Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/69177352/48/The-Truth-Roger-and-Pam-had-three-or-four-collection
Timestamp: 2015-09-02 07:49:39
Document Index: 617270983

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 77', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1343', '§ 1983', '§ 1391', '§ 1331', '§ 1988', '§ 1367']

34. The Truth. Roger and Pam had three or four collection for Mortensen lawsuit
Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks1Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsROBERT B. SYKES (#3180)ALYSON E. CARTER (#9886)ROGER KAY MORTENSEN, andDET. JOSH CHAPPELL; SGTMATT HIGLEY; DET. ERIKKNUTZEN; LT. MIKE BROWER,THE UTAH COUNTY SHERIFFSOFFICE; TIM TAYLOR and JOHNCounty Attorney’s Office; andCivil No. ___Defendants’ violations of their rights guaranteed by the United StatesKNUTZEN was also the “Case Sergeant” assigned to the murder investigation byQ. How did Pam describe to you . . . the suspects that allegedly wereA. Her description was very vague. . . . unable to give an age . . . Both suspects were 20-25 years old. The suspects were wearing Levi’sMr. Lemieux said Roger told him that . . . the suspects were . . Mr. Quist said Roger further described the suspects as being 2 whiteMountain View Hospital on 11/16/09 at 21:49 hours when the “suspicious male”This “sighting” occurred just hours after the murder and apparently before theGrand Jury and falsified exculpatory evidence regarding the exact identity andQ. And finally, could you talk -- could you tell the jury about whatQ. What did these individuals describe that conversation as?Q. . . . there is some information provided to the jury that there wasA. Correct. I did see thatQ. -- the night of the homicide. Could you explain to the jury whatA. Sure. We were able to obtain some video surveillance fromQ. And what was the conversation that took place?Q. And do you know about what time this took place?Q. And what did you do to try to follow up on that?A. I believe it was Detective Adams, Zach Adams was able to makeQ. And is the video very clear? Can you see?A. YesI had spoken with Thomas Nixon several times throughout thisNixon told me he has associated with Mr. Oryall for several monthsOryall. The informant then said looking and pointing to Mr. Oryall’sQ.Did these individuals’ names come up again –A.NoQ.– when you interviewed other people?30.The Truth. Detailed descriptions of the vehicle were given:View Hospital informed Det. Scott that the man later identified as Trent OryallQ. Okay. Now I hear at some point you ask both Pam and RogerQ. But both of them refused?Q. Approximately how many collection type letters did you findQ.When you say stacks –A. I don’t think it was very good. That they were hurting forQ. Just describe for the jury just briefly how these documentsA. I found - - I don’t know how your mortgage payments are, if34. The Truth. Roger and Pam had three or four collectionQ.Did you speak with Roger and Pam?Q. Why don't you go ahead and describe the demeanor that youA. The demeanor -- their demeanor was very confusing to me. ItMr. Lemieux told Det. Scott that “Roger has short term memory loss from a brainDay 2. He posed questions about “the man” who came to the hospital and askedUnidentified Officer: “Is it weird that [ ] the bomb shelter’s beenGrand Jury. This is because the Mortensens have a Fourth Amendment right to72. Each of these Defendants is also responsible and exercised83.A Utah State constitutional provision is self-executing:. . . when a plaintiff brings suit under a “self executing” UtahPam and Roger Mortensen’s rights by presenting false and misleading testimonyMortensen murder. They did this by interviewing witnesses and advising law108.Utah Code Ann. § 77-10a-13(5)(c) provides as follows:Roger Mortensen. This evidence might reasonably be expected to lead to non-2. For special damages as are shown at trial;/s/ Robert B. SykesROBERT B. SYKESALYSON E. CARTER0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}{[ } ]}
P. 1Mortensen lawsuitMortensen lawsuitRatings: (0)|Views: 146|Likes: 0Published by Ben WinslowA lawsuit filed by Roger and Pam Mortensen against the Utah County Sheriff's Office over being indicted by a grand jury in Kay Mortensen's murder.A lawsuit filed by Roger and Pam Mortensen against the Utah County Sheriff's Office over being indicted by a grand jury in Kay Mortensen's murder.More info:Published by: Ben Winslow on Oct 17, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/69177352/Mortensen-lawsuit10/17/2011pdftextoriginal ROBERT B. SYKES (#3180)bob@sykesinjurylaw.com ALYSON E. CARTER (#9886)alyson@sykesinjurylaw.com
311 South State Street, Suite 240Salt Lake City, Utah 84111Telephone (801) 533-0222Facsimile (801) 533-8081
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAHCENTRAL DIVISION
ROGER KAY MORTENSEN, andPAM MORTENSEN,Plaintiffs, vs.DET. JOSH CHAPPELL; SGT.MATT HIGLEY; DET. ERIK KNUTZEN; LT. MIKE BROWER,THE UTAH COUNTY SHERIFFSOFFICE; TIM TAYLOR and JOHNNIELSEN, Prosecutors, UtahCounty Attorney’s Office; andJOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20,Defendants.)))))))))))))))))))
COMPLAINTandJURY DEMAND
Civil No. _______________Judge ___________________
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 46
Plaintiffs Roger Kay Mortensen (“Roger”) and Pam Mortensen(“Pam”), pursuant to Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., complain and allege for causes of action against Defendants as follows:
This is a civil rights action in which the Plaintiffs seek relief for theDefendants’ violations of their rights guaranteed by the United StatesConstitution, specifically the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, which rightsare further secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988.Plaintiffs seek damages, both compensatory and punitive; affirmative andequitable relief; an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and interest; and other andfurther relief as this Court deems just and equitable. This is further an action atlaw to redress a deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to the Plaintiffs by the Fourthand Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and arisesunder the law, statutes, and Constitution of the State of Utah.
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 46
JURISDICTION AND VENUE1.
This action arises under the United States Constitution andfederal law, particularly under the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983and 1988.
This action seeks redress for violations of the civil rights lawsof the United States, and jurisdiction is therefore invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The claims made in this Complaint occurred and arose in theState of Utah, in this District, and in the Central Division. Venue is thereforeproper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages under federal law pursuant to theclaims for relief specified below, in amounts to be proved at trial.
This Court has authority to award costs and attorney feespursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
This Court also has jurisdiction over any pendent State claimsPlaintiffs may wish to bring, or have brought, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of 46