The wheels of justice move slowly, but things are indeed moving in our direction in San Diego. Today, I am pleased to announce the long awaited lawsuit against the corrupt forces in San Diego has been filed.

PLEASE DONATE TO THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION

Back in September of ‘07 I wrote:

Months ago, the headlines and TV news reports read ?Minuteman Charged With Beating Disabled Immigrants.? John Monti was charged with seven misdemeanors, including battery, hate crimes, and interfering with a person?s civil rights. It didn?t matter that John Monti wasn?t even a member of a Minuteman group, the biased media was foaming at the mouth; finally they had what they wanted.

Now John has been acquitted of all the charges and the media is refusing to inform the public as to why the jury reached their ?not guilty? verdict. Instead, the media is repeating the false charges against him and ignoring all the evidence that showed that it was in fact the six day laborers that attacked John Monti instead of the other way around. The media would like the public to believe that somehow the jury must have made a mistake.

There is no doubt in my mind that if John had been convicted, this story would have become national news.

Five months after John Monti was attacked by six day laborers, he filed a Grand Jury request for an investigation into the San Diego Police Department?s refusal to act on a prostitution ring in McGonigle Canyon. The underage prostitutes are smuggled across the border and forced to have sex with large groups of agricultural workers and day laborers. The police retaliated by bringing false charges against him. They tried to put an innocent man in prison.

The media will not report on how illegal alien activist Claudia Smith conspired with the San Diego Police Department to fabricate evidence against John because she is one of their biggest sources for anti-Minuteman news. Claudia Smith practically writes their stories for them.

GARY G. KREEP (SBN 066482)
UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION
932 ?D? Street, Suite 2
Ramona, California 92065
Tel: (760) 788-6624
Fax: (760) 788-6414

Attorney for Defendant John Monti
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JOHN MONTI

Cross Plaintiffs

v.

JOSE BALZAGA;
ESTANISLAO GONZALEZ;
ALBERTO JIMENEZ;
ASCENCION HERNANDEZ;
ARISTEO LOPEZ;
ROBERTO PENA;
RICARDO VALLE;
CLAUDIA SMITH;
SAN DIEGO POLICE DETECTIVE LENHART;
SAN DIEGO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF SAN DIEGO;
DOES 1 THROUGH 50

Cross Defendants

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. California Civil Code § 52.1(b)
2. Battery
3. Conspiracy
DATE:
TIME:
DEPT:
TRIAL: None Set

Plaintiff alleges:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action results from the exercise by the Plaintiff, JOHN MONTI (hereafter referred to as ?MONTI?) of his First Amendment Rights to publicly protest illegal immigration into the United States of America and the child prostitution that results from it. MONTI was attempting to obtain photographic evidence of the child prostitution occurring in ?migrant? camps in and around the City of San Diego. While attempting to do so, MONTI was attacked by Defendants JOSE BALZAGA, ESTANISLAO GONZALEZ, ALBERTO JIMENEZ, ASCENCION HERNANDEZ, ARISTEO LOPEZ, ROBERTO PENA, and /or RICARDO VALLE. Said attack was witnessed by a number of passerbys. During the attack, MONTI was injured, and the attackers took, by force and fear, and destroyed, his cell phone and his camera. MONTI filled a criminal report and requested prosecution of his attackers. Instead MONTI was prosecuted for allegedly attacking his attackers. The San Diego County District Attorney?s Office refused to initiate prosecution against MONTI. However, the San Diego City Attorney?s Office did prosecute MONTI.

JURISDICTION

2. This action arises under California Civil Code § 51, the California Constitution Article I §§ 2 & 3, and California Civil Code §§ 52.1(b) and 51.7(a).

VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this court because the actions, subject matter of these proceedings, originated in the City of San Diego, California, and MONTI, is informed and believes and thereon alleges that most of the individual Defendants herein are residents of the County of San Diego.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, MONTI, is a United States citizen and a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

5. Defendant Jose Balzaga (hereafter referred to as ?BALZAGA?) was ,at all material times, a resident of Baja California Mexico.

6. Defendant Estanislao Gonzalez (hereafter referred to as ?GONZALEZ?) was, at all material times, an adult resident of the State of California, County of San Diego.

7. Defendant Alberto Jimenez (hereafter referred to as ?JIMENEZ?) was, at all material times, an adult resident of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.

8. Defendant Ascension Hernandez (hereafter referred to as ?HERNANDEZ?)was, at all materials times an adult resident of the State of California, County of San Diego.

9. Defendant Aristeo Lopez (hereafter referred to as ?LOPEZ?) was, at all material times, an adult resident of the State of California, County of San Diego.

10. Defendant Roberto Pena (hereafter referred to as ?PENA?) was, at all material times, an adult resident of the State of California, County of San Diego.

11. Defendant Ricardo Valle (hereafter referred to as ?VALLE?) was, at all material times, an adult resident of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.

12. Defendant San Diego City Police Department (hereinafter referred to as ?SDPD?) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a Police Agency of the City of San Diego, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

13. Defendant City of San Diego (hereinafter referred to as ?SD?) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and situated in the County of San Diego.

14. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant SDPD DETECTIVE LENHART (hereinafter referred to as ?LENHART?) was a sworn peace officer employed by SDPD and SD. In addition, LENHART is being sued in his personal capacity.

15. Defendant Claudia Smith (hereafter referred to as ?SMITH?) was, at all material times, a resident of the County of San Diego;

16. MONTI is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50 and, therefore, sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. MONTI will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of such fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained. MONTI is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

17. MONTI is a bilingual school teacher employed by the ______________ School District. He lives in Los Angeles County. He is devoted to his students, many of whom, or the parents of whom, have illegally entered the United States. In addition to being a public servant, MONTI is an activist in his community. He first became aware of the issue of human-trafficking in 2004, in a newspaper article. MONTI was shocked and appalled that young girls were being sold and/or kidnapped into slavery, brought across the border from Tijuana to ?migrant camps? in San Diego County, and prostituted in these ?shanty towns.? MONTI became involved in trying to expose this deplorable abuse of children to the public and to SDPD. MONTI?s investigation revealed that the migrant camps are magnets for crime and prostitution of young women and children. He came to believe that the camps could only survive as long as there were day labor sites that offer employment opportunities for the residents of the camps. He believes that if the day labor sites are closed, the camps will
be closed, curtailing the demand for child prostitutes. It is for these reasons that MONTI came down to San Diego on November 18, 2006.

18. November 18, 2006 was the day of the ?big camp out? in McGonigle Canyon, SD. The ?camp out? was a citizen protest against the migrant camps along the 56 Freeway in Rancho Penasquitos, in SD. MONTI intended to join other San Diego area residents in asking SD to remove the illegal ?shanty towns? that he believes breed crime and prostitution. Before going to the ?camp out,? MONTI stopped at a day labor site on Rancho Penasquitos Boulevard to take photographs and to hand out fliers to potential employers about the practice of hiring illegal immigrants.

19. MONTI arrived in Rancho Penasquitos area at approximately 10:30 am. He began taking pictures of the migrant workers and tried to have a discussion with them about the camps and the day labor site. The workers became hostile. At one point, BALZAGA, one of the day laborers, picked up a 2″ x 4″ piece of lumber and started swinging it over his head as he walked towards MONTI, who was still taking photos. BALZAGA told MONTI that if MONTI didn?t stop taking pictures he was going to ?crack his ass.? MONTI retreated and attempted to avoid a confrontation with the workers. An SDPD officer drove up and MONTI was able to flag the officer down. SDPD Officer McCarvel told the workers that MONTI was allowed to take as many pictures as he wanted because it was a public place. The officer told the workers that they could take pictures of MONTI as well.

20. Shortly after Officer McCarvel left the area, MONTI spotted a truck on the side of the road picking up a worker. MONTI began to vigorously take photos of the truck in hopes that the driver would pull over and have a discussion with MONTI about the practice of hiring illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, the driver did not stop. At that point, MONTI began to review the pictures he had taken to see if he had any clear photos of the driver.

21. While reviewing the photographs he had taken, MONTI was attacked from behind. Someone struck MONTI in the back of the head. Then MONTI felt a swift jerk to his left. He turned to see Roberto Pena pulling the camera that was around his neck. MONTI tried to ward off the attack, but he was knocked into the street, and the camera was pulled away from him. Three of the workers scrambled for the bouncing camera with MONTI close behind. One of the workers grabbed the camera, but MONTI was able to get his $1,200.00 camera back. As he did so, he turned and saw an incoming blow. MONTI raised his forearm to block another worker from striking him with a backpack in the face. MONTI regained
his footing and stood to find all but one of his attackers fleeing from the scene. BALZAGA stood at the sidewalk?s edge holding MONTI cell phone. BALZAGA took one long look at MONTI, then threw the cell phone into the ground shattering it, with the battery winding up in the storm drain nearby. Then BALZAGA turned and ran away. MONTI tried to chase after a person who he thought had witnessed this attack, but was unable to reach the lone man.

22. The attack took place on a busy public street and at least four individuals called 911 to report the attack on MONTI. Mary Lynn Larrick was driving by in her car with her two sons when they saw MONTI being attacked. The three of them saw about six Hispanic men beating up a man with a camera (MONTI). Larrick reported that they were hitting him (MONTI) with backpacks. Another passerby, Anthony Barbosa, reported that he saw four to five Hispanic men beating up an individual (MONTI) in the middle of the street under the Ted Williams Parkway at Rancho Penasquitos Boulevard. Another passerby, Rianan Stichter, reported that there was a man (MONTI) being attacked by some of the migrant workers under the
56 bridge on Carmel Mountain road. Stichter saw them in the middle of the street and reported that the migrant workers were trying to steal the man?s (MONTI?s) bag. Also, Jason and Carrie Linn witnessed MONTI being attacked and stopped to help. While Jason got out to check on MONTI, Carrie called 911 to report what they saw, that an American gentleman with a camera was attacked by several Hispanics that stand on the corner on Rancho Penasquitos Boulevard. When they stopped to help MONTI, they noticed that MONTI had blood on his head and there were papers all over the street.

23. Officer McCarvel returned to the scene and spoke with MONTI and Mr. Linn. He collected the photographs of the attackers from MONTI?s camera and took pictures of MONTI?s wounds.

24. The next day, the police arrested BALZAGA, who had been identified in the photos from MONTI?s camera. BALZAGA claimed that MONTI attacked one of the workers and he (BALZAGA) was just trying to help defend the man. The alleged victim was a disabled migrant worker, who was last seen walking away from the scene before MONTI was attacked. LENHART, without ever having spoken with the independent witnesses driving by, decided that MONTI had single-handedly initiated an attack against nine day laborers and won! At the insistence of Migrant Rights Activist Claudia Smith (hereinafter referred to as ?SMITH?), LENHART managed to conjure up additional evidence to claim that this was a ?hate crime? promulgated by MONTI on the day laborers. However, the first mention of any ?racial slur? or evidence of this so called ?hate crime? was by SMITH in an email she sent to LENHART nearly two months after the attack on MONTI.

25. Meanwhile, MONTI returned to his work as a 6th grade teacher and had accepted the notion that no one would be held accountable for attacking him. MONTI was shocked when he heard on national television that charges would be filed against him for attacking the day laborers. MONTI first learned that he was being prosecuted from the mouth of SMITH, appearing on the Fox News Channel?s Hannity and Colmes show.

26. MONTI was charged with nine counts, including battery, hate crime, and filing a false police report. MONTI pled not guilty to the charges. After interviews with the prosecution?s witnesses involved in the attack, it became clear that not everyone had seen or heard the same thing. Some of the prosecution?s witnesses said that MONTI?s camera was in the street during the attack, while others said the camera was around his neck. Some of the prosecution?s witnesses said that MONTI grabbed the ?alleged? victim, GONZALES three times, while others said he was only struck twice. Some prosecution witnesses said MONTI threw his cell phone at one of the workers, while other witnesses said he threw the phone in the street. The witnesses couldn?t even agree about who all was present during the incident itself. None of the witnesses, however, claimed they heard MONTI make any racial slurs or call them names. And, in fact, one of the prosecution witnesses admitted that he got in MONTI?s face and tried to swing at him. Despite the inconsistencies, the San Diego City Attorney?s office insisted on going forward with the case.

27. Just before the trial was set to begin, the City Attorney?s office revealed that they did not intend to call all of the day laborers who were at the scene the day of the attack. Based on their inconsistent statements, and the fact that some of them would testify that MONTI did not make any racial slurs, it was clear that the City Attorney?s office did not seek to tell the whole truth. It was up to MONTI to compel these witnesses to come to court through his constitutional right to subpoena witnesses to testify on his behalf guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, when MONTI?s investigator went to serve the subpoenas at the day labor site, he was greeted by SMITH, who instructed the witnesses to refuse to speak with the investigator and to not accept the subpoenas to come to court. SMITH proceeded to call the police and report that the investigator had guns and had threatened the witnesses. SDPD officers showed up on the scene and spoke with the investigator. The officers confirmed that no threats had been made and that the investigator was just trying to lawfully serve subpoenas on behalf of MONTI.

28. In the end, all of the original prosecution witnesses came to court and testified, as well as some witnesses that were first revealed to the defense in the middle of trial. Surprisingly, two individuals had called 911 the day MONTI was attacked, but SDPD never followed up with them. Their names were not mentioned in any police reports. The witnesses saw news coverage of the trial and called the court to report that they too had witnessed the attack on MONTI and wondered why no one had ever contacted them to testify in court. As it turns out, these witnesses were instrumental in the defense of MONTI. They witnessed MONTI trying to recover his property from the ?Hispanic workers? and, they saw the men attacking MONTI.

29. After testimony from the eight (8) day laborers, two police officers, two of MONTI?s students, one parent, six independent eye-witnesses, including four 911 callers, and MONTI himself, the jury discovered the TRUTH ? MONTI was NOT GUILTY of any of the crimes for which he was charged. MONTI?s photographs from his own camera proved what he had stated all along. The disabled worker, ?allegedly? the victim, was nowhere in sight and PENA was standing directly behind MONTI at the time of the attack. At trial, HERNANDEZ testified that he and another migrant worker, named Chilango, had struck MONTI. The jury unanimously reached the only reasonable and logical conclusion based on the evidence ? MONTI acted in self-defense and in defense of his property and he told the truth to Officer McCarvel about what happened the day he was attacked. After being found innocent, MONTI returned to his class, welcomed back by his students with banners and cards, and grateful to be a teacher again! Then, this litigation was filed.

V.FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1

(Against Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego City Police Department, San Diego City Police Officer Lenhart, in his personal and official capacity, Claudia Smith, Jose Balzaga, Estanislao Gonzales, Alberto Jimenez Ascension Hernandez Aristeo Lopez, Roberto Pena, and /or Ricardo Valle and DOES 1-50 and the DOES 1-50)

30. MONTI repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

31. BALZAGA, GONZALEZ, JIMENEZ, HERNANDEZ, LOPEZ, PENA, and /or VALLE physically attacked and robbed MONTI in an attempt to coerce and silence him and to prevent him from expressing his political views in opposition to illegal immigration and child prostitution.

32. LENHART, working with SMITH, and unknown representatives of the City of San Diego City Attorney?s Office, as well as other SDPD Officers, without legal justification, and knowing that MONTI had committed no crime, charged MONTI in the underlying criminal action in an attempt to coerce and silence him and to prevent him from expressing his political views in opposition to illegal immigration and child prostitution. This action was done, in part, because SMITH and LENHART wished to prevent MONTI, or anyone else, from publicly opposing illegal immigration and the resultant child prostitution.

33. California Civil Code section 52.1 prohibits interference: ?by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.?

34. As a proximate result of the actions described above by Defendants, and each of them, MONTI was denied his right to exercise his First Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution to speak out against what he believes to be the failure of law enforcement, and other officials, in the United States, including those of SDPD and SD, to enforce current laws regarding illegal immigration and child prostitution. As a result, MONTI has suffered damages in an amount to be shown at the time of trial.

VI.SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - BATTERY
(Against Defendants Jose Balzaga, Estanislao Gonzales, Alberto Jimenez Ascension Hernandez Aristeo Lopez, Roberto Pena, and /or Ricardo Valle and DOES 1-50 and the DOES 1-50)

35. MONTI repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 34 above as though fully set forth herein.

36. On or about November 18, 2006, at Rancho Penasquitos in San Diego California, Defendants BALZAGA, GONZALEZ, JIMENEZ, HERNANDEZ, LOPEZ, PENA, and /or VALLE committed a battery upon MONTI by striking, physically attacking, and robbing MONTI.

37. In doing the acts as alleged above, defendants BALZAGA, GONZALEZ, JIMENEZ, HERNANDEZ, LOPEZ, PENA, and /or VALLE acted with the intent to make a contact with MONTI.

38. At no time did MONTI consent to any of the acts of defendants alleged above.

39. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged above, MONTI suffered physical injuries to his body in the form of cuts, scrapes, bruises and other injuries. Further, MONTI?s camera and cell phone were taken from him and destroyed.

40. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged above, MONTI was hurt and injured in his health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to his nervous system and person, all of which have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. As a result of these injuries, plaintiff has suffered general damages.

41. As a further proximate result of defendants,? and each of their, acts, MONTI has been damaged in that he has been required to expend money and incur obligations for medical services, drugs, and sundries reasonably required in the treatment and relief of the injuries herein alleged.

42. The aforementioned conduct of defendants, and each of them was willful and malicious and was intended to oppress and cause injury to MONTI. MONTI is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages.

VII.THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - CONSPIRACY
(Against Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego City Police Department,
San Diego City Police Officer Lenhart, in his personal and official capacity, Claudia Smith, and the DOES 1-10)

43. MONTI repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 above as though fully set forth herein.

44. Starting on or about November 18, 2006, defendants SMITH, LENHART, and DOES 1-10, and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to initiate criminal charges against MONTI, resulting in the criminal prosecution of MONTI, and the resulting criminal trial. They did so to harass, coerce, and intimidate MONTI into ceasing his opposition to illegal immigration and the resulting child prostitution.

45. Defendants SMITH, LENHART and DOES 1-10 did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and above-alleged agreement

46. Defendant SMITH furthered the conspiracy by appearing on national televison to publicly announce the charges that were subsequently filed against MONTI by the City Attorney?s Office of San Diego.

47. MONTI is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the last overt act in pursuance of the above-described conspiracy occurred has not occured, and this lawsuit was filed in furtherance of this conspiracy.

48. Defendant SMITH furthered the conspiracy by attempting to block MONTI from
subpoenaing witnesses with exculpatory evidence for his criminal trial.

49. Defendant LENHART furthered the conspiracy by not revealing to MONTI?s attorney in the criminal prosecution the identity, or existence, of exculpatory witnesses.

50. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, MONTI has been generally damaged.

51. In doing the things herein alleged, Defendants, and each of them, acted wilfully and with the intent to cause injury to MONTI. Defendants, and each of them, were therefore guilty of malice and/or oppression and/or frauds in conscious disregard of rights, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar misconducts.

SPECIFIC PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, MONTI prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For general damages to MONTI from each named Defendant in an amount to be
determined.

2. For all medical and incidental expenses according to proof;

3. For damages for mental and emotional distress according to proof.

4. For punitive damages against the individual defendants.

5. For costs of suit herein incurred.

6. For costs, interest, and attorneys? fees, pursuant to Civil Code § 52.1(h);

7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

Dated: April 6, 2008
UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION
GARY G. KREEP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHN MONTI

6 Responses to “John Monti Sues Claudia Smith, Day Laborers, and San Diego Police Department For Malicious Prosecution”
  1. Eddie B. says:

    I remember watching your videos on this Dog. Man, that was a long time ago. Keep up the fight! The worm has finally turned and it is about time.

    FIGHT ON PATRIOTS.

  2. Rob Chapman says:

    Great news, Dog.

    Although nothing an Invader does shocks, the actions of the SDPD are most despicable in this instance.

    I find it inexcusable and actually rather confusing as to their motivation.

    Cheers Dog-
    Rob

  3. Matthew says:

    I want in on this suit because claudia smithalaraza makes me sick to my stomach and gives me the heebeegeebee’s every time I see her smug putrid face. Take that bitch to the cleaners!

  4. BEADALONG says:

    This is great news Watchdog. It looks like Claudia might finally have her clock cleaned for her as well and the S’Diego PD will have some explaining to do too regarding the child prostitution and their lack of concern for it.

  5. The Watchdog says:

    Whatever you do Matthew, don’t click this picture!


  6. BEADALONG says:

    That’s hysterical Watchdog!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Login »

Close
E-mail It