DOUGLAS G. DRY, JUANITA
MCCONNELL and ROSIE BURLISON,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BRUCE BABBITT, in his official capacity as Secretary of Interior, ADA E. DEERE, in her offical capacity as Assistant Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs, JIM FIELDS, in his official capacity as the successor Muskogee Area BIA Director, PERRY PROCTOR, in both his official and individual capacities, DENNIS SPRINGWATER, in both his official and individual capacities, KAREN KETCHER, in both her official and individual capacities, CURTIS WILSON, in his official capacity as the BIA Contracts Officer, LARRY MINGS, in both his official and individual capacities, ROBERT RABON, SR., in both his official and individual capacities, ROBERT RABON, JR., in both his official and individual capacities, KIM REED, in both her official and individual capacities, HOPPY DENISON, in both his official and individual capacities, BILL BARROW, in both his official and individual capacities, MIKE RUSSELL, in both his official and individual capacities, STEVEN FLOWERS, in both his official and individual capacities, CHRIS WELCH, in both his official and individual capacities, KENNETH JOHNSON, in both his official and individual capacities, BLAKE JOHNICO, in both his official and individual capacities, CITY OF TALIHINA, JACK ENGLAND, in both his official and individual capacities, MALCOMB WADE, in both his official and individual capacities, NIKY HIBDON, in both her official and individual capacities, LLOYD JAMES, in both his official and individual capacities, JOHN WHEAT, in both his official and individual capacities, NAOMI O'DANIELS, in both her official and individual capacities, CITY OF CLAYTON, TERRY BELL, in both his official and individual capacities, ROWLAND HALL, in both his official and individual capacities, MIKE VAN HORN, in both his official and individual capacities, ROLAND BRADFORD, in both his official and individual capacities, REBECCA JOHNSON, in both her official and individual capacities, GERALDINE GRAMMAR, in both her official and individual capacities,

Defendants.

Comes now the Defendant's DOUGLAS G. DRY, JUANITA MCCONNELL and ROSIE BURLISON, and for their complaint states the following:

1. This is a civil action seeking damages against the Defendants for committing acts, under color of law, which deprived Plaintiffs of rights secured under the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States; for conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with the intent to deny Plaintiffs due process of law, equal protection of the law, and for refusing and neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to Plaintiffs. Additionally, federal tort claims as well as State of Oklahoma tort claims are plead against the Defendants.

2. Jurisdiction This is an action brought by the Plaintiff's pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Treaties between the Choctaw people and the United States, and laws of the United States for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy between the parties as hereinafter more fully appears. This court has original jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 and 28 U.S.C.A. Sections 1331, 1343 and 1346. State of Oklahoma pendant, supplemental and ancillary claims are additionally plead by way of 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1367.

3. Venue: Venue property lies in the Eastern District of Oklahoma under 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1331(e) because the events that give rise to the Plaintiff's claims occurred within this district and all parties, with the exception of Defendants' Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and Assistant Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs, Ada E. Deere, reside within this district.

4. Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, is a resident of the City of Wilburton, and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma, and the United States of America.

5. Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, is a resident of the City of Tuskahoma, and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma, and the United States of America.

6. Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, is a resident of the City of Atoka, and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma, and the United States of America.

7. Defendant, United States of America.

8. Defendant, Bruce Babbitt, is the Secretary for the Department of Interior and delegated by Congress of the United States to administer Indian Affairs.

9. Defendant, Ada E. Deere, is the Assistant Secretary for the Department of Interior, as head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

10. Defendant, Jim Fields, is the successor Muskogee Area Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

11. Defendant, Perry Proctor, is currently and was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Muskogee Area Office, Criminal Investigator at all times relevant to this complaint.

12. Defendant, Dennis Springwater, is currently and was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Muskogee Area Office, Tribal Operations Officer at all times relevant to this complaint.

13. Defendant, Karen Ketcher, is currently and was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Muskogee Area Office, Tribal Operations Specialist at all times relevant to this complaint.

14. Defendant, Curtis Wilson, is currently and was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Muskogee Area Office, Contracts Officer at all times relevant to this complaint.

15. Defendant, Larry Mings, is the Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent for the Talihina Agency which encompassed the area where in all acts Plaintiffs complained of occurred.

16. Defendant, Robert Rabon, Sr., is currently and was the Tribal Attorney for the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint.

17. Defendant, Robert Rabon, Jr., is currently and was the Prosecutor for the Choctaw Nation Court of Indian 0ffenses and acted in that capacity at all times relevant to this complaint.

18. Defendant, Kim Reed, is currently and was Director of Law Enforcement Operations for the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint and had supervisory power of the Defendant police officers in this action.

19. Defendant, Hoppy Denison, is currently and was Chief of Tribal Police for Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint and had direct supervisory control of the Defendant police officers at all times relevant to this complaint.

20. Defendant, Bill Barrow, is currently and was a Tribal Police Officer with the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint.

21. Defendant, Mike Russell, is currently and was a Tribal Police Officer with the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint.

22. Defendant, Steven Flowers, is currently and was a Tribal Police officer with the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint.

23. Defendant, Chris Welch, is currently and was a Tribal Police officer with the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint.

24. Defendant, Kenneth Johnson, was a security officer with the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint.

25. Defendant, Blake Johnico, was a security officer with the Choctaw Nation at all times relevant to this complaint.

26. Defendant, City of Talihina, is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

27. Defendant, Jack England, is currently and was Chief of Police for the City of Talihina at all times relevant to this complaint.

28. Defendant, Malcomb Wade, was Mayor for the City of Talihina at all times relevant to this complaint.

29. Defendant, Niky Hibdon, was the Vice-Mayor for the City of Talihina at all times relevant to this complaint.

30. Defendant, LLoyd James, was a member of the city council for the Defendant City of Talihina.

31. Defendant, John Wheat, for the City of Talihina at all times relevant to this complaint.

32. Defendant, Naomi O'Daniels, was a member of the City Council for City of Talihina at all times relevant to this complaint.

33. Defendant, City of Clayton, is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

34. Defendant, Terry Bell, is currently and was Chief of Police for the City of Clayton at all times relevant to this complaint.

35. Defendant, Rowland Hall, is currently and was the Mayor of the City of Clayton, State of Oklahoma, at all times relevant to this complaint.

36. Defendant, Mike Van Horn, is currently and was a member of the City Council for the City of Clayton at all times relevant to this complaint.

37. Defendant, Roland Bradford, is currently and was a member of the City Council for the City of Clayton at all times relevant to this complaint.

38. Defendant, Rebecca Johnson, is currently and was a member of the City Council for the City of Clayton at all times relevant to this complaint.

39. Defendant, Geraldine Grammar, is currently and was a member of the City Council for the City of Clayton at all times relevant to this complaint.

40. Plaintiffs sue each and all defendants with the exception of the United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Curtis Wilson and the Cities of Talihina and Clayton, in both their official and individual capacities.

41. At all times material to this complaint, Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, Larry Mings, Kim Reed, and Hoppy Denison, acted under the color of statutes, customs, regulations, ordinances, Code of Federal Regulations and useage of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and their actions arise directly under federal laws and the Constitution of the United States.

42. At all times material to this complaint, Defendants' Bill Barrow, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Chris Welch, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, acted under the color of statutes, customs, regulations, ordinances, Code of Federal Regulations and useage under the authority granted to them by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and their actions also arise directly under federal laws and the Constitution of the United States.

43. At all times material to this complaint, Defendants" City of Talihina, Jack England, Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniel's, acted under the color of statutes, customs, ordinances and useage of the State of Oklahoma.

44. At all times material to this complaint, Defendants' City of Clayton, Terry Bell, Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson, and Geraldine Grammar, acted under the color of statutes, customs, ordinances and useage of the State of Oklahoma.

45. On or about the 4th day of September, 1995, in the morning hours, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, was attending the Labor Day festivities at Tuskahoma, Oklahoma.

46. Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, had on his possession items of literature which expressed opinions concerning matters of public concern.

47. Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, approached the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, forceably restrained the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, placed Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry under arrest, refused to tell Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry why he was under arrest and seized the literature he was carrying.

48. Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, beat, dragged and bodily removed Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry from this location, near Tuskahoma, Oklahoma, without provocation, need, or explanation, and transported Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry to the Talihina Police Department located in the City of Talihina, Oklahoma arriving there in the morning hours of September 4, 1995.

49. While at the Tuskahoma grounds, Defendants' Mike Russell and Steven Flowers, assaulted and beat brutally Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry, slamming his head onto the tribal police car, the Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry then being in police custody, unarmed, and unable to resist Defendants'.

50. As a result of the unlawful arrest and assault by the Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson and Blake Johnico, the Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry suffered lacerations about his head and injuries to his body.

51. The Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, was wrongfully incarcerated in the Talihina City Jail, September 4, 1995 for over two hours while Defendant Hoppy Denison conspired with tribal attorney Robert Rabon, Sr., as to what criminal charges could justify the illegal acts of the Defendant police
officers.

52. The Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, never received any information as to why he was arrested for several hours, until after being transported from the Talihina City Jail back to Tuskahoma Tribal Grounds for a Court of Indian 0ffenses court appearance.

53. The Defendants', Robert Rabon, Sr. and Robert Rabon, Jr., made statements in their capacity as tribal officials that Plaintiff Dry had been arrested for passing out the literature described above. Additionally, the Defendant, Robert Rabon, Jr., made statements in his capacity as the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs prosecutor that Plaintiff Dry had been arrested for passing out literature.

54. Later on or about September 4, 1995 the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, was wrongfully and maliciously charged in The Choctaw Court of Indian 0ffenses by Defendant Robert Rabon, Jr., with seven offenses in CR-95-05, Count I: Public Disburbance; Count II: Disturbance of a Parade; Count III: Disburbance of the Peace; Count IV: Use of language calculated to arouse anger (Breach of the Peace]; CR-95-1, Count I: Assault on a Police Officer; CountII Attempt to Intimidate an Officer; CR-95-2, Resisting Arrest.

55. The criminal charges described in paragraph 54 above have yet to be resolved.

56. The Choctaw Nation, did not have the authority or the jurisdiction to prescribe the conduct for which the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, was arrested, and therefore the
actions of the Defendants I Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, were pursuant to the authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which places this conduct directly under the Constitution of the United States.

57. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrest of Plaintiff Dry for exercising his rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Defendants' HoppyDenison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff's rights, deprived Plaintiff Dry of his right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, due process, equal protection of the laws and impeded the due course of justice, in violation of the 1st, and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, demands judgment against Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, Blake Johnico, Robert Rabon, Sr., and Robert Rabon, Jr., jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the said Defendant's jointly and severally, for punitive damages in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00 plus costs of this action and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

58. Plaintiff Dry reallege and incorporate paragraphs 45 through 57 of Count I above, as if fully set forth herein as Count II.

59. There was no warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, September 4, 1995.

60. The arrest of the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, by Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Defendant Blake Johnico, as stated in paragraph 47 above was without reasonable grounds for said Defendants to believe-Plaintiff Dry had committed an offense and the Defendants' knew they were without probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry.

61. Neither at the time of arrest, as stated above, nor at any other time was Plaintiff Dry informed of the grounds for said arrest. No complaint, information or indictment was ever sworn against Plaintiff Dry alleging offenses occurring prior to the moment Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, announced to Plaintiff Dry that he was under arrest.

62. The Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, was transported to the Talihina Police Station, as stated above, where he was incarcerated for over 2 hours and was not released for approximately 3-1/2 hours.

63. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrest of Plaintiff Dry, the Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, deprived Plaintiff Dry of his liberty without due process of law and deprived him of equal protection of the laws, in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

64. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious detention, and confinement of Plaintiff Dry, Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff's rights, deprived Plaintiff Dry of his liberty without due process of law and deprived him of equal protection of law in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, demands judgment against the Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Defendant Blake Johnico, jointly
and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the Defendant's jointly and severally, for punitive damage in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00 plus the cost of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

65. Plaintiff Dry reallege and incorporate paragraphs 45 through 57 of Count I above, and paragraphs 58 through 64 of Count II, above as if fully set forth herein as Count III.

66. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants' Kim Reed as Director of Law Enforcement Operations for the Choctaw Nation, Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson and Blake Johnico, as police officers of the
Choctaw Nation Tribal Police Department, were acting as federal law enforcement officers pursuant to the authority granted them by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the Indian Law Enforcement Act, 25 U.S.C.A. 2801, et seq., under the direction and control of Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings.

67. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff Dry's rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing bases Defendant tribal police officers in their duties to refrain from: 1) unlawfully and maliciously harassing Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; 2) unlawfully and maliciously arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting a citizen who is in accordance with constitutional abd statutory rights, privileges and immunities; 3) unlawfully and maliciously beating a citizen or otherwise using unreasonable and excessive force before, during or after the making of an arrest, whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful; 4) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges and immunites guaranteed to Plaintiff Dry by the Constitution and laws of the United States; 5) otherwise depriving Plaintiff Dry of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities.

68. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, had knowledge or, had negligently exercised their duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis, should have knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, had power to prevent or aid in preventing the comission of said wrong, could have done so by reasonable diligence, and knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of the Plaintiff Dry's rights failed or refused to do so.

69. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, wanton conduct of Defendant police officers heretofore described.

70. As a direct approximate cause of the acts of the Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, as set forth in paragraphs 66 through 69 above, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, suffered physical injury, loss of money, medical expenses, loss of temporary and permanent enjoyment of property, severe mental anguish, damage to reputation and community standing, in connection with deprivation of Plaintiff Dry's constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, demands judgment against the Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages for punitive damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs of this action and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

71. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate paragraphs 45 through 57 of Count I above, paragraphs 58 through 64 of Count II above, and paragraphs 65 through 70 of Count III above, as if fully set forth herein as Count IV.

72. This claim is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2410 et seq., the Federal Tort Claims Act.

73. Timely proceedings have been commenced, as the date of occurrence of the alleged wrongful acts occurred September 4, 1995. The United States Department of Interior, Office of
the Solicitor, denied this tort claim of Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, by letter dated December 30, 1996.

74. The Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, and Blake Johnico, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously, committed against the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, an assault and battery, unlawful detention, false imprisonment, and wrongful arrest.

75. The Defendant Robert Rabon, Jr., deliberately and intentionally committed and continues to commit malicious prosecution and abuse of process against the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, through the continued wrongful and false criminal prosecution in the Court of Indian 0ffenses of the Choctaw Nation.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, demands judgment against Defendants' Hoppy Denison, Mike Russell, Steven Flowers, Kenneth Johnson, Blake Johnico, and Robert Rabon, Jr., jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

76. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate paragraphs 45 through 57 of Count I above, paragraphs 58 through 64 of Count II above, and paragraphs 65 through 70 of Count III above, paragraphs 71 through 75 of Count IV above, as if fully set forth herein as Count V.

77. On the morning of September 4, 1995 at approximately
9:30 a.m. Plaintiff Dry was unlawfully arrested and taken to
the Talihina City Jail located in Talihina, Oklahoma for the purpose of incarcerating the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry.

78. Defendant Jack England agreed to take custody of Plaintiff Dry from the Choctaw Nation Tribal Police.

79. Defendant Jack England took custody of Plaintiff Dry without first establishing that the Plaintiff had been arrested for any valid criminal violation.

80. The Defendant Jack England called, by telephone, the Choctaw Tribal police repeatedly in an effort to determine the criminal violations for which Plaintiff Douglas G. Dry had been arrested and incarcerated. The Defendant Jack England never obtained any statement, nor any formal or informal assertion by the police of the Choctaw Nation as to why the Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, had been arrested and therefore, without such probable cause for Plaintiff Dry's detention, the Defendant Jack England continued to keep the Plaintiff in his jail for over 2 hours with no basis for the detention.

81. After over 2 hours of detention in the Talihina City Jail by the Defendant Jack England, Plaintiff Dry's custody was transferred to the Choctaw Nation Tribal authorities and taken to the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation [a/k/a Choctaw Tribal Courthouse) at Tuskahoma, Oklahoma for a court appearance on charges that were never communicated to the Talihina police to establish a lawful basis for detention of Plaintiff Dry.

82. The Defendant Jack England worked under the direct supervision and control at all times relevant to this
complaint of Defendants' Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels.

83. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or customs Defendants' Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff Dry's rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing basis, Defendant Jack England on his duties to refrain from: 1) unlawfully imprisoning a citizen who was acting according to his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; 2) unlawfully detaining a citizen without any basis for the continued detention of a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; and 3) otherwise depriving Plaintiff Dry of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities of the United States.

84. Defendants' Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma had knowlege, or, had negligently exercised their duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis, and should of had knowledge that the wrongs done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed.

85. Defendants' Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma had power to prevent and aid in the prevention in the commission of said wrongs, could have so by a reasonable
diligence, and knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff Dry's rights failed or refuse to do so.

86. Defendants I Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, reckless, and wanton contact of Defendant Jack England heretofore described.

87. Direct and -- proximate cause of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants' Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma as set forth in paragraphs 77 through 86 above, Plaintiff Dry suffered severe mental anguish, loss of liberty, in connection with deprivation of his constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, demands judgment against the Defendants' Jack England, Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma, jointly and severely, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, and further demands judgment against of said Defendant's (except the City of Talihina), jointly and severely, for punitive damages in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00, plus the cost of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

88. Plaintiff Dry reallege and incorporate paragraphs 45 through 57 of Count I above, paragraphs 58 through 64 of Count II above, paragraphs 65 through 70 of Count III above, paragraphs 71 to 75 of Count IV above, and paragraphs 76 through 87 of Count V above, as if fully set forth herein as Count VI.

89. This claim is brought pursuant to 51 O.S. Section 151, et seq., the Governmental Tort Claims Act of the State of Oklahoma.

90. Timely proceedings have been commenced, as the date of the occurrence of the alleged wrongful acts which occurred September 4, 1995. The Clerk of the City of Talihina, State of Oklahoma, was sent notification of said claim. Further, said claim was deemed denied in that the City of Talihina failed to give the notice required by statute within the 90 day period to the Plaintiff Dry. Further this action is commenced within 180 days from said 90 day period.

91. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or customs Defendants' Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma, knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff Dry's rights failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing basis, Defendant Jack England on his duties to refrain from: 1) false imprisonment of a citizen; 2) unlawfully detaining a citizen without any basis for the
continued detention of a citizen.

92. Direct and proximate cause of the acts of the Defendants' Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma as set forth in paragraphs 88 through 91 above, Plaintiff Dry suffered severe mental anguish, loss of liberty, in connection with his false imprisonment and unlawful detention.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Douglas G. Dry, demands judgment against the Defendants' Jack England, Malcomb Wade, Niky Hibdon, Lloyd James, John Wheat, and Naomi O'Daniels, and City of Talihina, Oklahoma, jointly and severely, for compensatory damages in the amount $100,000.00, plus the cost of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

93. On or about the 4th day of September, 1995, in the morning hours, Piaintiff, Juanita McConnell, was attending the Labor Day festivities at Tuskahoma, Oklahoma.

94. Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, had on her possession items of literature which expressed opinions concerning matters of public concern.

95. Defendants' Bill Barrow and Chris Welch, approached the Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, forceably restrained the Plaintiff, and placed Plaintiff under arrest, for being in possession of the literature and seized the literature she was carrying.

96. Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, and Blake Johnico, assaulted and bodily removed Plaintiff McConnell from this location near Tuskahoma, Oklahoma, without provocation/ need, or explanation, and transported Plaintiff to the Clayton Police Department located in the City of Clayton, Oklahoma, arriving there in the morning hours of September 4, 1995.

97. While at the Tuskahoma grounds, Defendants' Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, and Blake Johnico assaulted and brutally battered Plaintiff Juanita McConnell, while placing handcuffs on her person under the direct supervision Defendant Kim Reed.

98. As a result of the unlawful arrest and assault by the Defendants' Bill Barrow, Chris Welch and Blake Johnico, the Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, suffered injuries to her right wrist and bruises on upper thighs and upper arms.

99. The Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, was wrongfully incarcerated in the Clayton City Jail, September 4, 1995 for over two hours while Defendant Hoppy Denison conspired with tribal attorney, Defendant Robert Rabon, Sr., as to what criminal charges could justify the illegal acts of the Defendant police officers.

100. The Defendants', Robert Rabon, Sr. and Robert Rabon, Jr., made statements in their capacity as tribal officials that Plaintiff McConnell had been arrested for passing out the literature described above. Additionally, the Defendant, Robert Rabon, Jr., made statements in his capacity as the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs prosecutor that Plaintiff McConnell had been arrested for passing out the literature.

101. Later on or about September 14, 1995 the Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, was wrongfully and maliciously charged in the Court of Indian 0ffenses of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma by Defendant Robert Rabon, Jr., with five offenses in CR-95-03, Resisting Arrest; CR-95-05, Count I: Public Disturbance; Count II: Disturbance of a Parade; Count III: Disturbance of the Peace; Count IV: Use of Language Calculated to Arose Anger [Breach of Peace].

102. The criminal charges described in paragraph 101 above have yet to be resolved.

103. The Choctaw Nation, did not have the authority or the jurisdiction to prescribe the conduct for which the Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, was arrested, and therefore the actions of the Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, and Blake Johnico were pursuant to the authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which places this conduct directly under the Constitution of the United States.

104. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrest of the Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, for exercising her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, and Blake Johnico intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff's rights, deprived Plaintiff McConnell of her right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, due process, equal protection of the laws and impeded the due course of justice, in violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of
the United States.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, demands judgment against Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, Blake Johnico, Robert Rabon, Sr., and Robert Rabon, Jr., jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the said Defendant's jointly and severally, for punitive damages
in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus costs of this action and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

105. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate paragraphs 93 through 104 of Count VII above, as if fully set forth herein as Count VIII.

106. There was no warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff Juanita McConnell, September 4, 1995.

107. The arrest of the Plaintiff Juanita McConnell by Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, and Blake Johnico as stated in paragraph 95 above was without reasonable grounds for said Defendants' to believe Plaintiff Juanita McConnell had committed an offense and the Defendants' knew they were without probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff Juanita McConnell.

108. Neither at the time of arrest, as stated above, nor at any other time was Plaintiff Juanita McConnell informed of the grounds for said arrest other than for possessing and passing out literature. No complaint, information or indictment was ever sworn against Plaintiff Juanita McConnell alleging offenses occurring prior to the moment Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, and Blake Johnico announced to Plaintiff that she was under arrest.

109. The Plaintiff Juanita McConnell was transported to the Clayton Police Station, as stated above, where she was incarcerated for over 2 hours and was not released for approximately 3-1/2 hours.

110. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrest of- Plaintiff Juanita McConnell, the Defendants" Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch and Blake Johnico, deprived Plaintiff of her liberty without due process of law and deprived her of equal protection of the laws, in violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

111. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious detention, and confinement of Plaintiff Juanita McConnell, Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch and Blake Johnico, intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff's rights, deprived Plaintiff of her liberty without due process of law and deprived her of equal protection of law in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, demands judgment against the Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch, and Blake Johnico, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the Defendant's jointly and severally, for punitive damage in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus the cost of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

112. laintiff reallege and incorporates paragraphs 93 through 104 of Count VII above, and paragraphs 105 through 111 of Count VIII above, as if fully set forth herein as Count IX.

113. At all times-relevant to this complaint, Defendants' Kim Reed, as Director of Law Enforcement Operations for the Choctaw Nation, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch and Blake Johnico, as police officers of the Choctaw Nation Tribal Police Department, were acting as federal law enforcement officers pursuant to the authority granted them by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the Indian Law Enforcement Act, 25 U.S.C.A. 2801, et seq., under the direction and control of Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings.

114. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff McConnell's rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing bases Defendant tribal police officers in their duties to refrain from: 1) unlawfully and maliciously harassing Plaintiff Juanita McConnell who was acting in accordance with her constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; 2) unlawfully and maliciously arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting a citizen in accordance with constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities; 3) unlawfully and maliciously beating a citizen or otherwise using unreasonable and excessive force before, during or after the making of an arrest, whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful; 4) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges and immunites guaranteed to Plaintiff Juanita McConnell by the Constitutional laws of the United States; 5) otherwise depriving Plaintiff Juanita McConnell of her constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities.

115. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, had knowledge or, had negligently exercised their duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis, and should have knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, had power to prevent or aid in preventing the comission of said wrong, could have done so by reasonable diligence, and knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of the Plaintiff McConnell's rights failed or refused to do so.

116. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, wanton conduct of Defendant police officers heretofore described.

117. As a direct- approximate cause of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, as set forth in paragraphs 115 through 118 above, Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, suffered physical injury, loss of money, medical expenses, loss of temporary and permanent enjoyment of property, severe mental anguish, damage to reputation and community standing, in connection with deprivation of Plaintiff McConnell's constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, demands judgment against the Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages for punitive damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs of this action and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

118. Plaintiff McConnell reallege and incorporate paragraphs 93 through 104 of Count VII above, paragraphs 105 through 111 of Count VIII above, and paragraphs 112 through 117 of Count IX above.- as if fully set forth herein as Count X.

119. This claim is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2410 et sea., the Federal Tort Claims Act.

120. Timely proceedings have been commenced, as the date of occurrence of the alleged wrongful acts occurred September 4, 1995. The United States Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor, denied this tort claim of Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, by letter dated December 30, 1996.

121. The Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch and Blake Johnico, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously, committed against the Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, an assault and battery, unlawful detention, false imprisonment, and wrongful arrest.

122. The Defendant Robert Rabon, Jr., deliberately and intentionally committed and continues to commit malicious prosecution and abuse of process against the Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, through the continued wrongful and false criminal prosecution in the Court of Indian 0ffenses of the
Choctaw Nation.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Juanita McConnell, demands judgment against Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Chris Welch and Blake Johnico, and Robert Rabon, Jr., jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

123. on or about-the 4th day of September, 1995, in the morning hours, Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, was attending the Labor Day festivities at Tuskahoma, Oklahoma.

124. Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, had on her possession items of literature which expressed opinions concerning matters of public concern.

125. Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, approached the Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, assaulted her, seized her video camera, forceably restrained her, placed Plaintiff Rosie Burlison under arrest, refused to tell Plaintiff Rosie Burlison why she was under arrest and seized the literature she was carrying.

126. Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, assaulted, handcuffed and bodily removed Plaintiff Rosie Burlison from this location near Tuskahoma, Oklahoma, without provocation, need, or explanation, and transported Plaintiff Rosie Burlison to the Clayton Police Department located in the City of Clayton, Oklahoma arriving there in the morning hours of September 4, 1995.

127. As a result of the unlawful arrest and assault by the Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, the Plaintiff Rosie Burlison suffered bruises and swelling about her wrist and injuries to her body.

128. The Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, was incarcerated in the Clayton City Jail, September 4, 1995 for over two hours while Defendant Hoppy Denison conspired with tribal attorney, Defendant Robert Rabon, Sr., as to what criminal charges could justify the illegal acts of the Defendant police officers.

129. The Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, never received any information as to why she was arrested other than for resisting arrest, until after being transported from the Clayton City Jail back to Tuskahoma Tribal Grounds for a Court of Indian 0ffenses court appearance.

130. The Defendants', Robert Rabon, Sr. and Robert Rabon, Jr., made statements in his capacity as tribal officials that Plaintiff Rosie Burlison had been arrested for Passing out the literature described above. Additionally, the Defendant, Robert Rabon, Jr., made statements in his capacity as the federal Bureau of Indian prosecutor that Plaintiff Rosie Burlison had been arrested for passing out the literature.

131. Later on or about September 14, 1995 the Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, was wrongfully and maliciously charged in the Court of Indian 0ffenses of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma by Defendant Robert Rabon, Jr., with five offenses in CR-95-04, Interferring with Police Officer from Official Duties; CR-95-05, Count I: Public Disturbance; Count II: Disturbed of a Parade; Count III: Disburbed the Peace; Count IV: Use of Language Calculated to Arouse Anger [Breach of the Peace].

132. The criminal charges described in paragraph 133 above have yet to be resolved.

133. The Choctaw Nation, did not have the authority or the jurisdiction to prescribe the conduct for which the Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, was arrested, and therefore the actions of the Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, were pursuant to the authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which places this conduct directly under the Constitution of the United States.

134. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrest of the Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, for exercising her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff's rights, deprived Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, of her right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, due process, equal protection of the laws and impeded the due course of justice, in violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, demands judgment against Defendants' Kim Reed, Bill Barrow, Robert Rabon, Sr., and Robert Rabon, Jr., jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount of in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the said Defendant's jointly and severally, for punitive damages in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00 plus costs of this action and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

135. Plaintiff Rosie Burlison reallege and incorporate paragraphs 123 through 134 of Count XI above as if fully set forth herein as Count XII.

136. There was no warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, September 4, 1995.

137. The arrest -of the Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, by Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, as stated in paragraph 127 above was without reasonable grounds for said Defendants' to believe Plaintiff Rosie Burlison had committed an offense and the Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, knew they were without probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison.

138. Neither at the time of arrest, as stated above, nor at any other time was Plaintiff Rosie Burlison informed of the grounds for said arrest other than resisting arrest. No complaint, information or indictment was ever sworn against Plaintiff Rosie Burlison alleging offenses occurring prior to the momemt Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, announced to Plaintiff Rosie Burlison that she was under arrest.

139. The Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, was transported to the Clayton Police Station, as stated above, where she was incarcerated for over 2 hours and was not released for approximately 3-1/2 hours.

140. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrest of Plaintiff Rosie Burlison, the Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, deprived Plaintiff Rosie Burlison of her liberty without due process of law and deprived her of equal protection of the laws, in violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

141. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious detention, and confinement of Plaintiff Rosie Burlison, Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, intentionally, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff's rights, deprived Plaintiff Rosie Burlison of her liberty without due process of law and deprived her of equal protection of law in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, demands judgment against the Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the Defendant's jointly and severally, for punitive damage in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus the cost of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

142. Plaintiff Rosie Burlison reallege and incorporate paragraphs 123 through 134 of Count XI above, and paragraphs 135 through 141 of Count XII above, as if fully set forth herein as Count XIII.

143. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants' Kim Reed, as Director of Law Enforcement for the Choctaw Nation and Bill Barrow, as police officer of the Choctaw Nation Tribal Police Department, were acting as federal law enforcement officers pursuant to the authority granted them by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the Indian Law Enforcement Act, 25 U.S.C.A. 2801, et seq., under the direction and control of Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings.

144. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff Rosie Burlison's rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing bases Defendant tribal police officers in their duties to refrain from: 1) unlawfully and maliciously harassing Plaintiff Rosie Burlison who was acting in accordance with her constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; 2) unlawfully and maliciously arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting a citizen who is in accordance with constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities; 3) unlawfully and maliciously beating a citizen or otherwise using unreasonable and excessive force before, during or after the making of an arrest, whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful; 4) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges and immunites guaranteed to Plaintiff Rosie
Burlison by the Constitution and laws of the United States; 5) otherwise depriving Plaintiff Rosie Burlison of her constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities.

145. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, had knowledge or, had negligently exercised their duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis, and should have knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, had power to prevent or aid in preventing the comission of said wrong, could have done so by reasonable diligence, and knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of the Plaintiff Rosie Burlison's rights failed or refused to do so.

146. Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, wanton conduct of Defendant police officers heretofore described.

147. As a direct approximate cause of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, as set forth in paragraphs 143 through 146 above, Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, suffered physical injury, loss of money, medical expenses, loss of temporary and permanent enjoyment of property, severe mental anguish, damage to reputation and community standing, in connection with deprivation of Plaintiff Rosie Burlison's constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, demands judgment against the Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in the amount in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages for punitive damages in the amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs of this action and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

148. Plaintiff Rosie Burlison reallege and incorporate paragraphs 123 through 134 of Count XI above, paragraphs 135 through 141 of Count XII above, and paragraphs 142 through 147 of Count XIII above, as if fully set forth herein as Count XIV.

149. This claim is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
Section 2410 et sea., the Federal Tort Claims Act.

150. Timely proceedings have been commenced, as the date of occurrence of the alleged wrongful acts occurred September 4, 1995. The United States Department of Interior, office of the Solicitor, denied this tort claim of Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, by letter dated December 30, 1996.

151. The Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously, committed against the Plaintiff, Rosie- Burlison, an assault and battery, unlawful detention, false imprisonment, and wrongful arrest.

152. The Defendant Robert Rabon, Jr., deliberately and intentionally committed and continues to commit malicious prosecution and abuse of process against the Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, through the continued wrongful and false criminal prosecution in the Court of Indian 0ffenses of the Choctaw Nation.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Rosie Burlison, demands judgment against Defendants' Kim Reed and Bill Barrow,and Robert Rabon, Jr., jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in the amount of in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

153. Plaintiff Juanita McConnell reallege and incorporate paragraphs 93 through 104 of Count VII above, paragraphs 105 through 111 of Count VIII above, paragraphs 112 through 117 of Count IX above, and paragraphs 118 through 122 of Count X, as if fully set forth herein as Count XV.

154. Plaintiff Rosie Burlison reallege and incorporate paragraphs 123 through 134 of Count XI above, paragraphs 135 through 141 of Count XII above, paragraphs 142 through 147 of Count XIII above, and paragraphs 148 through 152 of Count XIV above, as if fully set forth herein as Count XV.

155. On the morning of September 4, 1995 at approximately 9:30 a.m. Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison were unlawfully arrested and taken to the Clayton City Jail located in Clayton, Oklahoma -for the purpose of incarcerating the Plaintiffs, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison.

156. Defendant Terry Bell agreed to take custody of the Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, from the Choctaw Nation Tribal Police.

157. Defendant Terry Bell took custody of the Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, without first establishing that the Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, had been arrested for any valid criminal violation.

158. After over 2 hours of detention in the Clayton City Jail by the Defendant Bell, Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison's custody was transferred to the Choctaw Nation Tribal authorities and taken to the Choctaw Tribal Courthouse at Tuskahoma, Oklahoma for a court appearance.

159. The Defendant Terry Bell worked under the direct supervision and control at all times relevant to this complaint of Defendants' Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar.

160. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or customs Defendants' City of Clayton, Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison's rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing basis, Defendant Bell on his duties to refrain from: 1) unlawfully imprisoning citizens who were acting according to their constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; 2) unlawfully detaining citizens without any basis for the continued detention of citizens who were acting in accordance with their constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities; and 3) otherwise depriving Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison of their constitutional and statutory rights, privileges! and immunities of the United States.

161. Defendants' Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma had knowlege, or, had they diligently exercised their duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis, and should of had knowledge that the wrongs done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed.

162. Defendants' Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma had power to prevent and aid in the prevention in the commission of said wrongs, could have so by
a reasonable diligence, and knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison's rights failed or refuse to do so.

163. Defendants' Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Rowland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton contact of Defendant Terry Bell heretofore described.

164. Direct and proximate cause of the acts of the Defendants' Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma as set forth in paragraphs 157 through 166 above, Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison suffered severe mental anguish, loss of liberty, and damage to reputation and community standing, in connection with deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, demand judgment against the Defendants' Terry Bell, Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma, jointly and severely, for compensatory damages in the amount in excess of $50,000.00, and further demands judgment against of said Defendant's (except the City of Clayton), jointly and severely, for punitive damages in the amount of in excess of $50,000.00, plus the cost of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

165. Plaintiff Juanita McConnell reallege and incorporate paragraphs 93 through 104 of Count VII above, paragraphs 105 through 111 of Count VIII above, paragraphs 112 through 117 of Count IX above, paragraphs 118 through 122 of Count X, and paragraphs 154 through- 164 above, as if fully set forth herein as Count XVI.

166. Plaintiff Rosie Burlison reallege and incorporate paragraphs 123 through 134 of Count XI above, paragraphs 135 through 141 of Count XII above, paragraphs 142 through 147 of Count XIII above, paragraphs 148 through 152 of Count XIV above, and paragraphs 153 through 164 above, as if fully set forth herein as Count XVI.

167. This claim is brought pursuant to 51 O.S. Section 151, et seq., the Governmental Tort Claims Act of the State of Oklahoma.

168. Timely proceedings have been commenced, as the date of the occurrence of the alleged wrongful acts which occurred September 4, 1995. The Clerk of the City of Clayton, State of Oklahoma, was sent notification of said claim. Further, said claim was deemed denied in that City of Clayton failed to give the notice required by statute within the 90 day period to the Plaintiffs McConnell and Burlison. Further this action is commenced within 180 days from said 90 day period.

169. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or customs Defendants' Terry Bell, Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma, knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison's rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing basis, Defendant Terry Bell on his duties to refrain from: 1) false imprisonment of citizens; 2) unlawfully detaining citizens without any basis for the continued detention of citizens.

170. Direct and proximate cause of the acts of the Defendants' Terry Bell, Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma, as set forth in paragraphs 165 through 169 above, Plaintiffs Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison suffered severe mental anguish, loss of liberty, damage to reputation and community standing, in connection with their false imprisonment and unlawful detention.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, demands judgment against the Defendants' Terry Bell, Rowland Hall, Mike Van Horn, Roland Bradford, Rebecca Johnson and Geraldine Grammar, and City of Clayton, Oklahoma, jointly and severely, for compensatory damages in the amount $100,000.00, plus the cost of this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

171. Plaintiffs, Douglas G. Dry, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, reallege and incorporates paragraphs 45 through 170 of Counts I through XVI above, as if fully set forth herein as Count XVII.

172. On September 27, 1830, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, 7 Stat. 333, was signed between the United States and Choctaw Nation. Under Article VII, the United States agreed, "All acts of violence committed upon persons and property of the people of the Choctaw Nation either by citizens of the U.S. or neighbouring Tribes of Red People, shall be referred to some authorized Agent by him to be referred to the President of the U.S. who shall examine into such cases and see that every possible degree of justice is done to said Indian party of the Choctaw Nation." Plaintiffs Dry, Burlison and McConnell hereby make demand upon the United States and its authorized agents for acts of violence committed upon their persons and property.

173. On June 22, 1855, a treaty was signed between the Choctaw Nation, Chickasaw Nation and the United States, 11 Stat. 573. Under Article XIV, the United States agreed, "The United States shall protect the Choctaws and Chickasaws from domestic strife, from hostile invasion, and from aggression by other Indians and white persons not subject to their Jurisdiction and laws; and for all injuries, resulting from such invasion or aggression, full indemnity is hereby guaranteed to the party or parties injured, out of the treasury of the United States, upon the same principle and according to the same rules upon which white persons are entitled to indemnity for injuries or aggressions upon the, committed by Indians." Plaintiffs Dry, Burlison and McConnell hereby make demand upon the United States and its authorized agents for injuries they sustained during acts of agression by the Choctaw Nation law enforcement committed upon their persons and property.

174. On July 10, 1866, a treaty was signed between the Choctaw Nation, Chickasaw Nation and the United States. Under Article X, the United States agreed, "The United States reaffirms all obligations arising out of the treaty stipulations or acts of legislation with regard to the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, entered into prior to the late rebellion, and in force at that time, not inconsistent herewith; ..."

Wherefore, Plaintiffs, Douglas G. Dry, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, demand judgment against the Defendants' United States of America, Bruce Babbitt, Ada E. Deere, Jim Fields, Perry Proctor, Dennis Springwater, Karen Ketcher, Curtis Wilson, and Larry Mings, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 and further demands judgment against each of the said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages for punitive damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs of this action and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Douglas G. Dry, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, prays that this court advance this case on the docket, order a speedy trial at the earliest practical date, cause this case to be expedited in every way possible and upon such hearing to:

(1) Order Defendants listed above to pay compensatory and punitive damages and in support states that the conduct of the Defendants and each of them severely and acting in concert caused but not limited to the above listed damages to include but not limited to the following enumerated damages suffered by the Plaintiffs for which they bring this action:

A. Physical, emotional and mental distress, embarrassment and humiliation,

B. Costs of attorney fees of this Action,

C. Punitive damages.

D. Loss of Income.

Dated:_______________

DOUGLAS G. DRY, OBA #012653
103-1/2 West Main
P.O. Box 637
Wilburton, Oklahoma 74578
(918) 465-5033
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Jury Trial Demanded
Attorneys' Lien Claimed

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Douglas G. Dry, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Burlison, prays that this court advance this case on the docket, order a speedy trial at the earliest practical date, cause this case to be expedited in every way possible and upon such hearing to:

(1) Order Defendants listed above to pay compensatory and punitive damages and in support states that the conduct of the Defendants and each of them severely and acting in concert caused but not limited to the above listed damages to include but not limited to the following enumerated damages suffered by the Plaintiffs for which they bring this action:

A. Physical, emotional and mental distress, embarrassment and humiliation,

B. Costs of attorney fees of this Action,

C. Punitive damages.

D.). Loss of Income.

Jury Trial Demanded

Attorneys' Lien Claimed

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
ss.
COUNTY OF LATIMER

I, DOUGLAS G. DRY, the plaintiff named above, under the penalties of perjury state that I have carefully read the foregoing instrument in its entirety, and to the best of my knowledge and understanding the allegations made therein are true.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me, a Notary Public, this 24th day of February, 1997.

My Commission Expires:

5-19-97

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
ss.
COUNTY OF LATIMER

I, JUANITA MCCONNELL, the plaintiff named above, under the penalties of perjury state that I have carefully read the foregoing instrument in its entirety, and to the best of my knowledge and understanding the allegations made therein are true.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me, a Notary Public, this 24th day of February, 1997.

My Commission Expires:

5-19-97

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
ss.
COUNTY OF LATIMER

I, ROSIE BURLISON, the plaintiff named above, under the penalties of perjury state that I have carefully read the foregoing instrument in its entirety, and to the best of my knowledge and understanding the allegations made therein are true.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me, a Notary Public, this 24th day of February, 1997.

MY Commission Expires:

5-19-97