On November 4, 2003, a Citizens Arrest of Scott Kevin Bagwell, Davie Police Officer Richard Wendrow, Davie Florida Police Detective Joann Carter, and Davie Police Lieutenant Michael Allen, was made before the Davie Town Council at the Town Meeting.  All arrests were made for DOCUMENTED FELONIES, committed by these parties.

The only comment made to these lawful arrests was made by Mayor/Attorney Tom Truex, requesting that I hurry up.  Thus, Attorney Tom Truex, acting as an agent on behalf of the Town Of Davie, Florida, further involved himself and other principles of the Town. 

Failure to act will be construed as Obstruction Of Justice, Aiding and Abetting the Stalking of a Minor under 16 years of Age (Aggravated Felony Stalking), Official Misconduct, and Discrimination (18 USC 242) for starters.

Time elapsed since no action was taken (days, hours, minutes, seconds):

--------------------------------------------------

I AM AN FBI INFORMANT AGAINST SCOTT KEVIN BAGWELL.
THE FOLLOWING IS RETALIATION AGAINST A GOVERNMENT
WITNESS/INFORMANT, AIDED AND ABETTED BY THE DAVIE
FLORIDA POLICE DEPARTMENT, CODE COMPLIANCE, AND
THE TOWN OF DAVIE et al.

--------------------------------------------------

PREFACE: 

In 1999, the 9th Circuit ruled:

Any government agent can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples' homes at will.
[It is] settled constitutional law that...police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority when probable cause existed. The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into peoples' houses without a search warrant...is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.
Appellants' claim that "a search warrant is not required for home investigatory visits by social workers" is simply not the law.
Nowhere is the proactive force of the 4th Amendment more powerful than it is when the sanctity of the home is involved...therefore, we have been adamant in our demand that absent exigent circumstances a warrant will be required before a person's home is invaded by the authorities." (Calabretta v. Floyd 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).

----------------------------------

Davie Police officer Wendrow responded to Scott Kevin Bagwell's initiated 
2nd call to DCF for alleged "SEVEN RABID DOBERMANS" at my residence,
after Bagwell learned that I had suffered a heart attack.

Please take a look at these SEVEN RABID DOBERMANS

After BSO DCF investigator DEBRA SIMONS and Davie Police officer 
Wendrow were finished determining that there was no danger from either
of our 2 (not seven) Dobermans, they left the property, and DEBRA SIMONS,
after talking to myself and Erin, stated that the report was unfounded, and we
requested that SCOTT KEVIN BAGWELL be prosecuted.

Davie Police officer Wendrow was told by me to leave my property (we have
and old deed, and own to the center of the street).
  Wendrow refused to
leave our POSTED property, and called his detective unit.  

Detective Joann Carter, another Davie officer, Wendrow, and BSO DCF investigator
DEBRA SIMONS without warrant or permission, opened a closed gate and unlawfully
against the Fourth Amendment entered the POSTED property and then the RESIDENCE of
LLoyd W. Phillips, who had only a few days earlier been discharged
from Cleveland Clinic after suffering a heart attack. Mr. Phillips had gone to
the bedroom after ordering Wendrow off the property, because of PVCs.

I heard these people in my home, and got up in a very weakened state.

DAVIE POLICE OFFICER WENDROW, BESIDE WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND TRESPASS AFTER WARNING, WAS UNLAWFULLY TRESPASSING INSIDE MY HOME, (TRESPASS IN AN OCCUPIED STRUCTURE IS A 3rd Degree FELONY), WITH A FIREARM (another FELONY), and  HAD A GRIN ON HIS FACE.  He was accompanied by others.

Erin, who had dishes in the sink, had morning sickness, was taking care of me and
Sean, had just gotten Sean's old baby clothes out of storage, washed them,
and put them on the bed in Sean's room, had gone shopping and had bags
of groceries on the floor, was told that Davie PD and Debra SIMONS (BSO)
had changed their minds, and that this was a "second walk through." THIS WAS
NO WALK THROUGH.  IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

Erin was told Sean could not stay in the home, and if she didn't call a baby sitter,
Sean would be taken into DCF custody.

Against Florida State Statutes, the case which was
the result of an unfounded complaint to the DCF Hotline,
was made a matter of public record by Davie PD.

The Rabbis Vaccine carries a warning, and many vets will tell you that vaccinating a dog on a yearly basis is a deadly proposition.  Scott Kevin Bagwell was already responsible for poisoning one of the Doberman's, and the dog died within a short period after being vaccinated.  

Bagwell also stated in his malicious to the DCF HOTLINE that all the dogs (we have 4, not 7) had not been vaccinated for 10 years.  THIS IS TRUE, SINCE one  was 5 years old, and two others were 7 years old ---- they weren't even alive 10 years ago!

Months later, Scott Kevin Bagwell made a third unfounded call of child abuse to the Davie Florida Police Department, and the Department, this time, did nothing.

 

________________________________________

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their
children is of such character that it cannot be denied without
violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which
lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such
right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and
Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of
Michigan, (1985).

The several states has no greater power to restrain individual
freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of
the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38,
(1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment
rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of
vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their
government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but
administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory
and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital
interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family
life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their
parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections
than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family
affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in
continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617
P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). <Verify citation>.

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in
retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not
interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process
protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within
protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under
guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is
arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within
competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d
858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL,
(1977).

Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest
which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent
who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though
temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves
extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d
437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584,
(1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that
severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur
only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at
stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir
WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is
guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14,
or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used
in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC,
WI (1973).

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the
companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children"
is an interest "far more precious" than any property right. May v.
Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are
so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First,
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important
interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful
countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the
companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children
rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of
family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 or
426 US 390 <check cite>; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who is
separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his
child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a
currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott,
98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that
the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty
interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States
Constitution -- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal
protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct
App 9th Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee,
746 f 2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected
by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v. Elrod,
411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his
child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich
and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability
to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's
corresponding right to protection from interference in the
relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being
raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F
2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983).

A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element
of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment
of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889,
MI App Div (1983).

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were
impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on
the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing
stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for
special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to
compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination
against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be
permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102;
4340 US 268 <check cite>, (1979).

The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion"
that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a
home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that
discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female
destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only
the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v.
Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with
particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous
fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F 2d
532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect
and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights.
Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding
disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts),
under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a
man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his
children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process
of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot
invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a
showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so
fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this
Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 1. In re U.P.,
648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized
and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v.
Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State's power to legislate, adjudicate
and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of
custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal
judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses
of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through
specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the
Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth
Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting
fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth
Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with
it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has
recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the
parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty"
interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v.
Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently
described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional
underpinning of ... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the
freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a
freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family
life." The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the
constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship
with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the
protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet
deny protection under Title 42 USC 1983, to visitation, which is
the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right
completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328, (1981).