. My wife and I were in fear of driving home that afternoon after Defendant Osinski stormed out of the Court and forced the Injunction Order to be served on him.  After Defendant Osinski lied to the court about me threatening to shoot someone and the anger he displayed after Judge Sanders issued the Injunction Order against him on August 13, 2012 every day of our lives have been lived with apprehension and concern for our family’s safety.

The withheld Incident report (120710119), the 9 withheld photographs, the recording with the alleged Concerned Citizen and the PCSO dispatcher, the Public Records and Recordings Verification A.R.S. §13-3989.02 and the Defendant’s Motions with tailored claims that contradicted this withheld evidence and ignored eyewitness and victim accounts of this incident paint a clear picture that Deputy Osinski did not tell the truth and was not on my property legally.

Deputy Osinski, Joe Albo and the PCAO have stated: “Defendant Mark Osinski, a Pinal County Deputy Sheriff, through undersigned counsel, herein moves this Court to dismiss this matter pursuant to A.R.S. §12-1802(2) on precisely the same basis a previous matter heard by the Honorable Victor Sanders in the Eloy Justice Court (Precinct 3) was dismissed on August 13, 2012. A.R.S. §12-1802(2): “An injunction shall not be granted: 2. To prevent enforcement of public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit”

Plaintiff would ask the Court to consider just how disingenuous the Defendant’s August 29, 2012 Motion for Dismissal and claims by Joe Albo and the PCAO truly are.

“If there is some “public citizen” basis for Deputy Osinski being on Plaintiff’s property on either occasion, the petition in this matter does not allege the basis, and the petition must be dismissed.  Under A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) a public officer may not be enjoined from performing his job.  In both cases numbers, Deputy Osinski has been at Plaintiff’s residence twice and only as an employee of his law enforcement agency, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.” (Pg 2, lines 23-28)

Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to review a glaringly similar civil case filed in Pinal County Superior Court on April 9, 2012 before Judge Robert Carter Olson (CV 201200959). (Exhibit #5)

In this case the Plaintiffs’ are PCSO Detective Andrew Goode and Arizona Public Safety Officer Hugh Grant. Defendants include Sheriff Babeu, Lt. Blake King and as many as 10 unnamed Pinal County Deputy Attorneys.  This 21 Page Complaint regarding strikingly similar violations of civil and criminal statues, U.S. Civil Rights Violations, Violations of the Arizona Constitution down to the most basic violations of Arizona Victim’s rights which have been completely ignored by the PCSO and PCAO. (EXHIBIT #5)

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4437 my wife and I also suffered a violation of our rights as victims of a felony by intentionally, knowingly and by the use of gross negligence under the victims’ bill of rights, Article II, Section 2.1, Constitution of the State of Arizona, specifically, failing to adhere to the Arizona victim’s Rights Act, resulting in emotional distress.

For the convenience of the Court azcentral has posted this Complaint against Pinal County Justice Court, PCSO and PCAO on line: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/country-thunder-goode-complaint.pdf

 

CONCLUSION

The crux of Plaintiff’s Motion regards maintaining an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski for the protection of my family. This Complaint also concerns unethical and illegal conduct to conceal the unethical and illegal conduct of Defendant Osinski by the PCSO and PCAO. These efforts appears to be aimed at protecting Defendant Osinski’s legal authority to rationalize and facilitate a continuation of harassment and harm to my family in his personal and official capacity.

Mr. Aldo’s efforts are still aimed at winning a Dismissal for Defendant Osinski’s misconduct by concealing the origin and illegal purpose of Deputy Osinski’s invasion, harassment, intimidation and threats on July 10, 2012.

Judge Sanders used the term “bad blood” to describe his review of the evidence of my family’s fear of Defendant Osinski.

Here is the big problem: Defendant Osinski, the PCSO and Joe Albo of the PCAO have gone to extraordinary measures to conceal Defendant Osinski’s illegal conduct by withholding evidence and misrepresenting the facts about what happened on July 10, 2012, August 13, 2012, on August 23, 2012 at a formal meeting on the matter and in the Defendant’s Motions filed on August 29, 2012.  Plaintiff believes there are serious criminal violations involved here:

A.R.S. 13-2407 . Tampering with a public record; classification A. A person commits tampering with a public record if, with the intent to defraud or deceive, such person knowingly: 1. Makes or completes a written instrument, knowing that it has been falsely made, which purports to be a public record or true copy thereof or alters or makes a false entry in a written instrument which is a public record or a true copy of a public record; or 2. Presents or uses a written instrument which is or purports to be a public record or a copy of such public record, knowing that it has been falsely made, completed or altered or that a false entry has been made, with intent that it be taken as genuine; or 3. Records, registers or files or offers for recordation, registration or filing in a governmental office or agency a written statement which has been falsely made, completed or altered or in which a false entry has been made or which contains a false statement or false information; or 4. Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the availability of any public record; or 5. Refuses to deliver a public record in such person’s possession upon proper request of a public servant entitled to receive such record for examination or other purposes. B. In this section “public record” means all official books, papers, written instruments or records created, issued, received or kept by any governmental office or agency or required by law to be kept by others for the information of the government. C. Tampering with a public record is a class 6 felony.

13-2409. Obstructing criminal investigations or prosecutions; classification: A person who knowingly attempts by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation or force or threats of force to obstruct, delay or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury or who knowingly injures another in his person or property on account of the giving by the latter or by any other person of any such information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury is guilty of a class 5 felony, except that it is a class 3 felony if the person commits the offense with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal street gang.

Plaintiff formally requested the transcripts from the August 13, 2012 hearing on that same day. The Plaintiff received the CD recording of this August 13, 2012 Hearing on September 9, 2012.

The recording of the August 13, 2012 Hearing make several issues clear: Judge Sanders understood that this was a complicated case and he correctly realized my family needed protection in his Court. The Court made it clear to Defendant Osinski and Joe Albo that this new case involved only an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski. The Court had every reason to believe that evidence was being withheld and Defendant Osinski may not have been on my property legally and he may have harassed, intimidated and threatened my wife and I.

This case has serious implications and a very real possibility of retaliation on my family and me because of our efforts to confront this abuse in a court of law. My family and I are caught up in a volatile legal crossfire with a very angry and vindictive Defendant that also happens to be armed and weld the power of a Pinal County Deputy Sheriff.

Plaintiff Arlin Troutt, pro per, hereby Motion this Honorable Court to keep an Injunction Order issued against Defendant Mark Osinski. There should be an avenue of accountability at the Court’s disposal to protect the Plaintiff from unethical practices, violations of Professional Codes of Conduct and violations of Arizona’s Revised Statues that take place within the Court.

I have asked for discipline, sanctions and a finding of Contempt against Defendant Osinski, Joe Albo and the PCAO. Should the Court grant the Defendants latest Motions for a Change of Judge and Court and or a Dismissal of my Petition for Injunction against Defendant Osinski; that does not change what the Defendant and Joe Albo of the PCAO have involved themselves in to get my complaints and need for protection dismissed.

I humbly request the Honorable Judge Maria Lorona, the Honorable Judge Sanders and or the Honorable Judge Raymond Jegge deny Defendant’s MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. §12-1802(2) by Joe Albo and the PCAO on behalf of Defendant Mark Osinski dated August 29, 2012.

Additionally I request this Honorable Court recognize and reconcile the abuses to Plaintiff and Judicial Process I have complained about and postpone any rulings on Defendants’ Motions until we can have a hearing on the legality of Defendant Mark Osinski’s actions in this matter.

Was Mark Osinski’s actions on July 10, 2012 legal or not. I have requested the Court grant a hearing on this issue alone before we move any further on this matter. Plaintiff is also requesting sworn statements and or testimony of those involved at this Hearing.

Again I would remind this Honorable Court that I am not an attorney nor do I have any formal legal training.  I hope this Honorable Court will forgive any inadvertent errors I may have made in my humble attempts to protect my family through the Eloy Justice Court.

Everything I have stated in these complaints and pleadings are true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify in these matters I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 13th day of September 2012

——————————–

Arlin Troutt, pro per

ORIGINAL of the foregoing are mailed this 13st day of September 2012 to the Eloy Justice Court and COPIES of the foregoing are mailed this 13st day of September 2012 via U.S. Postal Service to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judges of the Eloy Justice Court and to Joe Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office

EXHIBITS

 

Exhibit #1 CD recording of Hearing on August 13, 2012

Exhibit #2 Emails 3 pgs.

Exhibit #3 Incident Report (120710119) 6 Pgs.

Exhibit #4 Photo taken by police on July 10, 2012

Exhibit #5 CV 201200959 Excerpts 8 Pgs.

Exhibit #6 CD Recording transcripts of Dispatcher and Public Records and Recordings Verification A.R.S. §13-3989.02

Arlin Troutt

September 4, 2012

Sheriff Paul Babeu/Lt. Blake King #1915

Pinal County Sheriff’s Office

971 Jason Lopez Circle Building C

P.O. Box 867

Florence, AZ 85232

Re: Incident Report 120710119/CV 2012-0386 Request for witness statements from Lt. Blake King, Higgins P138and his unnamed “real estate agent friend” and Captain Doug Brown before scheduled Court Hearing on September 10, 2012 along with an investigation and review of Deputy Chief H. Grizzle and his Complaint Response letter dated August 27, 2012.

Sheriff Babeu and Lt. King,

I have had several visits and discussions with Lt. King from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) regarding this latest incident that took place on July 10, 2012 at my residence involving Deputy Osinski of the PCSO.

A Court Hearing on August 13, 2012 resulted in Judge Sanders’ ruling in favor of Defendant’s Motion for Summery Judgment and Dismissal of case CV2012-0369.  Case CV 2012-0369 is now in the Arizona State Appeal process.

However, the Court also issued an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski for the protection of my family and for good reason at that hearing.  The Court assigned this complaint a new Case Number: CV2012-0386.  Judge Sanders correctly apprised Defendant Osinski and Mr. Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) that Defendant Osinski should seek private council in this matter and that it would be a conflict of interest for the PCAO to represent Defendant Mark Osinski in Case: CV2012-0386. The Court was clear as a bell on this issue and Defendant Mark Osinski clearly advised the Court that he wanted 30 days to obtain a private attorney and a hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2012.

The Court not only found there was evidence to issue an Injunction Order against Deputy Osinski, Judge Sanders also included my daughter that was assaulted by Deputy Raul Alvarado while under Deputy Osinski’s command on August 1, 2006. Even though PCSO Internal Affairs refused to investigate or interview the witnesses and victims after this criminal assault the Court has recognized the link of abuse from August 1, 2006 to July 10, 2012. (Injunction Order Issued August 13, 2012)

Prior to this Injunction Order the Court issued on August 13, 2012, I had attempted to hand deliver a 55-page complaint and information packet directly to Sheriff Babeu or Lt. Roy Polmanteer of Internal Affairs per instruction of Lt. Polmanteer at the Sheriff’s Office in Florence on August 3, 2012. (Polmanteer to Troutt: Jul 31, 2012 9:15 AM)

I complained that Captain Doug Brown had intercepted this Complaint Packet. Within the Complaint Packet that Captain Brown intercepted was a complaint against Captain Brown for withholding evidence of misconduct before my scheduled Court Hearings. Withholding evidence to conceal unethical or criminal behavior to protect Deputy Osinski, Deputy Lennon, this mysterious Higgins P138 and his Gold Canyon real estate friend is an issue that is before the Court now.

August 21, 2012 I met with Lt. King at the PCSO Gold Canyon station from about 10:30 to 11:53 am. After a long meeting and discussion about the incidents with Deputy Osinski, Captain Brown and other associated Pinal County Officials I felt we had an understanding to resolve these issues with no further efforts to cover up police misconduct.

On August 22, 2012 @ about 11:25am Joe Albo (Pinal County Deputy Attorney) called me and stated that he would be meeting with Lt. King and others on August 23, 2012 in an effort to resolve these complaints. He claimed he understood my concerns for my family’s safety and we even discussed our grandkids.

On August 22, 2012 @ 6:53:53pm I sent Lt. King an email. Subject: RE: Meeting tomorrow IP trace on Higgins P138 phone. At this late date I’m still trying to get evidence released regarding this concerned citizen and his “real estate friend” that complained about a “marijuana grow operation” to the dispatcher at 13:56 hours on July 10, 2012.

Joe Albo of the PCAO was forced to admit to the Court on August 13, 2012 that this reported “concerned citizen” was really a PCSO Deputy.  This was after the Court had issued the Order of Injunction against Deputy Osinski and Joe Albo was apologizing and trying to rehabilitate himself for withholding evidence from the Court.

 

On August 23, 2012 @6:25pm Lt. King sent an email to me: “It was decided the inquiry will be handled by IA Sgt. Rob Evens. Please expect his call, possibly as early as tomorrow.”

On Fri, August 24, 2012 @ 5:25pm I sent Lt. King an email: Re: Incident #120710119 Formal Complaint against Higgins (P138), Deputy Mark Osinski, Officer Sean Lennon, Captain Doug Brown and others Pinal County Officials. I complained about specific PCSO and PCAO officials withholding evidence of the abuse I have complained about while the PCAO tailored Court Motions that contradicted that withheld evidence.

I explained that I had Court filing deadlines that I had put off to the last minute because I believed these matters were finally being taken seriously. I also complained that Internal Affairs had not verified and acknowledged receipt of the 55-page complaint packet that Captain Brown intercepted on August 3, 2012.

On Mon. August 27, 2012 I drove to Eloy Justice Court and filed my Notice of Appeal and MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MOTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL

Regardless of Judge Sanders’ warnings, on August 29, 2012 Joe Albo on behalf of Mark Osinski filed: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and he filed MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. §12-1802(2)

On August 31, 2012 Lt. King and I spoke about the August 24th email and where this matter stands shortly before Sheriff Babeu’s Vindication Press Conference in Florence.

Shortly after that conversation I received a letter from Chief H. Grizzle #480 of the PCSO dated August 27, 2012.

Chief Grizzle stated that the “complaint packet” I submitted had been reviewed in its entirety. Chief Grizzle goes on to state: “Our investigation does not support the allegation for several years now, various people from the above mentioned agencies have been involved in a conspiracy to harass you due to your religious and medical beliefs about marijuana, as well as attempting to somehow obtain or seize your land and property”

Chief Grizzle states: “Your complaints have been reviewed thoroughly and it has been determined that the actions Pinal County Sheriff’s Office and its employees were lawful and within the bounds and scope of the PCSO policies and procedures.”

Chief Grizzle August 27, 2012 letter is referring to the “Complaint Packet” I attempted to deliver to Sheriff Babeu on August 3, 2012 at his office. There were 2 Formal Complaint Forms in this packet that regarded Deputy Osinski’s illegal invasion of my property on July 10, 2012. One of those Formal Complaints specifically regarded Captain Brown’s withholding of evidence to protect Deputy Osinski from criminal accountability at a scheduled Court Hearings on August 7, 2012.  This second Formal Complaint specifically regards: “…the withholding of an incident report that will be relied on at a August 7, 2012 hearing regarding misconduct and acquiring a protection order against individuals within the PCSO.”

Chief Grizzle finally advises: “Please be advised this mater is now closed…”

There were witnesses and victims listed in these complaints that Chief Grizzle and the PCSO failed to interview in this investigation. This simply means, “There was no investigation”.

When Captain Doug Brown intercepted these 2 complaints on August 3, 2012 at Sheriff Babeu’s Office in Florence, I complained of the breech of Protocol regarding his inappropriate interception of this complaint against him. No one from Internal Affairs ever contacted me or verified receiving this complaint package from Captain Brown. Chief Grizzle’s August 27, 2012 letter is the only formal response I have received and evidence of how these complaints have been inappropriately handled.

The glaring difference in an investigation and a cover up is a meaningful investigation requires the questioning of eyewitnesses and victims and then a review of “all” the evidence. In this case a Pinal County Judge has already reviewed evidence and listened to witnesses and victims that were not withheld. He is aware that pertinent evidence was withheld and he has issued an order of Injunction against Deputy Osinski and assigned a new Case Number: CV 2012-0386.

On September 1, 2012 I sent a copy via certified mail to PCAO of my RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGUIDANCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS.

Joe Albo and the PCAO have ignored the Court’s Order of Injunction and they have once again filed a repetitive motion relying on A.R.S. § 12-1802(2).  The PCAO’s claim that Defendant Osinski was on my property legally while they were withholding evidence from the Court that proves he wasn’t there legally is a big problem.

PCAO and the PCSO is still concealing the evidence of Deputy Osinski’s first morning visit at 9:30 am to investigate his personal purchase of real estate while he was on duty. Withholding evidence of Deputy Osinski orchestrating an illegal marijuana raid on my family that morning of July 10, 2012 is a serious matter that has been given a low priority.

Deputy Osinski, Joe Albo and Doug Brown have all involved themselves in withholding evidence of the illegality of Deputy Osinski’s “visits” to my property on July 10, 2012. Tampering with police reports and criminal complaints is one issue, tampering with Court evidence to avoid criminal accountability is an entirely different but equally serious matter.  All this is currently under review in the Pinal County Justice Court and the Arizona State Appellate Court now.

Sheriff Babeu, I strongly advise you not to attempt to dismiss this matter that is before the Courts in the same manner Chief Grizzle has chosen in his August 27, 2012 letter of denial.  There is nothing in Pinal County that deserves more priority or attention than police officers committing crimes and concealing evidence.  This matter has not been given the attention or priority it deserves.

 

CV 01200959 filed on April 9,2012 by Deputy Andrew Goode lists Pinal County Deputy Attorney’s, Sheriff Paul Babeu and Lt. Blake King as Defendants.  This case so closely parallels my civil cases and complaints against Pinal County Officials that I could clone CV 01200959 and file it in federal court as a Civil Rights Violation next week.

13-2407 . Tampering with a public record; classification

A. A person commits tampering with a public record if, with the intent to defraud or deceive, such person knowingly:

1. Makes or completes a written instrument, knowing that it has been falsely made, which purports to be a public record or true copy thereof or alters or makes a false entry in a written instrument which is a public record or a true copy of a public record; or

2. Presents or uses a written instrument which is or purports to be a public record or a copy of such public record, knowing that it has been falsely made, completed or altered or that a false entry has been made, with intent that it be taken as genuine; or

3. Records, registers or files or offers for recordation, registration or filing in a governmental office or agency a written statement which has been falsely made, completed or altered or in which a false entry has been made or which contains a false statement or false information; or

4. Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the availability of any public record; or

5. Refuses to deliver a public record in such person’s possession upon proper request of a public servant entitled to receive such record for examination or other purposes.

B. In this section “public record” means all official books, papers, written instruments or records created, issued, received or kept by any governmental office or agency or required by law to be kept by others for the information of the government.

C. Tampering with a public record is a class 6 felony.

13-2409 . Obstructing criminal investigations or prosecutions; classification

A person who knowingly attempts by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation or force or threats of force to obstruct, delay or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury or who knowingly injures another in his person or property on account of the giving by the latter or by any other person of any such information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury is guilty of a class 5 felony, except that it is a class 3 felony if the person commits the offense with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal street gang.

I realize that Sheriff Babeu inherited this mess but he has the responsibility to fix it.  I am requesting a meaningful investigation of the incidents and parties that I have listed in these complaints.  I will take it upon myself to get sworn affidavits from the witnesses and victims in this matter since the PCSO is refusing to interview witnesses and victims in this matter. There is a scheduled hearing on September 10, 2012. I am requesting that Lt. Blake King, Captain Doug Brown and this mysterious Higgins P138 make witness statements regarding Incident Report 120710119 and CV 2012-0369 and CV 2012-0386.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

——————————————–

Arlin Troutt

 

 

 

ARLIN D. TROUTT

PRO PER

 

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,vs.MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,Defendants )))))))))))

)

Case No.: CV 2012-0386RESPONSE TO PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINE, SANCTIONS AND A FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR CONTINUED UNETHICAL CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND DELIBERATE MISGUIDENCE AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. 

Honorable Marie Lorona and Victor Sanders

 

BACKGROUND

 

There was an Injunction Hearing at the Eloy Justice Court before the Honorable Victor Sanders at 2:00pm on 08/13/12.  Joe Albo (Pinal County Deputy Attorney) appeared on behalf of James Walsh of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) for Defendant Mark Osinski.

It was noted at this hearing that there was a conflict of interest and Joe Albo was not only representing Mark Osinski, a Deputy employed by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO), Mr. Albo was also an attorney of record for the Eloy Justice Court.

It was also noted that my complaints against Mark Osinski regarded his actions against my family and me that fell outside the scope of the authority granted him as a Pinal County Deputy. It is well established that my fear and complaints against Mark Osinski are directed at his actions taken in his individual capacity and not that of the PCSO.

At the August 13, 2012 hearing Judge Sanders properly apprised the Plaintiff and Defendant of conflicts of interest between the PCAO’s representation of Mark Osinski and also being Counsel of Record for the Eloy Justice Court.

This matter was complained of in Plaintiff’s MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MOTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL (CV2012-0369.)

Plaintiff’s Motion was filed with the Eloy Justice Court regarding this Courtroom Misconduct on August 27, 2012 (CV 2012-0369). Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal was also filed with the Court that same day and copies were sent to Defendant Osinski via certified mail to Joe Albo of the PCAO that same day.

The Hearing on August 13, 2012 resulted in Judge Sanders’ ruling in favor of Defendant’s Motion for Summery Judgment and Dismissal of CV2012-0369.  CV 2012-0369 is now in the Appeal process. However, the Court also issued an Injunction Order against Defendant Osinski for the protection of my family and for good reason at that hearing.

The Court advised Defendant Osinski and Mr. Albo of the PCAO that Defendant Osinski should seek private council on this matter and that it would be a conflict of interest for the PCAO to represent Defendant Mark Osinski in Case: CV2012-0386.

Mark Osinski clearly advised the Court that he wanted 30 days to obtain a private attorney and a hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2012. Mr. Albo was well informed by Judge Sanders that as far as Case Number CV2012-0386, and the Injunction Order issued against Defendant Osinski: Mr. Albo and the PCAO have a conflict of interest and advised Mr. Albo that he could not represent Defendant Osinski.

Regardless of Judge Sanders’ warnings, the PCAO has now filed a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER and a MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT A.R.S. § 12-1802(2) again on behalf of Defendant Osinski on August 29, 2012.

The PCAO cited Civil Rule 42(f), 16 A.R.S., Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Administrative Order 2005-22. This Civil Rule does not apply to this case or give James Walsh, Joe Aldo or Mark Osinski authority to shop Pinal County for a friendly judicial desk to shove these abuses of power under.

On one hand these matters are very complicated and involve several conflicts of interest, unethical acts, Code of Professional Conduct violations and concealed physical assaults on my family that started with Deputy Mark Osinski back on August 1, 2006.

Judge Sanders had the insight to take the initiative to include my daughter in this Injunction because of the evidence I presented to the Court exposing Mark Osinski’s concealment of the assault on my daughter by another deputy under his command on August 1, 2006.

However, CV20120386 is also a very simple case of Mark Osinski coming to my property at about 9:30am on July 10, 2012 to investigate his personal purchase of real estate. He came in a Pinal County uniform and vehicle while he was on duty. He then orchestrated an invasion of my family’s privacy and property for the sake of harassment, intimidation, threats and the possibility of a lucrative property seizure based on falsified and tailored reports to police.

Joe Albo crossed the line of ethical practice and broke the Code of Professional Conduct in an effort to conceal the motive and what Mark Osinski had done to orchestrate of this harassment on July 10, 2012.

Defendant Osinski and Joe Albo’s plan did not fully succeed. Judge Sanders reviewed the evidence, asked questions and concluded correctly that my wife, daughter and I needed Court protection from Mark Osinski more than Mark Osinski needed protection from the PCAO.

Plaintiff formally requested the transcripts from the August 13, 2012 hearing on that same day. As of August 31, 2012 I was informed that the Court has not signed for the release of these transcripts required for my Appeal and as evidence of these particular claims of misconduct.

These Court Transcripts are valuable evidence that Judge Sanders instructed Defendant Mark Osinski and Joe Albo that the Defendant could not be represented by the PCAO on CV2012-0386.

Mark Osinski requested 30 days to find private legal counsel and then a Hearing date was set for September 10, 2012.

CONCLUSION

 

This case has serious implications and a very real possibility of retaliation on my family and me because of our efforts to confront this abuse in a court of law. My family and I are caught up in a very volatile political cross-fire in a Pinal County turf war for control of the Sheriff’s Office and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office.

Plaintiff Arlin Troutt, pro per, hereby Motion this Honorable Court to Discipline and Sanction Pinal County Deputy Attorney Joe Albo for unethical practices and violations of the Professional Code of Conduct and against Deputy Osinski for knowingly providing incorrect and deliberately misleading information and abuse of the judicial system.

I humbly request the Honorable Maria Lorona and the Honorable Judge Sanders to deny both of these inappropriately submitted Motions by Joe Albo and the PCAO on behalf of Defendant Mark Osinski dated August 29, 2012.

Additionally I request this Honorable Court postpone rulings on these Motions and this upcoming Hearing on August 10, 2012 until I can acquire the Hearing Transcripts and be allowed a reasonable time to process this evidence and file the appropriate Motions.

I additionally request that this Honorable Court schedule a Hearing on these issues of Judicial and Plaintiff abuse that is at hand before proceeding further or transferring this matter to another Court

Again I would remind this Honorable Court that I am not an attorney nor do I have any formal legal training.  I hope this Honorable Court will forgive any inadvertent errors I may have made in my humble attempts to protect my family through the Eloy Justice Court.                            I am requesting a Hearing on this specific matter and an opportunity to address these unethical, unprofessional and what I believe to be criminal tactics employed against my family, our property, the Court and me.

Everything I have stated in these complaints and pleas are true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify in these matters I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 1st day of September 2012

 

——————————–

Arlin Troutt, pro per

ORIGINAL of the foregoing are mailed this 1st day of September 2012 to the Eloy Justice Court and COPIES of the foregoing are mailed this 1st day of September 2012 via U.S. Postal Service to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judges of the Eloy Justice Court and to Joe Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office

ARLIN D. TROUTT

Liberty Head Takes the Arizona Heat and Tastes So Sweet

PRO PER

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,vs.MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,Defendants )))))))))))) Case No.: CV 20120369MOTION REQUESTING DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEPUTY OSINSKI AND PINAL COUNTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY JOE ALBO FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND CORRECTION OF ERROR IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MOTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL 

Honorable Victor Sanders

 

 

Plaintiff Arlin Troutt, pro per, hereby Motion this Honorable Court to Discipline and Sanction Pinal County Deputy Attorney for unethical practices and violations of the Professional Code of Conduct and against Deputy Osinski for knowingly providing incorrect information to the Court.

I believe the following rules of conduct and Arizona Revised Statutes address my complaints in this Motion:

ER 8.3.     Reporting Professional Misconduct

ER 1.11.     Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees

ER 1.7     Conflict of Interest:  Current Clients

RULE 2.16. Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities

RULE 2.15. Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct

RULE 2.16. Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities

RULE 2.6. Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

13-2702. Perjury; classification
13-2907.01. False reporting to law enforcement agencies; classification
13-2907. False reporting; emergency response costs; classification; definitions
13-2921. Harassment; classification; definition
36-507. Patient’s rights to privacy and to personal possessions
36-2811. Presumption of medical use of marijuana; protections; civil penalty

 

BACKGROUND

 

Plaintiff believes he was deprived of the right to be heard and precluded from putting his case on the record as a result of unethical practices and violations of Arizona’s Professional Codes of Conduct.

Plaintiff believes his right to due process of law has been trampled in this matter. However, this is not just a matter for the Appellate or Federal Courts to resolve. These violations should first be addressed at the judicial level that they occurred.

This Honorable Court granted Defendant Osinski’s Motion For Summary Judgment and Dismissal on August 13, 2012. I announced my intent to appeal the court’s decision at that time; however, I believe the issues at hand are still within the realm of this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction to make rulings on misconduct that occurred in this Court.

The crux of this complaint centers around the evidence that was withheld from me by the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) prior to my scheduled court hearing on August 13, 2012 in the Eloy Justice Court of Pinal County.

This incident that initiated this civil action took place on 07/10/12 and on 07/11/12 I called the PCSO records department and requested a copy of Deputy Osinski’s incident report and that incident report number: 120710119 was provided.

On 07/16/12 I submitted a complaint to Sheriff Babeu against Deputy Osinski and another unknown officer and advised the sheriff that I had requested this incident report. On 07/18/12 I spoke to Roxanne at the Gold Canyon PCSO substation and formally requested this incident report. On 07/23/12 I was instructed by the PCSO records department to pick up this incident report from Roxanne at the Gold Canyon substation. Roxanne advised me that Sgt. Buckles had sent the police report to “detectives” and stated that PCSO would not release the July 10, 2012 incident report to me. On 07/23/12 I called Sheriff Babeu’s office again and left a message regarding the PCSO’s refusal to release this incident report. On 07/25/12 I again requested this incident report from Sheriff Babeu. Debbie Lopez (Sheriff’s Assistant) advised me that there should be no reason to withhold this incident report.

On 7/25/2012 I received an email from Bertha Duarte from PCSO records department stating: ”Mr. Troutt, At this time per the Task Force Unit the report is not available for release. Any questions please let me know. Thank you”

On 07/25/12 I went before Judge Rogers in the Apache Junction Justice Court and was granted an injunction hearing date against Deputy Osinski on August 3, 2012. In Plaintiff’s NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE I complained to the Court about being deprived of the Incident Report that I needed to prove my case.

On 07/30/12 I emailed Sheriff Paul Babeu and explained that an Injunction Hearing against Deputy Osinski had been rescheduled in Apache Junction and I needed this incident report and evidence that the PCSO was withholding. On 07/31/12 I received a call from Lt. Roy Polmanteer and I advised him that I had a rescheduled Injunction hearing on August 6, 2012 and I would need this July 10, 2012 incident report. Lt. Polmanteer also stated that Captain Doug Brown did not have the authority to withhold this incident report from me.

From 07/11/12 to 08/02/12 I made many attempts to acquire this incident report and evidence from PCSO before this last scheduled court hearing on August 13, 2012. I complained specifically about Task Force Captain Doug Brown’s interception of these incident reports that were supposed to be handed over to me at the Gold Canyon substation on July 23, 2012.

From 07/11/12 to 08/02/12 after an exhausting effort to get this evidence I finally drove to the PCSO in Florence on 08/03/12 in hope of getting the evidence I was entitled to by law.

On 08/13/12 @ 2:00pm I appeared before the Honorable Victor Sanders at the Justice Court in Eloy, Arizona. Joe Albo, Deputy Pinal County Attorney, appeared representing Deputy Mark Osinski for James Walsh, head of PCAO.

Mr. Albo had filed a “last minute” Motion to Dismiss on August 9, 2012 with the Eloy Justice Court. Mr. Albo mailed me a copy of this motion knowing I would receive it on a Saturday. This left me less than 48 hours before the scheduled hearing on August 13, 2012.

I met Mr. Albo shortly before the 2:00pm hearing on August 13, 2012. At that time I served Mr. Albo his copy of my Response to his Motion for Dismissal. Mr. Albo advised me that he had downloaded a rough draft of my Response Motion from the Internet that same morning. However, this was 4 days after he had filed the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal. I don’t believe that Mr. Albo expected to see a rough draft of my 9-page response to his motion on the Internet the morning of 08/13/12.

After filing Defendant Osinski’s Motion for Dismissal on August 9, and then finding a rough draft of my Response Motion on the day of the hearing; I believe Mr. Albo realized he could be exposed for tailoring the Defendant’s disingenuous Motion for a Dismissal with the evidence that was being withheld from me.

Mr. Albo had already made statements and claims and submitted Exhibits to the Court that he knew contradicted the evidence he was withholding and the Response Motion I had filed on 08/13/12. Joe Albo and the PCAO deliberately withheld pertinent evidence until after the August 13, 2012 Hearing to win an unethically tailored Summary Judgment and Dismissal for Deputy Osinski.

I don’t have to remind this Honorable Court how serious these violations are or how clear and copious the evidence is that support my complaints against the PCAO, Deputy Osinski and the PCSO.

Mr. Albo drove to the Eloy Justice Court that day knowing there was a clear conflict of interest with him representing Deputy Osinski in his individual capacity on a complaint that was outside the scope of Mark Osinski’s authority as a PCSO Deputy.

Mr. Albo knew he was also the Attorney of Record for the PCSO and the Eloy Justice Court. Also Mr. Albo was well aware that I am not an attorney nor did I have legal counsel.

Mr. Albo relied on Exhibit 1 in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss: Incident Report #120710119 at the 2nd paragraph of Deputy Osinski’s narrative: “CONCERNED CITIZEN (P138) CALLED OUR DISPATCH AND EXPLAIN THAT WHILE HE WAS PASSING BY THE ABOVE ADDRESS, APPROIMATELY 15YARDS FROM THE ROAD IN PLAIN VIEW HE OBSERVED A SMALL GARDEN WHICH APPEARED TO BE A MARIJUANA PLANTS GROW.”

Mr. Albo knew from the evidence of the recorded call he withheld from me that this call was being made from my private residence and this alleged “Concerned Citizen” was also with the PCSO. Mr. Albo finally admitted to the Court that another PCSO Deputy called in the complaint only after the Court had ordered the Injunction against Deputy Osinski.

Additionally Mr. Albo knew from the evidence he withheld from me that this “Concerned Citizen” never mentioned marijuana plants growing “15 yards from the road in plain view” Mr. Albo knew that Deputy Osinski had fabricated this information in his Incident Report Narrative.

Mr. Albo listed this inaccurate sworn statement as Exhibit 1 in his Motion to Dismiss knowing that the dispatcher’s recording contradicted this statement.

Mr. Aldo’s efforts to win a Dismissal for his Defendant’s misconduct was centered on concealing the origin and purpose of Deputy Osinski’s misconduct on July 10, 2012.

Deputy Osinski admitted to Pinal County Officials that he had come onto my property to investigate purchasing real estate earlier that morning. It was Deputy Osinski that discussed my medical marijuana garden with my neighbor before his associate from the PCSO called in this contrived complaint about marijuana growing. Mr. Albo knew this was not a random discovery, in plain view, from a Concerned Citizen as he claimed.

I believe Mr. Albo was in possession of a complete incident report, affidavits from Deputy Osinski and Officer Lennon, 9 photographs and a recorded conversation between the PCSO dispatcher and this individual that identified himself as Higgins P138 and an A.R.S. § 13-3989 call tracking form for Court use when he filed his Motion for Dismissal on 08/09/12.

However, Mr. Aldo states: “As the declaration and attached exhibit established, on July 10, 2012, Deputy Osinski was properly on Plaintiff’s property for the purpose of investigation and potential “enforcement of a public statue by officers of the law for the public benefit”. A.R.S. § 12-1802(2). Deputy Osinski conducted a brief, non confrontational, consensual inspection of Plaintiff’s property and marijuana plants grown on the property based on a report received by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office earlier that day.” (Pg2 lines, 10-16).

What Mr. Aldo employed to prevail in the Defendant’s Motion to the Court was based on inaccurate claims tailored around the evidence he was withholding. Nowhere in Deputy Osinski’s report or the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss does Mr. Albo or Deputy Osinski explain Deputy Osinski’s first visit to our property, his conversation with my neighbor about buying the house next door or my medical marijuana garden.

Mr. Albo completely ignores my complaints about Deputy Osinski’s visit to our property earlier that morning and he completely excluded Deputy Osinski’s admission that he had come to our property first that morning to investigate buying personal real estate for himself while on duty. This was a clear effort to deceive the Court.

Lt. King of the Gold Canyon substation advised me on August 21, 2012 that Deputy Osinski had admitted from the start that he had come to my property earlier on the morning of July 10, 2012 while he was on duty, in his uniform and operating a marked Pinal County vehicle to investigate a personal purchase of real estate.

Mr. Albo withheld information that would have excluded any claim that Deputy Osinski or Higgins P138 had a lawful right to be on my property.

Upon direct questioning after the Court ordered the Injunction against Mark Osinski, Deputy Osinski alleged to the court that he had only come to my property twice in his official capacity.  Deputy Osinski stood up and held 2 fingers up and swore to Judge Sanders that he had only been to my residence twice. Mr. Albo certainly should have known this was incorrect.

Joe Albo states in the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss: “A reading of A.R.S. § 12-1809 and the appellate court cases interpreting the statute indicates that its use is primarily in family law, domestic and neighborhood dispute matters.” (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).

Mr. Albo misrepresented his reliance on A.R.S. § 12-1809 when he failed to inform the Court that Deputy Osinski did live in Gold Canyon and was a neighborhood character shopping for real estate on my property the morning of July 10, 2012 before Higgins P138 called the dispatcher and specifically requested that Deputy Osinski (David 41) respond to my address.

Mr. Alba made claims that he knew were not true and contrary to the evidence he was withholding from me when he filed his Motion for Dismissal with the Court on August 9, 2012.

At the last minute before the 08/13/12 Hearing started, Mr. Albo handed over 9 photos that verified exactly what I had claimed the withheld evidence would show in court, however when I attempted to show these photos to the Court I was admonished for attempting to introduce them.

Mr. Aldo’s final admission that the complaining call was placed by a PCSO Deputy also had a great significance since the 3rd deputy (Sean Lennon) reported that he responded to my residence at the exact same minute this call was placed by Higgins P138 at exactly 13:56 hours on July 10,2012 to the dispatcher.

Joe Albo claims: “neither Pinal County nor the Pinal County Sheriff means to minimize the seriousness or importance of the matter to Plaintiff.”(Pg. 1, lines 22-23)

However, in reality PCAO’s attempts to protect Pinal County Officials for a series of crimes committed against my family that started back on August 1, 2006 and continued until July 10, 2012 is precisely what they have done.

At the 08/13/12 Hearing Mr. Albo apologized and stated that he would immediately mail me the withheld recording of the PCSO Deputy talking to the dispatcher on July 10, 2012. This was only after Judge Sanders issued an Injunction Order against Deputy Osinski.

On 08/16/12 I received a certified letter from the office of James Walsh PCAO signed by Kris Heard, assistant to Joe Albo, Deputy Pinal County Attorney. This letter dated 08/14/12 References Troutt vs. Osinski Eloy Justice Court No. CV20120369   This certified mailing included a CD recording between Naomi Estrada (PCSO dispatcher), Higgins P138 and Deputy Osinski that was withheld from me. The certification signed by Communications Supervisor Lynda Ellsworth excluded the Court’s Case Number in the space allotted in the A.R.S. § 13-3989.02.formHowever, Lynda Ellsworth of the PCSO Public Records and Recordings Department did verify that the “Origin Location” of the call Higgins P138 placed at 13:56 hours to the dispatcher was traced back to my family’s private property.

Not until August 22, 2012 did I received the full incident report via email from Bertha Duarte at the PCSO records department. I was not provided copies of the 9 photos that depicted the misrepresentations made by Joe Albo, Deputy Osinski and Officer Lennon until only monuments before the 08/13/12 Hearing and after I had filed my response motion with the Court.

I did not get the CD that recorded the misrepresentations of Mr. Albo and Deputy Osinski until 08/16/12 which was also after the Hearing and the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted.

In my response motion filed with this honorable court on 08/13/12 I found an error that I am requesting be corrected on the record. On page Pg 9, lines 17 to 18 of my Response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal this should be corrected: “James Walsh PCSO” should be corrected to read “the City of Apache Junction”. I apologize to the Court and to James Walsh and the Pinal County Attorney’s Office for this error.

CONCLUSION

 

I am not physically well. I had just undergone the first stage of a complicated heart surgery when Deputy Osinski showed up at my door on July 10, 2012. The unethical and unprofessional tactics of the PCSO and PCAO is taking its toll on my family and my health. The complaints against Deputy Osinski and these Pinal County Officials started back in August 1, 2006 and have continued to the present.

Frankly, my family is out of money, energy, ink and paper. The tactics we have been subjected to have been crippling.

From the time I received the Defendant’s last minute motion on August 11, 2012 until I appeared before this Honorable Court on August 13, 2012 with my Response Motion filed on August 13, 2012 I had not slept and I am still at a great disadvantage and being damaged with these tactics.

Again I would remind this Honorable Court that I am not an attorney nor do I have any formal legal training.  I hope this Honorable Court will forgive any inadvertent errors I may have made in my humble attempts to protect my family in this Honorable Court.

I am requesting a meaningful Review and Hearing on this matter and an opportunity to address these unethical, unprofessional and what I believe to be criminal tactics employed against my family, our property and me by public officials.

Proposition 203 was a voter initiative passed to protect medical marijuana patients and their property in Arizona from the police and courts, as sad as that may sound. Judge Gama was clear in his ruling regarding the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act:

MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2011-011290 01/17/2012

Judge Gama: In construing a statute adopted by initiative, the Court’s primary objective “is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” Fogliano v. Brain ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 2011 WL6056999, at *5 (Ariz. App. Dec. 6, 2011) (quotation and citation omitted). The voters passed Proposition 203 informed of marijuana’s therapeutic value in treating a wide array of debilitating medical conditions. Prop. 203, at § 2(B). The voters intended to protect patients with those debilitating medical conditions (and their physicians and providers) “from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.” Id. at § 2(G). The voters contemplated this be done in 120 days.

I believe this Honorable Court has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this matter. It is clear that I have no legal training, however, it seems clear also that withholding evidence and tailoring Motions around withheld evidence to prevail in court is unethical and unprofessional conduct on the part of the PCSO and the PCAO.

This behavior should not be tolerated or dismissed because I do not possess the finances, health, skill or training to maneuver through the complicated legal technicalities that a Pinal County Attorney would enjoy. I pray that this Honorable Court will not tolerate or dismiss this misconduct.

Everything I have stated in these complaints and pleas are true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify in these matters I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 27th day of August 2012

————————————-

Arlin Troutt, pro per

 

ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed this 13th day of August 2012 with Eloy Justice Court. COPIES of the foregoing delivered this 27th day of August 2012 to be mailed via U.S. Postal Service or hand delivered to: Honorable Marie Lorona/Victor Sanders Judge of the Eloy Justice Court and Joe Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office

On August 13, 2012 we forced Pinal County Attorney Joe Albo to admit in Court that it was, after all, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office that was involved in initiating the phone call to the substation dispatcher in Gold Canyon. On August 17, we finally received the CD of the phone calls between the parties reporting an illegal marijuana cultivation violation and their manipulation of the dispatcher to get Deputy Osinski assigned to command this preplanned attack on my family.This information that was withheld by PCSO and PCAO until after the hearing was promised to me that same Court Hearing. After Mr. Albo’s damage had been done he simply apologized like his unethical acts were no big deal.  The Court seemed to feel the same way about what had happened. However, I did get the Injunction against Deputy Osinski to protect my family.The morning of the August 13, 2012 Hearing against Deputy Osinski Joe Albo told me that he had found my Response Motion that I filed that morning on the Internet.  I believe this was the only thing that forced him to admit to the Judge that the PCSO was involved in this set up. I believe this was the only thing that made Mr. Albo apologize to the court and promise to turn over the evidence against the PCSO that he had withheld until after the hearing.

This raid was much more about my political and religious beliefs and our real estate in Gold Canyon than our reefer. It would have been just as easy to verify my family’s State Medical Marijuana Cards through the Arizona Department of Heath Data-Base that was set up to verify cultivation locations without disrupting the privacy and confidentiality of Medical Marijana patients.  Instead of enforcing the laws these Pinal County Deputies set up an illegal raid to trespass, harass, intimidate and threaten my family.

Please follow this case. These individuals have been trespassing, invading our privacy, physically assaulting us, and terrorizing my family because of our religious beliefs concerning God’s Gift of Cannabis; and our out spoken political and religious views. This type of prejudice, persecution and property seizure has gone on for years in Pinal County.

We finally have a chance to expose this evil in it’s individual and professional capacity with the help of our friends from the Social Media.  The Troutt Family would like to thank all of you that have followed this case and spread the word to the rest of the world about what is happening to us here in Gold Canyon, Arizona .

So, we are changing things from the way they are to the way they should be. Slowly but Surely

Thank you all.

May God Bless you and bestow peace, prosperity and clarity on you.

Injunction Pinal County

 

Injunction Pinal County
Injunction Pinal County
This Injunction Order was Issued on August 13, 2012 Against Mark Osinski a Pinal County Deputy for Harassment

ARLIN D. TROUTT

Taser Toad Deputy on Medical Marijuana

 

ELOY JUSTICE COURT

P.O. BOX 586

ELOY, AZ 85131

 

ARLIN D. TROUTT,Plaintiff,vs.MARK OSINSKI AND OTHER PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS,Defendants )))))))))))) Case No.: CV 20120369RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO DISMISS AND PLANTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT BY PINAL COUNTY OFFICIALS AND RELEASE OF PHOTO EVIDENCE AND NAME OF COMPLAINING PARTY (P138)

Honorable Marie Lorona

Plaintiff Arlin Troutt, pro per, hereby Motion this Honorable Court to deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss my request for an order of injunction to protect my family and property.

Additionally, Plaintiff is requesting an External Investigation, the evidence photos that were taken at my residence and the name of the complaining party that is being secreted by PCSO (P138).

 

BACKGROUND

 

On August 11, 2012 I received Defendants’ MOTION from Deputy Attorney Joe A. Albo on behalf of James P. Walsh of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (PCAO). Defendants’ Motion was signed and mailed August 9, 2012.

The PCAO has asked this Honorable Court for a combined Summary Judgment and Motion to ignore my complaints against County Officials and dismiss my plea for protection.

These complaints are complex and involve Pinal County Officials abusing their authority to conceal criminal acts by PCSO Deputies and other Pinal County Officials in an ongoing campaign of misconduct and criminal abuse aimed at my family and our property in Gold Canyon, Arizona.

Joe Albo claims: “neither Pinal County nor the Pinal County Sheriff means to minimize the seriousness or importance of the matter to Plaintiff.”(Pg. 1, lines 22-23)

However, in reality PCAO is attempting to protect Pinal County Officials for a series of crimes committed against my family that started back on August 1, 2006 and continued until July 10, 2012. (EXHIBIT A)

The PCAO states: “On its face Plaintiff’s petition complains about the conduct of one Pinal County Sheriff’s Deputy, Mark Osinski.” (Pg. 1, lines 25-26)

Mr. Albo claims my petition is only about Deputy Osinski’s conduct.  This begs the question: Has Mr. Albo bothered to read the complaints filed with Sheriff Babeu, Lt. Polmanteer of Internal Affairs and the Pinal County Courts involved in this matter?

Defendants go on to state in this motion: “The complaint states only that on July 10,2012, Deputy Osinski “came onto my property in the morning and returned with a heavily armed man at my door and proceeded to harass, intimidate and threaten my family.” (Pg. 1 lines, 26-27 to Pg. 2 line, 1)

Defendants seem to be asking this Honorable Court to dismiss my request for an injunction order by ignoring my supporting evidence and formally filed complaints dated July 16, 2012, July 25, 2012, July 27, 2012, August 4, 2012, December 27, 2008, October 14, 2008, February 16, 2007, March 25, 2006 and August 4, 2006. (EXHIBIT A)

These complaints have been filed with PCSO, PCAO and the 5 complaints from August 4, 2006 to December 27, 2008 were also entered as exhibits in CV 2007-00063 in Judge William O’Neil’s Court and then transferred to Judge Robert Carter Olson’s Court after Robert Carter Olson had served as the prosecutor on the criminal assaults that took place and were complained about. (EXHIBIT A) 

These complaints are closely related and involve violent physical assaults, threats, intimidation, harassment, false charges and misleading, falsified and tailored incident reports by Pinal County Officials using the color of their authority to conceal unethical and criminal misconduct.

Knowing that Deputy Osinski and this same group of Pinal County Officials would attempt to use the incident report to conceal their misconduct; I immediately contacted PCSO records office and requested Deputy Osinski’s incident report from July 10, 2012 on July 11, 2012. (EXHIBIT A) 

PCSO officials have refused to give me a copy of that July 10, 2012 incident report.  Mr. Aldo attached an incomplete copy of this report to Defendant’s Motion. However, PCAO and PCSO are still withholding part of this incident report that has no approval signature or date, photo evidence and the name of this complaining individual that Deputy Osinski’s report states contacted his dispatcher, N. Estrada at 13:56:00 on July 10,2012. Deputy Osinski’s report shows the complaint call was responded to at 14:30 hours and Deputy Lennon’s statement says they responded at 13:56:00.

Deputy Osinski’s talent for leaving the Devil out of the details in his reports is not new to me. I have noted some discrepancies in his report of the incident on July 10,2012 (#120701119).

The PCAO contends that Defendant Osinski’s declaration and attached exhibit alleges that: “Deputy Osinski was properly on Plaintiff’s property for the purpose of investigation and potential “enforcement of a public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit” (pg. 2 lines, 10-12)

Judge Gama’s was clear on this issue in his ruling against Governor Brewer and Will Humble of the ADHS: MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2011-011290 01/17/2012

Judge Gama: In construing a statute adopted by initiative, the Court’s primary objective “is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” Fogliano v. Brain ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 2011 WL6056999, at *5 (Ariz. App. Dec. 6, 2011) (quotation and citation omitted). The voters passed Proposition 203 informed of marijuana’s therapeutic value in treating a wide array of debilitating medical conditions. Prop. 203, at § 2(B). The voters intended to protect patients with those debilitating medical conditions (and their physicians and providers) “from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.” Id. at § 2(G). The voters contemplated this be done in 120 days.

Four members of my family have doctor’s recommendations to use medical marijuana and Arizona Medical Marijuana Cards that permit cultivation. The purpose of these cards in part was to allow Arizona Law enforcement to verify approved cardholders via the ADHS database. This ADHS database includes our address and cultivation site. In reality, if Deputy Osinski was concerned about my legal right to cultivate medical marijuana he was required to verify Medical Marijuana patients status via the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) to avoid violating the language and intent of Prop 203 and my right to privacy and confidentiality.

Had Deputy Osinski or Lennon bothered to contact ADHS and checked our address, ADHS would have advised PCSO that this location is authorized to grow 48 mature and budding medical marijuana plants.

Deputy Lennon incorrectly alleges that he counted 59 marijuana plants and observed marijuana growing that was not enclosed in a greenhouse: “Through my training and experience, I identified numerous Marijuana plants inside the greenhouse and large 6 to 7 foot Marijuana plants on the exterior of the greenhouse.” (1st paragraph, last sentence in Deputy Lennon’s Narrative).

The photos taken by Deputy Osinski will prove that there was no marijuana growing outside of an enclosed area and that most of the plants Deputy Lennon thought he was counting were merely limbs of single plants.

I did tell Deputy Osinski and Deputy Lennon that they where not knowledgeable about cultivation of medical marijuana or the language of the law in Proposition 203. I explained that the vegetation they were attempting to count was immature and incidental to the cultivation of my medical marijuana needs: 36-2801. Definitions (c) Marijuana that is incidental to medical use, but is not usable marijuana as defined in this chapter, shall not be counted toward a qualifying patient’s or designated caregiver’s allowable amount of marijuana.

Again, the photographs that Deputy Osinski inappropriately took and the PCSO is withholding will show that these plants were all in an enclosed area, in a vegetating, non-flowering state and were the “not to be counted” incidental vegetation described in 36-2801.

PCSO has refused access to Deputy Osinski’s incident report and photos. I did not see the partial report until 2 days before my hearing date. I am still being deprived of a valid incident report, valuable photo evidence and the name of the party that allegedly complained about the medical marijuana. This information could easily weigh an impartial court to rule in my favor.

On the face of Deputy Osinski’s incomplete report it is apparent that both PCAO and Deputy Osinski have attempted to conceal his reason for trespassing onto my property and what really occurred at that time.

Mr. Aldo claims: “Deputy Osinski conducted a brief, non confrontational, consensual inspection of Plaintiff’s property and marijuana plants grown on the property based on a report received by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office earlier that day.” (Pg2 lines, 12-16).

 I did not just offer to show my Medical Marijuana Card to Deputy Osinski as he claims. He demanded that I return to the house and produce my card. This incident was not brief, non-confrontational or consensual. That was just what Deputy Osinski reported. This brings into play the comparison of the trespassing, intimidation, threats and physical assault complaints against Deputy Osinski to his past incident reports.

Deputy Osinski and Deputy Lennon make it sound like I was gladly ordered out of my house in the blazing afternoon sun to allow them to count and take photographs of my plants. It would be good to note that both deputies were in a high alert mode and Deputy Lennon kept his hand by his weapon like he was going to draw it on me at any moment.

Deputy Osinski had already supervised a raid on my home and excluded the part where PCSO attempted to provoke violence and Deputy Raul Alvarado brutally manhandling my daughter on August 1, 2006 from his incident reports.

My wife and I were terrified that these deputies were going to enter our home again and hurt our family. I was desperate to get these men away from my door and I was under great duress. I did not want to remind them that they forgot to shot my dog or assault my kids.

Deputy Osinski also mischaracterized what my wife told him when she advised him that the result of his raid on our residence on August 1, 2006 cost the county and our family hundreds of thousands of dollars in a civil lawsuit that took 5 years to get that case in front of a jury and left my mother penniless and homeless as a result of his forced legal advice on August 1, 2006. This lawsuit crippled my family and cost the taxpayers of Pinal County a fortune.

This misconduct on the part of Deputy Osinski and these other officers has little to do with marijuana and a lot to do with real estate in Gold Canyon. Which brings me to the subject of Deputy Osinski’s first visit and purpose for crossing our property the morning of July 10, 2012, prior to where Deputy Osinski’s incident report began.

Deputy Osinski failed to mention in his report that he had come across our property earlier that morning by himself in a PCSO marked vehicle. Deputy Osinski also failed to mention his conversation with my neighbor Jerry Kirkland about purchasing the house next door.

Deputy Osinski told my neighbor Jerry and my wife and I that his original visit to the property concerned his purchase of the large house next door that Sgt Robert Nye is selling.

In my complaint I described my conversation with Jerry after Deputy Osinski left the property in the morning and before he returned with Deputy Lennon later that afternoon.

Mr. Aldo refers to my complaint about Deputy Osinski coming to the property earlier that morning, but nowhere in Deputy Osinski’s report does he mention his first visit to the property, his conversation with my neighbor Jerry Kirkland, his conversation about his first visit with my wife and I or his interest in buying the house next to my neighbor and I from Sgt. Robert Nye.

When my wife and I asked Deputy Osinski why he had come to our neighbor’s home earlier that morning he verified what Jerry had told my wife and I.  Deputy Osinski stated that he was looking to buy the large adjacent house that was being sold by Sgt. Nye with a cash only sell requirement.

Jerry also stated that Deputy Osinski had been put up to inquiring about my medical marijuana garden by the “real estate agent” selling the house that Deputy Osinski was interested in owning.

Deputy Osinski was also being disingenuous in his statements regarding Sheriff Paul Babeu coming to our home. Sheriff Babeu’s visit did not concern marijuana. Sheriff Babeu’s visit concerned the physical assaults that were taking place on our property and to my family that were being ignored by Robert Carter Olson and James Walsh of the PCAO.

The last incident of a physical assault related to this chain of incidents occurred on September 21, 2008. James P. Walsh had refused to charge the assailant even though there were photos of him standing on our property taking swings at me on September 21, 2008. James Walsh issued a written refusal to charge the assailant.  After Sheriff Babeu’s visit to our residence James Walsh had an amazing change of heart.

I was notified that there would be a charge filed and a criminal trial on the matter. The assailant was found guilty at trial and from that point on the physical assaults, trespassing, harassment, intimidation and threats had stopped until Deputy Osinski returned and started anew on July 10,2012.

Joe Albo states: “A reading of A.R.S. § 12-1809 and the appellate court cases interpreting the statute indicates that its use is primarily in family law, domestic and neighborhood dispute matters.” (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).

Deputy Osinski is a neighborhood character shopping for real estate in our neighborhood and trespassing, harassing, intimidating and threatening my family on a continuing basis.

Mr. Albo goes on to state: “There are any number of other legal approaches available to Plaintiff that allow Plaintiff to seek redress of any grievance he may have against the Pinal County Sheriff and the law enforcement personnel employed by that office.” (Pg.3, lines, 5-7)

I believe this matter is headed for Federal Court as soon as PCSO Internal Affairs has completed their investigation and all reasonable avenues of remedy are exhausted at the state level. (EXHIBIT A) 

However, Mr. Albo is missing or avoiding the point here. I am here for an injunction order to protect my family. Had Mr. Albo read my complaint he would know this matter has been turned over to Sheriff Babeu and Lt. Polmanteer of Internal Affairs. As a protector of the public he should be looking at this matter with an even eye.

Note that I sent these complaints and supporting PSCO documents directly to Sheriff Babeu first. Debbie Lopez is Sheriff Babeu’s personal secretary and she received the same evidence that the PCAO should have and she relayed it to the Sheriff.

Debbie Lopez suggested that I go to the Justice Courts in Pinal County to get an injunction order to protect my family from Deputy Osinski and his associates.

Deputy Osinski’s misconduct and his outrageous concealment of the assault on my daughter by Deputy Raul Alvarado on August 1, 2006 were brought to the attention of Sheriff Babeu via Debbie Lopez. Keep in mind that it was Raul Alvarado that assaulted my daughter under Deputy Osinski’s supervision. Deputy Alvarado was the PCSO deputy that made national news when Sheriff Babeu fired him because PCSO employees complained that Deputy Alvarado had mental problems and had painted and tortured a toad frog with his “taser” and threatened to take it to the desert and rape it. Who knows what Deputy Alvarado did from the time Deputy Osinski protected his criminal conduct until the time Sheriff Babeu had to fire him.

I’m waiting for Internal affairs to complete their investigation. However, I am presenting these complaints and this evidence of misconduct to this Honorable Court to get an order that will protect my family from these rogue policemen that I’ve complained about since August of 2006.

Mr. Aldo claims that I’ve failed to make specific allegations of specific illegal or improper personal conduct by Deputy Osinski.  This is blatantly misleading and disingenuous? I’m asking this Honorable Court to consider sanctions against Mr. Albo for his efforts to protect Deputy Osinski’s criminal conduct. It is this approach that makes me ask this Court for an External Investigation of this matter.

CONCLUSION

I had just started a 13-year sentence in Federal Prison for Marijuana Possession when “male” PCSO Deputies took my 16-year-old daughter to Florence and made her strip naked, bend over and cough for them. She was never the same after that. I did not find out what had happened to her until I was released from prison 8 years later. Deputy Osinski’s assault on her hurt her and our family deeply.

I spent my time in the Prison Law Library elbow to elbow with Old Federal and State Judges, Prosecutors and high profile attorneys.  We all left prison with a common conclusion: No One is Above the Law in America.

We have a culture of corruption in Pinal County that has evolved into a dangerous gang of individuals that believe they are above the law. The abuse of proposition 203 from the Governors office to Pinal County law enforcement shines a light on just how bad things have become.

I am requesting this Honorable Court to put politics and personal prejudice aside and grant me an order that will protect my family. I am not an attorney and have no formal legal training.  I have had my legal teeth kicked down my throat on technicalities in Arizona.  I hope this Honorable Court will read my complaints and compare them to the incident reports and other official documents I have collected and provided and issue this injunction order I have requested.

I humbly request that this Court deny the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal of my plea for protection.  I also request that the PCSO turn over the photo and witness evidence that I feel will weigh heavily on this Courts decision to rule in my favor and expose Deputy Osinski for once again filing a incomplete and inaccurate report to protect the misconduct he has involved himself in.

I have accused Deputy Osinski of coming on my property to harass, threaten and intimidate my family and me.  Additionally I have complained about Deputy Osinski coming onto my property in the past and using his badge and incident reports to conceal the assault of my daughter and ransacking of my family’s home.

“An injuncton shall not be granted * * * [t]o prevent enforcement of a public statute by officers of the law for the public benefit.” A.R.S. § 12-1802, subsec. 4.

This does not apply to my complaints of criminal conduct or my request for protection from these individuals. In closing I humbly request this Court to ask for an External Investigation of this matter.

Everything I have stated in these complaints and pleas are true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called upon to testify in these matters I will do so honestly and in good conscience.

Respectfully submitted, on this 13th day of August 2012

 

————————————-

Arlin Troutt, pro per

 

 

 

ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed this 13th day of August 2012 with Eloy Justice Court

COPIES of the foregoing delivered this 13th day of August 2012 mailed or hand delivered to:

Honorable Marie Lorona

Judge of the Eloy Justice Court

and Joe Albo of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office

EXHIBIT A

Complaint Packet Delivered to Sheriff Babeu and LT. Polmanteer Internal Affairs

July 30,2012 Motion for Change of Judge

August 3, 2012 PCSO Records Receipt for Complaints to Internal Affairs

August 2, 2012 PCSO Personnel Complaint Forms

August 2, PCSO Personnel Complaint Form #1

July 16, 2012 Sheriff Babeu complaint

August 2, 2012 PCSO Personnel Complaint Form #2

July 27, 2012 Sheriff Babeu Complaint

August 2, 2012 PCSO Personnel Complaint Form #3

August 1, 2012 Sheriff Babeu and Lt. Polmanteer IA

August 4, 2006 PCSO Personnel Complaint Form August 1, 2006

August 4, 2006 Complaint to Sheriff Vasquez on Osinski

August 29, 2006 Incident Report by Osinski

August 8, 2006 Certified Mail Receipt to Internal Affairs

August 10, 2006 PCSO Letter from Internal Affairs

December 13, 2006 Complaint Pinal County Officials

February 16, 2007 Complaint to Carter Olson

March 27, 2007 Complaint to Carter Olson

October 14, 2008 Complaint to James Walsh

December 27, 2008 Complaint to James Walsh

Our complaint to Pinal County Sheriff Babeu went not to Internal Affairs but to the Task Force!!!!
Caught lying, cheating, bullying, destroying 911 tapes, etc-and we are the bad guys???
Any help calling Craig Anderson of the AZ Republic 602 444 8681 email craig.anderson@arizonarepbilc.com
Sheriff Babeu 520 866 5133 email Paul.Babeu@pinalcountyaz.gov Any help would be appreciated.

Complaint on July 10, 2012 Medical Marijuana Raid on the Troutt family’s home in the Superstition Mountains of Arizona.

July 16, 2012

Sheriff Paul Babeu

Pinal County
Sheriff’s Office
971 Jason Lopez Circle
Building C
Florence, AZ 85132  520 866 5133

Re: Formal Criminal Complaint Against Pinal County Officials

Sheriff Babeu,

On the morning of July 10, 2012, I noticed a Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) vehicle at my neighbor’s house.  Several hours later this same Deputy Mark Osinski #1421 and another heavily armed officer knocked on my door and brought my wife and I out into the 108-degree Arizona afternoon.

Deputy Osinski advised us that he was going to conduct a search of my garden for marijuana and ordered us to come with him to my garden. When we got to the garden Deputy Osinski started taking photographs of my plants and telling me that I am only allowed 12 marijuana plants. I explained that I had not counted any of my plants because they were immature and had not started flowering or showing signs of sex change.  Deputy Osinski and the other officer laughed and made a condescending remark about plants having a sex. I realized neither officer had knowledge of the language of proposition 203 or the cultivation of medical marijuana.

I explained and showed the officers that these immature plants did not fit the legal definition of useable marijuana. I showed the officers the several plants that were also dying and had died in the heat. I explained that the vegetation was incidental to the cultivation of my medical marijuana needs. 36-2801. Definitions (c) Marijuana that is incidental to medical use, but is not usable marijuana as defined in this chapter, shall not be counted toward a qualifying patient’s or designated caregiver’s allowable amount of marijuana.

Deputy Osinski’s armed backup declared in a challenging and intimidating manner that he had just counted 36 plants. I explained that the 36 plants he thought he counted were limbs of only 6 immature plants that had been beaten to the ground in a March hail storm and recovered by branching out, but with only one root system.

Deputy Osinski condescendingly joked about my medical condition. and as the deputies were leaving, Deputy Osinski mockingly thanked me for allowing him to photograph my cannabis plants as if I had given these heavily armed deputies permission to invade my privacy again and take photos of my property.

What Deputy Osinski brought to my home was an intimidating and provoking attitude, lies, ignorance, and deadly force with a hidden history of criminal behavior. Deputy Osinski told us that he came past our remote residence because he was interested in buying the house next to our neighbor. Deputy Osinski was clearly attempting to convince my wife and I that our neighbor had complained to police about my plants.

I spoke to our neighbor (Jerry) immediately after Deputy Osinski left and before Deputy Osinski returned with his bodyguard that afternoon.  Jerry said: Deputy Osinski told him he came to the property because he was interested in buying the big house next door to us. Jerry went on to tell us that he believed that the realtor (Sgt. Robert Nye, Apache Junction Police Department) had put Deputy Osinski up to harassing my family over the medical marijuana.

These Deputies came to my residence with no knowledge of Arizona’s medical marijuana law or cultivation of cannabis. The fact that Deputy Osinski tried to convince my wife and I that our neighbor Jerry had “snitched me off” and covered up his association with Sgt. Robert Nye is very problematic.

This illegal raid on my family and property on July 10, 2012 goes back to my original complaint against Deputy Osinski, Raul Alvarado, P. Ramirez and the others listed on my August 4, 2006 complaint to Sheriff Chris Vasquez, Robert Carter Olson, Jerold Monahan, Sandie Smith and others.

This is not my family’s first encounter with Deputy Osinski or the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department. On August 1, 2006 Deputy Osinski raided my family residence with a SWAT team of Deputies and 4 County Vehicles. They got lost and stormed into my neighbor’s property and almost started World War III.  Then they stormed into our home, ordered my son on the ground and Deputy Raul Alvarado brutally manhandled and terrified my daughter.

These heavily armed deputies listed in my complaint filed August 4, 2006 did everything humanly possible to force my unarmed family into a physical confrontation. As Deputy Raul Alvarado assaulted my daughter, Deputy Osinski and the other officers watched. Deputy Ramirez and Alvarado became so violently out of control we pleaded with Deputy Osinski to call for backup and a supervisor for everyone’s safety. Deputy Osinski smirked, smiled, and refused.

My daughter went into a deep depression over this for years and for good reasons.  When she was 16 years old Pinal County Deputies stopped her, took her to Florence and male Deputies from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office strip searched her and made her bend over, squat, and cough as they watched. She has never been the same since that night.

I was serving an 8-year sentence in Federal Prison for a marijuana charge at that time. I was not told what happened until I was released. I ran for Vice President of the U.S. in 1996 while in the custody of the U.S. Department of Justice. We gained enough votes to have my name in the National Media and included in the National Archives of Presidential Candidates.

I felt guilty that local authorities may have targeted my daughter because of my religious and political beliefs. An investigation of this matter may discover that my family has been targeted out of retaliation for my outspoken nature and my family’s religious and political beliefs, as well as the property we own.

When the August 1, 2006 incident happened with Deputy Osinski and Deputy Raul Alvarado I filed a formal complaint with Sheriff Vasquez and other high level Pinal County Officials. This complaint was never resolved and it is just the tip of an out of control iceberg of outrageous behavior on the part of Pinal County Deputies, Sheriff Chris Vasquez, Robert Carter Olson, Sandie Smith, Jerald Monahan, Judge William O’Neil and others. My family has been targeted and emotionally tortured while these rogue public servants continue to climb the ladder of successful corruption in Arizona.

According to Deputy Osinski’s August 1, 2006 report (060801036) he stated his purpose for this heavy-handed raid was because the property owner’s feeble-minded grandmother reported a “VERBAL DISPUTE” with her grandson. Please note that Sgt. Ellis approved this report on “August 29, 2006”.

Officer Osinsky mentioned nothing about the violent and vicious assault on my son and daughter on August 1, 2006. (See report 060801036). Ultimately these complaints disappeared under the desk and guidance of Robert Carter Olsen.

If you read Deputy Osinski’s police report and compare that police report to my family’s complaints and the other police reports from August 4, 2006 to the present, you will see a documented criminal pattern.

I don’t know how many people have been falsely charged, convicted, battered, sexually assaulted, or killed by these deputies and covered up by Robert Carter Olson. However there is ample evidence that on August 1, 2006 from Deputy Osinski to Robert Carter Olson, Raul Alvarado was protected until Sheriff Babeu fired him for torturing a toad with a Taser in August of 2009.

The Arizona Republic covered Deputy Raul Alvarado’s toad frog torturing story and fell a little short of mentioning Robert Carter Olson’s name as the Pinal County Official that overturned Sheriff Paul Babeu’s decision to fire Raul the Toad Torturer. Please read this story about Deputy Raul Alvarado and try to imagine what my family went through on August 1, 2006: http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2010/10/28/20101028pinal-deputy-fires-taser-at-frog-brk.html

My neighbors, the press, and several thousand Internet followers are aware of these incidents and complaints. I feel that the only thing Pinal County Officials fear is exposure and bad publicity. Everyone that lives near me is aware of my religious and medical use of cannabis for the past 40 years. Additionally, they are aware of how corrupt and dangerous these same Pinal County Deputies are.

I am requesting immediate and specific protection in an expedient and meaningful manner and an expedited investigation concerning these rogue deputies and high level Pinal County Officials. Additionally, I request meetings with Sheriff Paul Babeu and his internal affairs officer to address these problems with this long, ongoing, culture of corruption in Pinal County that has cost my family and our community so much.

I swear that everything I have stated in this complaint is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called on to testify in this matter I will do so in good conscience.

Respectfully Submitted,

——————————————-

Arlin Troutt

 

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A… Pinal County Sheriff Chris Vasquez complaint form and August 1, 2006 complaint dated August 4, 2006 (5pgs.)

Exhibit B…Certified Mail Receipt for August 1, 2006 complaint dated August 4, 2006 to Sheriff Chris Vasquez and Internal Affairs of the Pinal County Sheriff Department and signed notice of receipt dated August 8, 2006. (1pg.)

Exhibit C… Deputy Osinski’s August 1, 2006 Incident Report #060801036 (3pgs)

Exhibit D… Response from Sheriff Vasquez and Internal Affairs and mailing envelope dated August 10, 2006. (2pgs.)

Exhibit E… Arizona Republic story of Sheriff Paul Babeu’s firing of Raul Alvarado for torturing a toad frog on duty and Robert Carter Olsen’s decision to overturn the Sheriff’s decision to fire Raul the Toad Torturer.  http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2010/10/28/20101028pinal-deputy-fires-taser-at-frog-brk.html

Rough Notes

On July 11, 2012 I called PCSO records department and requested the police report on the July 10, 2012 and was provided this incident number:120710119

On July 11/2012 I spoke with Debbie Lopez, Paul Babeu’s assistant at length about this problem and I provided her with the July 10, 2012 incident number (120710119) the records department provided me.

On July 12, 2012 I spoke to Debbie Lopez and provided here with Deputy Osinski’s incident report number from the August 1, 2006 incident. (#060801036)

I possess roughly 16 boxes of exhibits from Pinal County Superior Court that were entered into evidence in CV 2006-00063 in Judge O’Neil and Judge Robert Carter Olson’s “conflict of interest” courts.

Craig Anderson was the original reporter that handled the Stan Griffis city manager corruption story and that is where all of this really starts. I contacted Craig and reported this matter to the Arizona Republic for some form of protection from these Pinal County Deputies and real estate agents. I am assured By Craig Anderson that this matter will get investigated: J. Craig Anderson – Jul. Reach the reporter at craig.anderson@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8681..

Leave a Reply