SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Transcription

1 Richard D. Ackerman, Esq (00) Scott D. Lively, Esq. (01) THE PRO-FAMILY LAW CENTER A California Nonprofit Legal Services Organization 0 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 0 Temecula, CA 0 (1) 0- Telephone (1) 0- Facsimile RichAckerman@LivelyAckerman.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, RICHARD D. ACKERMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, ) CASE NO. ) Plaintiff, ) FOR DECLARATORY ) RELIEF, EQUITABLE RELIEF, vs. ) and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ) HON. DOUGLAS MILLER, Presiding ) Judge of the RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR ) COURT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ) ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE, ) and DOES 1-0, Inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, hereby alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California. This action is being filed in an effort to enforce municipal building and zoning codes and to protect the First Amendment rights of Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons.. Plaintiff has paid taxes within, and for the benefit of, the County of Riverside, State of California, within the last year.. Plaintiff is an attorney who has regularly practiced in the Riverside Superior Court 1.

2 for approximately the last years. Plaintiff has also been a litigant in said Court twice in the last ten years. Plaintiff has litigated cases in Department of the Riverside Superior Court within the last years and is familiar with the architecture, historical design, and unaltered condition of said Department.. Plaintiff regularly practices in the area of constitutional law and has a direct interest in the preservation of the cultural identity, constitutional upbringing, and political history of the United States, and of the County of Riverside.. Plaintiff and his family are practicing Christians, and Plaintiff ACKERMAN has defended the constitutional interests of Christians throughout the United States. IN particular, he has represented the First Amendment rights of such persons and organizations on a regular basis.. Based on the above, and other facts to be proven at trial, Plaintiff is an interested person within the meaning and intended purpose of Riverside Municipal Code, Title, Section Defendant DOUGLAS MILLER, Presiding Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, is the person most responsible for the upkeep, maintenance, preservation, and protection of the historic Riverside County Courthouse ( Courthouse ), located at 00 Main Street, Riverside, California. Said Courthouse is a designated historical site pursuant to Title of the Riverside City Municipal Code, and has been regularly identified as a historical place of interest by local, state, and national authorities on historical sites within the United States and California. Defendant is only included in this litigation as he would be required to carry out, directly abide by, and practically enforce any decree issued by this Court in relation to this suit. He is not claimed to have committed any wrongful act, and has always been held in the highest esteem by Plaintiff. Said Defendant is a necessary party to this litigation and complete relief cannot be afforded to any involved party without his participation in this suit..

3 . Defendant COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE is responsible for ensuring that all buildings, to which it appropriates money and maintains, are maintained and operated pursuant to requirements of local, state and federal law, including, but not limited to, Title of the Riverside Municipal Code. The Riverside County Courthouse, an historical building, is within the jurisdictional control and supervision of said Defendant.. Defendant ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE is a nonprofit organization dedicated, in part, to removing all vestiges of Christian history from public places, historic places, and public buildings such as the Riverside County Superior Courthouse. Said Defendant is directly opposed to the presence of Christian in public life/business and regularly advocates to place and preserve Jewish icons, symbolism, and religious items in such places, whilst nonetheless removing Christian items of same or similar nature. Said Defendant is presently demanding that the other Defendants take action to alter a portion of the historic Courthouse, by removing a reference to Christian that is literally engraved into the structure of the Courthouse. Said Defendant has, as alleged below, engaged in hate speech by publicly accusing Christian Jews of subterfuge and deception. Said Defendant, as alleged below, is knowingly creating a hostile, hateful, and discriminatory environment for Christian lawyers, litigants, members of the public, and others coming into contact with Department of the Courthouse. Defendant s reason for instituting actions against the other Defendants, as alleged below, is motivated, in whole or part, by their disdain for Christianity.. DOES 1 through 0, whose names and identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, ///// ///// ///// are other persons or organizations who take umbrage with any engravings located within Department of the Courthouse and who have voiced complaints concerning the same in the last two years..

4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (As Against All Named and Unnamed Defendants). Plaintiff hereby incorporates, as though fully set forth and alleged herein, each of the preceding paragraphs.. The Riverside County Courthouse is an historic building.. The Courthouse was first contemplated in 0. The final design of the Courthouse was chosen in late 0.. The Courthouse was built during 0, and opened for public business in 0.. A religious organization known as the Free Masons contributed to the building of the Courthouse, and images and text concerning their involvement are still present in the Courthouse by way of display cases with references to this organization, and by way of references in the very architecture of the building. To wit, this religious organization laid the cornerstone of the Courthouse and has been honored for their involvement since then. Religious overtones are inseparable from the history of the Courthouse.. In 0, a major addition was added to the Courthouse. Such additions included the engraving of various quotes from United States presidents, including President Theodore Roosevelt, including a quote stating that, The true Christian is the true citizen. Taken in its context with other presidential quotes throughout the building, the quote simply represents one view among many that have been held throughout presidential history. The diversity of quotes throughout the Courthouse reflects the diversity of the presidents and, indeed, the members of the public who visit or conduct business at the Courthouse. Removal of the Roosevelt quote would take away from the diversity historically reflected in the Courthouse since 0.. 1n, the Courthouse was largely restored and specifically recognized as an architectural treasure. The historic Courthouse was publicly rededicated on October.

5 ,, at :00 p.m.. Restoration efforts included the preservation and maintenance of the diverse presidential quotations, Evergreen Masonic Lodge religious references, and other historical quotes engraved in the walls, displays, and structure of the Courthouse since 0 and before.. The City of Riverside undertook a commitment to historic preservation efforts in with adoption of Title of the Riverside Municipal Code, and the creation of a Cultural Heritage Board. Since then, persons of all faiths and religious beliefs have contributed to the historical preservation of houses of Christian worship and the Courthouse with the use of tax money generated by the citizens of the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, and State of California.. The Courthouse qualifies as a cultural resource pursuant to city and county law. The Riverside Arts Council has also recognized the Courthouse as a cultural and historic site.. The Courthouse is a designated historic landmark.. The Courthouse is located within the Mission Inn Historical District.. Because of its designations as a historic place and cultural resource, the operators of the Courthouse, including JUDGE MILLER, and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, are legally required to abide by the Riverside Downtown Specific Plan, Title of the Riverside Municipal Code, Rules of the Riverside County Historical Commission, State of California Historical Building Code, Housing & Urban Development Regulations applicable to historic preservation, and the United States Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.. A purpose of the above referenced laws is to preserve the community character, in historical context, of the buildings protected by such laws. The Courthouse, in its unadulterated state, reflects the historical context of the time in which all quotes, including Roosevelt s quote, were engraved in its walls.. On or about September, 0, Defendant ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE.

6 demanded that the other Defendants alter the historic integrity of the Courthouse by covering up the Roosevelt quote. Defendant s demands would require a violation of Riverside Municipal Code.0.0, which prohibits the alteration of any historic site, including the Courthouse. Alteration is punishable as a misdemeanor. Submission to the demands of the ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE would require the other named Defendants to violate the law and subject themselves to criminal penalty. It also appears that the conduct demanded by the Defendant would result in a violation of County Ordinance No.., Section (a), which provides for establishment, enforcement of laws related to, and maintenance of historical districts within the County of Riverside. Plaintiff telephonically asked the Court to affirm its commitment to complying with these laws before filing this suit, and got no response.. By demanding the removal of a quote referring to the Christian faith, Defendant ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE has separated out, singled out, and targeted Christians for discriminatory treatment. Even though there are specific images of Jewish religious adherents publicly placed in the Temecula Branch of the Courthouse, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE has taken no action to remove such images. They are only concerned about removing references to Christians. Images of practicing Jews, by Defendant s own analysis and threat of litigation, could cause a Christian to feel marginalized.. The actions of the ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE are hateful and discriminatory within the meaning of recently signed California Senate Bill (Kuehl-D), which prevents the creation of a discriminatory environment in places such as the Courthouse.. There is a justiciable controversy between the parties, including all the Defendants, and Plaintiff as an interested person within the meaning of Title of the Riverside Municipal Code, and as a Christian protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and other related nondiscrimination laws..

7 . The direct and justiciable controversy between the interested parties in this case cannot be resolved without judicial intervention. Without such relief, the issues raised herein are likely to recur and to avoid judicial scrutiny. This controversy is ripe for review given the present threats and controversy, and is not possibly rendered moot by way of any immediate concessions by the Defendants since the challenged quote will remain a permanent installation in the Courthouse.. There is a direct and immediate threat of harm inasmuch as an employee of the Courthouse, one Mike Sylvester, has taken action toward altering the Roosevelt quote by covering it up and altering Department by affixing to the wall a piece of mahogany wood that would cover the quote and result in holes in the wall, interference with the historic integrity of the interior architecture and design of the Courthouse, and the creation of an environment that is knowing hostile to Christians as opposed to any other religious group identified through imagery and language in other places within the Riverside Superior Court system. 0. Plaintiff seeks only that relief which will afford complete and permanent protection to the historical nature of the Courthouse as required by law, and that relief which will ensure that the Courthouse does not create a hostile environment to Christians or other faiths by removal of references associated only with such groups to the exclusion of other groups. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (As Against Defendant Hon. Judge Douglas Miller Only) 1. Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth and alleged herein.. Defendant HON. DOUGLAS P. MILLER, Presiding Judge of the Riverside County Courthouse, has a lawful and ministerial duty to ensure that the Courthouse is operated pursuant to requirements of local building and historic preservation laws..

8 . There is presently a direct, immediate, and cognizable threat of harm to his ability to carry out his lawful duties as the presiding judge and public officer most responsible for protecting the Courthouse from violations of law.. The historical integrity and use of the Courthouse can only be had and ensured by issuance of a writ of mandate commanding Defendant to comply with Title of the Riverside Municipal Code.. Defendant MILLER has a ministerial and administrative duty to protect Christian members of the public, including lawyers, litigants, staff members, and general members of the public, from a discriminatory environment. There is a direct, immediate, and likely, threat of harm to the ministerial duty of Defendant MILLER to maintain and ensure a nondiscriminatory environment. Said threat has been realized by way of Mike Sylvester s threat to cover up a reference to Christian while taking no action to remove references, throughout the Riverside judicial system, to other faiths and beliefs of a religious nature. Moreover, the ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE has created a presently hostile environment for Christians and nothing is being done to stop the same. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (As Against All Governmental Defendants or Officers). Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth and alleged herein.. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Title of the Riverside Municipal Code, the First Amendment, California Code of Civil Procedure a, and other laws allowing the issuance of such relief to protect Plaintiff and other persons affected by this litigation.. There is a direct and immediate threat of harm to Plaintiff and members of the public interested in the historic preservation of Department of the Courthouse..

9 . The threat can only be eliminated by the issuance of appropriate injunctive relief which preserves the status quo for all parties and the public, and which specifically preserves the historical integrity and use of the Courthouse, until a final determination is made as to the appropriate use of the Courthouse and the constitutionality of the applicable historic preservation laws cited herein and above. 0. No bond should be required of Plaintiff given the public interest nature of this case. 1. Defendants would suffer no interim harm by granting of temporary injunctive relief or a declaration requiring abstention from further acts designed to interfere with the historical integrity of the Courthouse.. Permanent injunctive relief is necessary to prevent future threats of harm against the historical, architectural, and cultural integrity of the Courthouse. PRAYER Wherefor, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 1. For a decree of the Court indicating that the present interior design of Department of the Riverside Superior Court is entitled to protection against alteration, pursuant to the historical preservation laws of the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, United States, and State of California.. For injunctive relief as necessary to maintain a nondiscriminatory environment for all persons entering in and doing business within the Superior Court of Riverside.. For injunctive relief as necessary to preserve the status quo until a final determination is made as to the constitutionality of relevant historical preservation laws and a determination as to the right of affected parties to be protected from discrimination.. For a writ of mandate demanding that the governmental defendants comply with all relevant historical preservation laws.. For any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to vindicate, adjudicate, and decree the rights of the parties or related persons herein.. For costs of suit..

10 . For attorneys fees ONLY as against any defendant who is shown to have acted for the purpose of promoting segregation, singling out, marginalization, discrimination against, censorship of, or unequal treatment of Christian persons coming in contact with the Riverside judicial system. DATED : September 0, 0 Most Respectfully Submitted: THE PRO-FAMILY LAW CENTER RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, ESQ., Attorney at Law & Pro Se Litigant, SCOTT D. LIVELY, ESQ., Co-Counsel for Plaintiff. VERIFICATION I, RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, have read the foregoing complaint and known of its contents. I have research the laws and facts as I have alleged them to be, and believe them to be true and accurate to the best of my personal knowledge. If called to testify as to these facts I would and could competently do so. Executed this 0 th Day of September, 0, in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. RICHARD D. ACKERMAN, Plaintiff..