Kidjacked » judges » blue_mountain » wilderness_program.asp Kidjacked? Share your story!!!Want to share your story? Follow these posting guidelines.AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Sunday, December 10, 2017
  June  
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
 Kidjacked | Jacked Up 
Comments are strictly moderated.
decorative corner
Join Kidjacked on FacebookJoin Kidjacked on Yahoo Groups

During a recent two year period, one Arizona foster child died every seven and a half weeks. Four were reported as being "viciously beaten to death" by foster parents.

decorative corner

In and of the Superior Court of California County of Yolo

 

 

Jake Wallace, Qui Tam,

Plaintiff,

V.

Defendants,

Yolo County Supervisor(s):
Mike Mc Gowan;
Duane Chamberlain;
Mariko Yomada;
Frank Sieferman;
Helen Thompson.

County Council:
Robyn Truitt;
Judge Steve Basha;
Judge Donna Petre.
Chief Probation Officer: Don Meyer.
District Attorney: David Hendersen;
2005/2006 Yolo County Grand Jury;
Juvenile Justice Commission

 

Case No: CV06-581

First amended complaint for violation of the California False Claims Act, Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty, Conspiracy, Civil Rights Violation, Perjury, Title 22, Brown Act, Grand Jury Statues

Gov. Code 12650 et.seq
Civil Code Section 1708-1725
Penal Code 182-185
Penal Code 919(c)
Penal Code 30-33
Penal Code 118-13118 U.S.C. 242
Civil Code 1572

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Trial Date: None Set
Notice of Election to Decline
Intervention Filed by
Attorney General June 16, 2006.
Seal was lifted June 16, 2006
Original Complaint Filed: April 13, 2006


The Qui Tam Plaintiff acting on behalf of the State of California (the "State"), prosecutes this action pursuant to the powers vested in him by Cal. Gov. Code 12651(c)(1) and 12652(b)(5). Based in the Qui Tam's actions Cal. Gov't Code 12652 (C)(1)(iii)(f)(1) of the matters described herein, the Qui Tam alleges as follows:

Introduction

  1. Defendant(s), Board of Supervisors, County Council, District Attorney, Chief Probation Officer, Superior Court Judge(s), 2005/06 Yolo County Grand Jury, Juvenile Justice Commission are public entities and/or state, civil, county employees and/or other, under the laws of the State of California, with its principal offices in Woodland, California. At all times material to this action, defendants transacted the people's business within the State of California. Defendants defrauded the State by colluding and conspiring with Calaveras County Officials and materially and factually interfered with the operation of a state licensed facility serving state foster youth that are seriously emotionally disturbed.

    The defendants interfered, subverted or concealed law enforcement investigation (s) that to date are uninvestigated. The defendants colluded with Calaveras officials that resulted in intentionally and excessively failing to uphold a County Host Letter in order for Blue Mountain Wilderness Program, Inc. (BMWP) to obtain and retain AFDC-FC funding as required under state law.

    AFDC-FC funding is a combination of federal, state, county dollars. As a result, the State sustained significant losses by uninvestigated civil rights allegations, interfering and falsifying a law enforcement investigation, threats from law enforcement officers to the State and ceasing operations due to receiving fraudulently obtained AFDC-FC funding from placing county government agencies by BMWP's inability through the defendants actions to exercise a power and serve a function that was legal and officially established on behalf of state foster youth and the State. The County Host Letter was a false claim that BMWP depended on and received AFDC-FC funding from, at $5,234 per state foster youth, per month, that was fraudulent in that the State, State foster youth and county placement agencies received less money, services and property than it paid for, through the intentional acts of the defendants.

    These acts obstructed contractual, statutory and regulatory conditions and requirements.

I. Jurisdiction

  1. This action was filed on April 13, 2006, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Yolo, Case No. CV06-581, by a whistle blower as a qui tam plaintiff pursuant to the California False Claims Act, Government Code section 12651(c)(1). The qui tam has and will disclose facts and circumstances in support of the claim.
  2. Qui Tam plaintiff will be shortly filing a motion to consolidate the two (CV06-0581 & CV 32550) FCA actions with the California Judicial Council under California Code of Procedure Section 404 et. seq.

II. Parties

  1. The attorney general has elected not to prosecute pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code 12652(i) and the qui tam plaintiff assumes control of this action on behalf of the State. Wallace commenced the action as a qui tam plaintiff under the California False Claims Act, California Government Code section 12652(c)(1) (the "FCA") and later under other California statues, codes and regulatory conditions.
  2. Defendant Supervisor Helen Thompson
  3. Defendant Supervisor Duane Chamberlain
  4. Defendant Supervisor Mike Mc Gowan
  5. Defendant Supervisor Mariko Yomada
  6. Defendant Supervisor Frank Sieferman
  7. Defendant County Council, Robyn Truitt
  8. Defendant District Attorney David Hendersen
  9. Defendant Chief Probation Officer, Don Meyer
  10. Defendant Judge Steve Basha
  11. Defendant Presiding Judge Donna Petre
  12. Defendant 2005/06 Yolo County Grand Jury.
  13. Defendant Juvenile Justice Commission.

lll. Background Information

  1. Blue Mountain Wilderness Program, Inc (BMWP). is a non-profit public benefit corporation, formed and organized pursuant to the NonProfit Public Benefit Corporation Law (47604, subv. (a). BMWP's specific purpose was to provide, Education, Care and Supervision to State foster youth as Children diagnosed as dependent Title 22 (84111)(2); "Child means a person under 18 years of age who is emotionally disturbed as defined in Section 5600.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code." BMWP functioned as a state licensed group home under county, state and federal laws and funding from September 10, 2001 to July 28, 2005.
  2. State licensed group homes are grounded in private sector concepts such as developing a program statement, competition-driven improvement and customer focus. But they remain very much a public sector creature, with in-bred requirements of accountability and broad-based equity; simple in theory and complex in practice. The enabling and current legislation (2006) for foster youth evidences the Legislature's intent that group homes and the protection and care of foster youth are part of the public system. Group homes are subject to public oversight and accountability. Once a state license is issued that license can be revoked by the authorizing agency with other county, state and federal laws and conditions. Public monies are apportioned to California group homes described as AFDC-FC.
  3. Group home Administrators are legally required to report (Title 22 (84064) (7) review of complaints made by children or their authorized representative(s) as specified in Section 84072(a), and decide upon the action to be taken to handle the complaint. The administrator is therefore legally and ethically compelled to pursue any issue, complaint or concern with any appropriate public agency. Said public agency is required by law to act in accordance with those laws and any and all lawful means that would enhance such pursuit by the administrator.
  4. These authorities include but are not limited too: the Board of Supervisors, Probation Department, Sheriff's Department, Superior Court, District Attorney's Office, Juvenile Justice Commission, Grand Jury, Office of the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board, Department of Social Services, which either authorize the licensing and/ or support and/or investigate the operation of the state licensed facility.
  5. Moreover, from cradle to grave, group homes derive their existence, oversight, operating restrictions, and funding from public agencies charged with the operation, compliance, placement and assurance that the Administrator and Licensee has the support to do so. California group homes are established by forming a 501(c)(3), and then obtaining a County Host Letter from the county in, which the facility will operate. Group Homes are licensed to serve any county statewide.
  6. California's Foster Care system is currently being revised through Assembly and Senate bills and a Blue Ribbon Commission. There are 80,000 California foster youth. Out of home placement is considered an option of last resort.

    Foster youth, many times, represent low income and youth of color. Maintaining placement stability is critical for positive outcomes. The State is in dire need of not only reform but the availability of quality resources for state foster youth such as Blue Mountain Wilderness Program.

    BMWP opened simultaneously as a combined state licensed youth facility and a California Charter School. The education component is critical as the majority of foster youth are not at age/grade level. Access to special education, a small school setting, student-based instruction, experiential learning, a supportive treatment milieu, advancing to a comprehensive public school, are all critical in educating and caring for foster youth.

    BMWP took on that responsibility because having a treatment philosophy with a strong educational arm is paramount to successfully engaging and assisting state foster youth. 34% of foster youth exit the system with a high school diploma and only 1.8% attends college.

    BMWP students and staff established an organic farm where the students worked under Cal-OSHA rules for $8-$10 per hour and with bonuses for working smart, safe and in a team. Students worked at Bear Valley Ski Resort in the winter, camped in Death Valley National Monument (integrated with their education) for ten days for the past four years. Students attended the Ashland Shakespeare Festival yearly.

    Many attended the summer culinary arts program at Columbia Junior College, an intensive 8-week class, our first summer three of our four students who were 14 years old successfully completed the class, thereby gaining an employable skill and earning 11 high school credits.

    Administrator Wallace purchased a restaurant 3 miles from the facility and the students worked with the architect and business plan developer. The student's work paid off as a building permit was issued and Columbia Junior College was interested in launching a satellite 2-year culinary arts program with BMWP for foster youth and many other youth and young adults that are struggling in the community.

    California group homes and the people that spend their money and time to launch and operate a progressive state facility should be accorded every possible resource and opportunity to assist state foster youth. County and state agencies should be actively collaborating and supporting state foster youth and state licensed facilities.

lV. Statement of Opinions and Facts

  1. Governmental agencies fall within the definition of a 'person' as an 'association' or 'organization.' A county may have the sovereign power to fulfill its duty to guard the public health free from regulations that govern ordinary business. But no government agency has the power, sovereign or other wise, knowingly to present a false claim. (Levine v. Weis 2001 and Community Memorial Hospital v. County of Ventura 1996)
  2. There is no reason to conclude the Legislature intended that the protection afforded to the public treasury by the FCA be denied merely because the entity raiding the treasurer is a government agency. The US Supreme Court held; " Local government, are "persons" amenable to qui tam action under the FCA." (Cook County vs. United States, No. 01-1572 (2003).
  3. The FCA must be construed broadly so as to give the widest possible coverage and effect to its prohibitions and remedies (So. Calif. Rapid Transit v. Superior Court (1991) Plaintiff need not show that a false claim was actually made; he need only show that he had reasonable based suspicions of a false claim (Collier v. Superior Court (1991). No proof of specific intent to defraud is required. Gov. Code 12650(b)(2)
  4. A demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and the granting of leave to amend involves discretion of the trial court. A demurrer may only be sustained when all possible remedies and all other legal theories are absent.
  5. The Tort Claims Act does not apply to the False Claims Act. Cal. Gov. Code 12651(e)-(f) (Stacey & Witheck, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1996)
  6. Because the defendants are a public entity the courts have held with the premise that a "public entity may be held vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees, under Government Code section, 815.(2). ...only if it is established that the employee would be personally liable upon some "acceptable theory of liability".
  7. On or about, August 8, 2005, BMWP CEO Wallace with mistake, inadventure, surprise or excusable neglect filed a claim under the California Tort Claims Act (TCA) in Calaveras County. Two Board of Supervisors and the County Council stated publicly that BMWP CEO Wallace believed that he had filed a request for an investigation, not a claim. BMWP CEO Wallace asked for an "investigation" on the county form and in the public session stated this is not a claim but an investigation request. The falsely interpreted claim grossly failed to comply with Gov. Code 910. Nevertheless, the claim passed on a 3/2 vote.
  8. The FCA also authorizes any private person or whistle blower to initiate actions on behalf of the government. Cal. Govt. Code 12652 (c)(1) such a person is known as a qui tam plaintiff or realtor. The qui tam provisions supplement government efforts to identify and prosecute fraudulent claims.
  9. BMWP and State Certified Administrator Wallace were licensed/certified (Title 22, section 8005 (a), regulated (Title 22, section 80018 (c) and BMWP/Wallace were an employee and/or public employee of a public benefit corporation or the State (Title 22, section 80064 and section 84064). The State Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Calaveras County defendants engaged the services of and provided gainful work; BMWP and State Certified Administrator Wallace exercised a power and served a function, which was legal and officially established. Wallace was a public employee of a public entity (CA Gov. Code 811.4)
  10. Public employees may not bring qui tam actions based on information discovered during their employment unless they have exhausted all internal investigations procedures and the government fails to act. (Cal. Gov. Code 15652(d)(4).

    BMWP and Administrator Wallace utilized and exhausted all known County established procedures, in good faith. The defendants appeared to freely participate, at times, in these processes but ultimately utilized their government positions to factually and materially interfere, subvert, collude or ignore the information. (Probation and Sheriff's Department citizens complaints, multiple letters asking for help/explanation to the Board of Supervisors; District Attorneys Office; Superior Court; Probation Department, public appearances in front of the Board of Supervisors, submitted written accusation under Gov. Code 27641 against two County Councils and about a 1,000 pages to the 2005/06 Calaveras Grand Jury which has never, to date, confirmed receipt of complaints filed from August 2005 to March 2006).

    The Yolo County 2005/06 Grand Jury stated in an October 2005 letter to Wallace that under our charge of the court the grand jury will not investigate as the matters appear to have taken place prior to the CPO gaining employment as the Yolo County Chief Probation Officer.

  11. Administrator Wallace contacted and faxed information to the Yolo County Counsel and the Acting Chief Probation Officer and Board of Supervisors prior to the employment of Chief Probation Officer (CPO) Don Meyer from Calaveras County. Wallace provided documents that clearly outlined that complaints and investigations on CPO Don Meyer in Calaveras County were being intentionally mishandled by CPO Meyer, the CPO's employer and the employer's council. Wallace conveyed that the hiring of CP Don Meyer to Yolo County would disrupt the flailing investigation. Wallace was interviewed by a county paid investigative firm (July 2005) that was responsible for screening Chief Probation Officer applicants for Yolo County by the Board of Supervisors, that discussion was recorded and that entity did not want any substantiating documents forwarded.
  12. The FCA prohibits and employer from retaliating or discriminating against a public employee in terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts in disclosing information to the government. Cal. Govt. Code 12653(b). The defendants knowingly violated this prohibition and are liable for reinstating the public employee and for paying twice the amount of back pay plus interest, special damages, punitive damages, litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees. Cal. Govt. 12653(c)(d). BMWP and the State, through a contractual agreement with the Calaveras defendants and the State entered into an employee relationship and/or lawful agreement, as public entities, with the Yolo defendants knowingly and intentionally, with malice, violating the terms of the contract to include statutory and regulatory conditions.

V. Summary of Defendants Conspiracy and Concealment Scheme

BMWP received a County Host Letter from the Calaveras defendants (Board of Supervisors (July 22, 1999) and Probation Department (March 1, 1999) also Social Services (January 8, 1998). The County Host Letter is steeped in Title 22 through the Department of Social Services (DSS) that if one wants an AFDC-FC rate (to receive public funding) one must obtain a County Host Letter.

The county will give a copy of the Group Home Program Statement to complete. The county reviews the program statement to determine if the program meets the counties needs. If the county needs your program, it will give you a County Host Letter. (DSS, "So, You Want to Open a Group Home for Children" PUB 223 (1/04) The County Host Letter represents a false claim as the county never offered or permitted any supportive services and it has been and will be further established that the county never intended to host and/or support BMWP; and that the defendants conduct as government officials and/or civil employees and the historical record demonstrate that any capability of open and ethical "support' never existed.

Nevertheless, the support and services requested appear to be nothing more or less than any citizen, certainly any state agency serving state foster youth, would reasonable expect from said agencies. Calaveras County has no juvenile hall (2000), no youth shelter, no CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) for foster youth, Calaveras was ranked 47th by the National Youth Law Center on foster care (2006), Calaveras has 2-4 times the rate of child abuse per statewide statistics (2005), no functioning Juvenile Justice Commission (2005/06), failed to fund a Transitional Housing Program for foster youth aged 16-18 (2006), the Superior Court commonly tries juveniles as adults (2006), the Superior Court has no formal complaint procedure (August 2005).

One original allegation was that Calaveras County was accepting and receiving gratuitous bed space from a state licensed facility, Sierra Ridge, Rite of Passage in Calaveras County, that allegation was never investigated (April 2005).

Yolo County officials participated in the conspiracy by concealing and replicating the intentional failure to hold the CPO accountable and neither compelled and/or conducted said investigations and provided a heaven and another bureaucracy to conceal the material complaints.

  1. At all relevant times, defendants controlled property and services that BMWP relied upon. Defendants permitted, and concealed information and disrupted and/or subverted processes with a continual abuse of their government powers, which sanctioned BMWP, Administrator Wallace in providing services to court ordered state foster youth and functioning as a state licensed group home.
  2. Defendants, and each of them, entered into a joint venture, combination or conspiracy to illegally induce the state to authorize the payment of AFDC-FC funds (via county placement agencies-county, state and federal dollars) when said funds, property and services requested were falsely claimed. Defendant's actions knowingly interfered with BMWP's contractual agreement, statues and regulations to allow BMWP and Administrator Wallace to exercise a power, serve a function, which was legal and officially established.
  3. The wrongful acts and omission described in this Complaint are attributable to all defendants because each acting as an agent, employer, employee or alter ego and/or under the discretion and control of others, and such acts and omissions were in the scope of such agency, employment, alter ego, direction and/or control. Any reference in this Complaint to any act of any defendant shall be deemed to be the act of each defendant acting individually, jointly of severally. Each defendant participated and profited in the conspiracy alleged herein.

Vl. Actionable Conduct of Defendants

  1. The Calaveras defendants knowingly submitted a County Host Letter of support to BMWP and the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing and Foster Care Rates Bureau that authorized BMWP's rate and funding (AFDC-FC) to operate a state licensed youth facility and accept county, state and federal funding, knowing that the claim, County Host Letter, was false. Yolo defendants through the employment of CPO Meyer maintained the subversion of the complaints and colluded with Calaveras defendants in reinforcing that the County Host letter is in fact a false claim. (Cal. Gov. Code 12651 (a)(1)
  2. The defendants knowingly makes a false record or statement i.e.; County Host Letter, that approved funding through the Department of Social Services, Foster Care Rates Bureau by the State authorizing other public entities to place state foster youth, knowing that BMWP could not provide the agreed upon services after the defendants with deliberate ignorance and willful misconduct, collude and intentionally violate the terms of the contract, which made the public entity payments false and fraudulent. Yolo defendants by knowingly employing CPO Meyer with the prior knowledge that CPO Meyer and his employer were subverting, threatening and concealing material information thereby knew or should have known that BMWP could not provide services to the State. (Cal. Gov. Code 12651(a)(2)
  3. The defendants knowingly conspire and with deliberate ignorance of the truth, with reckless disregard defrauded the state foster youth, BMWP, the State and placement public entities by willfully writing an agreement, a County Host Letter to the State and BMWP. BMWP relied on this County Host Letter and the defendants to act in a manner representative of their position to " host and/or support". Yolo defendants knew or should have known that a successful state licensed youth programs relies on support from the Probation and Sheriff's Department, Board of Supervisors, Juvenile Justice Commission, Superior Court and Grand Jury through out the State; and that BMWP's receipt of public funds to perform a lawful and official service was thereby falsely obtained. Cal.Gov. Code 12561 (a)(3)
  4. The defendants through the County Host Letter and BMWP through a contractual placement agreement with state foster youth which was a certificate (document testifying to the truth of something) or receipt (written acknowledgement) delivered to BMWP and the State; that the defendants had possession, custody or control of public property (special capability of power-control and access to other public entities, complaint procedures, law) and knowingly delivered less property than the amount for which BMWP received a certificate or receipt of. The defendants through their positions were compelled to provide support; such support to BMWP and court placed state foster youth (a protected class of people) due to contractual, regulatory and statutory requirements. Cal. Gov. Code 12651 (a)(4)
  5. The defendants were authorized to make or deliver the County Host Letter, which they freely, openly and consciously participated in. Which was then relied upon and used by state foster youth, BMWP, the State and other public entities, the defendants knowingly makes and delivers the County Host Letter that falsely represents the property (special capability of power or other) used or to be used. The defendants, all of them, through their positions were compelled to provide such support to BMWP and court placed state foster youth due to contractual, regulatory and statutory requirements. Cal. Gov. Code 12651(a)(5)
  6. The defendants who knowingly and with deliberate ignorance of the truth (the defendants historical record of not supporting foster youth (youth) or the law; unknown by BMWP) which was then relied upon and used by BMWP. Which grossly and intentionally decreased the obligation and performance of the BMWP contractual agreement to accept public funds and provide services to court placed state foster youth, when the defendants knew they were false, which violated the state foster youths "Bill of Rights" and severely limited BMWP's state licensed obligation to transmit property and services to other public entities and the State. Cal. Gov. Code 12651(a)(7)
  7. From after the inception of the County Host Letter and at various times the defendants knowingly cause false claims amounts through AFDC-FC funding to be paid to BMWP. The acts committed by the defendants which caused BMWP to approve and accept said false or fraudulent claims included, but were not necessarily limited to, knowingly making false representations about the County Host Letter and the defendants official duties, knowingly breaching a contractual agreement, knowingly breaching the defendants duty, knowingly failed to protect a class of individuals.

    Knowingly colluded and conspired to subvert law enforcement investigation(s), knowingly allowed verbal threats to Administrator Wallace from a probation official(s), knowingly, allowed, interfered and subverted a law enforcement investigation into allegations of civil rights violations and other law enforcement complaints filed.

    Knowingly manufactured, accepted and presented a false law enforcement investigation report, knowingly created and supported an unsafe milieu for state foster youth. Knowingly ignored a myriad or letters for an investigation, information and accountability. Knowingly employed CPO Meyer from Calaveras County that furthered the subversion, collusion and conspiracy.

    Knowingly blocked all legally established procedures, processes and resources to include the Grand Jury, Juvenile Justice Commission, Probation and Sheriffs complaint procedures, written accusations and other. Knowingly interfered with BMWP licensed requirements as a group home.

Vll. California Law Violated By All Defendants

  1. At all times material to this action, defendants "knew" or acted "knowingly" which terms are interchangeable in this complaint as they are defined in California Government Code 12561(b)(2), in causing the making, presenting or submissions of false claims. In that respect, Defendants acted:
    1. With actual knowledge of the falsity of the information;
    2. In deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information;
    3. With reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information
  2. At all times material to this action, defendants "caused" the making, presenting or submitting of a false claim, as that term is defined in California Government Code 12561, in causing.
    1. The presentation of a false claim to the State Department of Social Services, Foster Care Rates Bureau, Community Care Licensing and BMWP in the form of a County Host Letter.
    2. The making and using of false statements, actions and/or records for the purpose of allowing false claims to be approved and paid by county, state and federal agencies.
    3. The submission of written statements from the probation department and county council that an outside independent agency would conduct an investigation, when the defendants with the other hand knowingly interfered and subverted said statements.
    4. The making and using of a false law enforcement investigation report from a subordinate probation department employee that the defendants knew were false and fraudulent.
    5. The making and using of false statements when the Chief Probation Officer compared BMWP to the Arizona Boys Ranch where a state foster youth from Sacramento died (1998) due to severe abuse and medical neglect; when in fact, the defendants statements and actions were encouraging and setting-up a serious incident at BMWP.
    6. Knowingly and all defendents, covering-up an investigation on civil rights allegations on the illegal arrest of a state foster youth from Honduras and a multitude of law enforcement citizens complaints.
    7. Knowingly failed to address and discuss the written accusation against the County Counsel under Govt. Code 27641, interfered with any and all legal processes.
    8. Knowingly allowed the Chief Probation Officer (CPO) to accept another CPO position that amounted to a promotion while knowingly and conspiring with the CPO to subvert a law enforcement investigation and a myriad of citizens complaints by the CPO leaving Calaveras County.
    9. Knowingly, and all defendants, playing "ostrich".
    10. Knowingly recommended, to include the Superior Court, the transfer of the CPO to Yolo County to be the Yolo County CPO. Falsely recommended, covered-up and conspired with Calaveras and Yolo County officials to subvert the complaints that to date have never been addressed.
    11. The Yolo County Human Resources Department retained the services of an independent investigator and the Yolo Board of Supervisors allegedly conducted an "extensive law enforcement background" prior to employment. Yolo defendants stand behind these alleged investigations that effectively further the conspiracy to conceal material fact. Yolo and Calaveras defendants have never substantiated these investigation findings.
    12. California Superior Court, Presiding Judge, Donna Petre, knew or should have known of the allegation in Calaveras County against CPO Don Meyer. Judge Petre, knowingly appoints CPO Meyer thereby participating in the collusion and concealment of material facts. Judge Petre's appointment of Chief Probation Officer, Don Meyer, as the Yolo County Chief Probation Officer, should have been in concurrence with the Board of Supervisors and the Juvenile Justice Commission.
    13. California Superior Court, Presiding Judge, Donna Petre, later functioning as "our charge of the court" through the Yolo County 2005/06 Grand Jury who states in writing (October 2005) that the allegations will not be investigated by the grand jury as the allegations occurred prior to CPO Meyer being employed by Yolo County. Judge Petre ignores the material fact that Yolo defendants were aware of the issues in Calaveras County prior to employing COP Meyer and therefore Yolo defendants conduct is actionable as participants in the collusion and conspiracy to conceal material facts. Judge Petre, potentially fails to inform the grand jury and operates the grand jury as "an arm of the court" and the grand jury is not "unallowed' and appears to have no independent legal council. Brown-Presley Trial Count Funding Act and Daily Journal v. California Supreme, together these events seem to end the traditional role of the grand jury as an "arm of the court." California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (1999) that Superior Courts do not have inherent authorities over "their" grand juries. California grand juries are mandated to investigate jails and detention centers. All state foster youth were under a state judges court order for residential treatment and were subject to a warrant for absconding.
    14. In a September 14, 2005 letter from Judge Petre to Wallace, Judge Petre states that "Mr. Meyer is a Yolo County employee" and that "We will therefore, forward your complaint and correspondence to the Yolo County Council". "CC: Steve Basha, County Council". Judge Petre had several opportunities to ensure that BMWP, state foster youth-a protected class of people, contractual, regulatory and statutory issues were complied with and failed to act.
    15. The 2005/06 Yolo County Grand Jury, ill regardless of the alleged acts of Judge Petre knowingly and freely took an oath of office which obligates and empowers grand juries to investigate local government and to bring criminal indictments. The grand jury failed to function under their oath of office and statues and thus the concealment of material fact was continued.
    16. Calaveras Assistant County Council, Janis Elliot, states in a December 21, 2005, memo to the Board of Supervisors per written accusation GC 27641 "3. I was contacted by the Yolo County Counsel office as Mr. Wallace has submitted an accusation against the Yolo County Council based primarily upon the fact that the former Chief Probation Officer was hired by Yolo County. Because Mr. Wallace's accusation now include two County Council offices, it may be even more appropriate (second recommendation) to refer the investigation of both accusations to the Office of Attorney General..." Calaveras Board of Supervisors voted to take no investigative action nor discussed the written accusation, after it was concluded, publicly, that the written accusation included at least one county supervisor.
    17. Yolo County Council, (former) Steve Basha (appointed to the bench on or about March 2006 by the Governor) knew of the investigation subversions in Calaveras County prior to Yolo County employing CPO Meyer on or about August 2005. Later, Judge Petre forwards a complaint and correspondence per Judge Petre's September 14, 2005, letter; Cc'd to County Council Steve Basha. Judge Basha failed to act thus the concealment of material fact continued. As the County Council, Steve Basha, was acting on behalf of his employer, the Yolo Board of Supervisors. Judge Basha failed to protect a protected class of people, state foster youth and address other contractual, regulatory and statutory issues. An independent factual investigation on the written accusation Cal. Gov. Code 27641 in Yolo County may have interfered with Basha's judicial appointment.
    18. Yolo Assistant County Council, Robyn Truitt, in a January 11, 2006 letter "the Yolo Board of Supervisors privately conducted an evaluation of the performance of public employee Yolo County Council Steven M. Basha...please be advised that no Gov. Code 27641 hearing will be scheduled on this complaint. Truitt was promoted to County Council once Judge Basha sat on the bench.
  3. At all times relevant hereto, defendants knew that their conduct would cause AFDC-FC to be paid in an excessive or fraudulent amount exceeding property and services provided by BMWP to the State. Defendants knew that BMWP and Administrator Wallace had contractual, statutory, and regulatory obligations to care, supervise and educate state foster youth that were diagnosed as severely emotionally disturbed.
    1. Defendants knew that their conduct interfered with the legal appropriation of AFDC-FC funding and the legal operation of BMWP.
    2. Defendants knew that BMWP were reliant on the defendants.
    3. Therefore, defendants knew that contracts, statues and regulations prohibited them from making false or misleading representations.
  4. Defendants knowingly abused their elected, appointed, state, civil employee and/or other position and knowingly and with full intent interfered with the legal operations of BMWP. The following laws and other were committed.
    1. Cal. Gov. Code 12651 et seq.
    2. Cal. Civil Code Section 1708-1725; 1708 Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.
    3. Cal. Penal Code Section 182-185; 182
      1. If two or more persons conspire.
        1. To commit any crime.
        2. Falsely to move or maintain any suit, actions, or proceeding.
        3. To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.
    4. Cal. Penal Code Section 30-33; 30. Parties to a crime are classified as:
      1. Principals; and;
      2. Accessories
    5. Cal. Penal Code Section 118-131; 118.1 Every peace officer...files a report...on the commission of a crime...knowingly and intentionally...which the officer knows to be false...is filing a false report.
    6. Federal Civil Rights Act; Title 18, U.S.C. Section 242; Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
    7. Cal. Civil Code 1572; Actual Fraud: (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true. (2) the suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact.
    8. Violation of the California Tort Claims Act Cal. Cal. Govt. Code section 810 and Cal. Govt. Code 910
    9. Cal. Civil Code 1619-1633
    10. Title 22
    11. Breach of Duty
    12. Breach of Contract
    13. Brown Act
    14. Cal. Penal Code 919(c) Willful misconduct in office
    15. Cal. Grand Jury oath of office and statues and operating the grand jury as an 'arm of the court"
    16. Operating a non-functioning and ill-informed Juvenile Justice Commission
    17. Cal. Penal Code 72

Vlll. Cause of Action and Damages

Cause of Action

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT,
CAUSING PRESENTATION OF FALSE CLAIMS
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12561(a)(1)

  1. The Qui Tam Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully set forth herein.
  2. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants "knowingly" {as defined in California Government Code Sections 12652(b)(2)} caused to be presented to officers, public employee or employees of the State of California, false claims for payment or approval, in the form of a County Host Letter. Defendants knowingly subverted, interfered, concealed material fact. As a result, the County, State and Federal Government paid out AFDC-FC funding for state foster youth grossly in deficient of property and services provided to the state and other public entities resulting in a great financial and human cost to the State of California.
  3. Because of Defendant's conduct in violation of California Government Code Section 12651(a)(1) as set forth in this Count, the State of California sustained damages in an amount according to proof pursuant to California Government Code Section 12651(a)

lX. JURY DEMAND

  1. The Qui Tam Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFOR, the Qui Tam Plaintiff, demand:

  1. That judgment be entered in their favor against the Defendants, with judgment to be entered against each of them for the amount of damages to the State and all other parties which said Defendants engaged in substantially.
    1. On the Cause of Action, California False Claims Act and other statutory and regulatory conditions; Causing Presentation of False Claims to the State of California damages as provided by California Government Code 12651(a) in the amount of:
      1. Triple the amount of the State of California's damages;
      2. Civil penalties of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for each false claim
      3. Recovery of costs, attorney's fees and expenses;
      4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper to include parallel criminal prosecution set forth in (Gov. Code 12652(h) & Gov. Code 12654(d))
      5. Further, the Qui Tam Plaintiff, on its behalf requests that it receive such maximum amount as permitted by law, of the proceeds of this action or settlement of this action collected by the State of California, plus an amount for reasonable expense incurred, plus reasonable attorney's fees and cost of this action.

The Qui Tam Plaintiff requests that its percentage be based upon the total value recovered, including any amounts received from individuals or entities not parties to this action.

DATED: June 27, 2006

_______________________________
Jake Wallace, Qui Tam Plaintiff

On behalf of the State of California

Jake Wallace
PO Box 4430
Camp Connell, CA 95223
Qui Tam Plaintiff