Date: 09-14-2015

Case Style: Aaron Lee Benshoof v. Garfield County Commission

Case Number: CJ-2015-76

Judge: Dennis Hladik

Court: District Court, Garfield County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Aaron L. Benshoof

Defendant's Attorney: Jordan Miller

Description: Enid, OK - Aaron Lee Benshoof sued Garfield County Commission, Sheriff Department, Jerry Niles, Marcus and Dentention Center on a damage theory:

I Aaron Lee Benshoof, is an individual who resides at 23919 Paradise Ln, Jet, OkIa. 73749
2. Entities, Garfield County Commission, Sheriff Dept., Jerry Niles, Marcus, and Detention Center, reside in Garfield County in Enid Oklahoma. The defendants are sued in INDIVIDUAL and OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. Discretionally a M0NELL CLAIM.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Paragraphs 1. And 2. Above are incorporated here-in by reference. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and the authority to grant relief, pursuant To: 760.5. SubSection 7.
I This petition is the proper vehicle for relief pursuant to: S. Title 12; Tons
4. This Court is the proper venue pursuant to: 0.5. 12 SubSection 130,134-143.
5. The cause of action as below alleged, arose in Garfield County, Enid Ok.
Relief in this petition is an amount of more than ten thousand (10,000.00) dollars.
L That this cause of action might be adopted as a MONELL CLAIM, if this court Sua Sponte deems fit. This suit might be a MONELL CLAIM, simply because as plead below, the whole entity has shown an acquiescent for the defamatory.
CAUSE OF ACTION
8. That on or about March 6th 2014, defendants dispersed information to the public in gross multitude by and thru the cooperation of publisher OKJAILBIRDS LLC, in which stated that plaintiff here-in was charged for Burglary lrst Degree and that such charge warranted his arrest and detainment. However, the reason for the plaintiff’s arrest was Failure to Appear in Court. That this exact same allegation and defamatory act as here-in asserted had happened four (4) other times in the past starting since 2011. That plaintiff has requested both informally and formally that the entities stop this wrongful Defamation in which two tort claims with A.C.C.O. had been lodged and a previous lawsuit filed. The lawsuit was dismissed by the here-in plaintiff. That the assertions that will be alleged below are both Libel PerQuod and Libel Perse. That these repeated defamatory acts by the defendants are tantamount to assassination of character in which the numerous times of occurrence along with repeated requests to stop, vividly outlines the scheme and scope in purpose under punitive award and thus, the defendants are Subjectively Culpable for punitive action and Mens Rca is sufficient to allow relief. The tort notice for the instant matter, as filed with A.C.C,0. was denied, SEE: EXHIBIT ONE; Letter denying tort claim. The said prior lawsuit as dismissed by the plaintiff was Ci —2012 -232; Garfield County. This mentioned and dismissed lawsuit vividly demonstrates SUBJECTIVE INTENTor sufficient culpability in which Mens Rca is present, SEE: EXHIBIT TWO; ATTACHMENTS. Attachment S of the here-in appendix; exhibit two, is the mentioned prior lawsuit with A.C.C.O. tort notice.
COUNT ONE
Libel Per Se: Defendants dispersed false information for gross publication to Ok JailBirds in which defendants knew would be grossly emitted to the public for view and in the plaintiffs own community. Defendants simply stated took JailBirds that the plaintiff was charged and detained for Burglary in the first degree, which is a socially crippling statement and contrary to the fact that the arrest and detainment was for a Failure to Appear in Court and not an arrest for criminal charging.
10. This is a blatantly false and libelous statement, in which several social hardships have resulted.
11. The defendants simply have the owed fidelic duty of clarifying in their statements of whether or not the arrest and detainment is for court movements such as, failure to appear, failure to pay, failure to comply ,etc, or subsequently new charges, this duty is not only owed to the public, but to the subjected as well. To demonstrate this fidelic duty of the defendants to inform that the arrest is not a new charge, but a “failure to Appear” court movement, is EXHIBIT B, here-in this is the tort notice filed with A.C.C.O.
12. In this tort notice, is ATTACHMENT TWO, and in the top right side is “KEY OF CHARGES”.
jj In the “key of Charges” is “FTA” abbreviated for “Failure to Appear”, which vividly displays and demonstrates that the defendants were supposed to verify that the arrest and detainment was for “FAILURE TO APPEAR”, instead of giving image that the arrest was for a newly brought criminal charge of burglary in the lrst degree.
14. Moreover, it is simply a procedural rule and protocol for the defendants to give rise to the fact that the arrest and detainment was for “Failure to Appear”, thus not new criminal charging and the head sheriffs of five (5) other counties in Oklahoma concurred this fact as statutorily adopted edicts for booking. These mentioned sheriffs simply stated in plain English verbatim: “GARFIELD COUNTY IS NOT DOING SOMETHING RIGHT, THEY HAVE TO CLARIFY THAT THE DETAINTMENT WAS FOR WHAT EVER THE WARRANT STATED, IN YOUR CASE, FAILURE TO APPEAR, AND NOT THE ORIGINAL CHARGE SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE A NEW
CHARGE.” These discussed Sheriffs might be subpoenaed as witnesses or expert testimony. Plaintiff also spoke with the OKLAHOMA SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, at (405) 471-6049, and they concurred the fact that “Failure to Appear” must be entered into the O.T.I.S. System.
15. This direct statement of defamatory libel is libel Per Se and this allegation’s assertions clearly hold Prima Fade merit as a cognizable claim.
j, To find out how each separate and individually named defendant is sufficiently culpable and the SUBJECTIVE PRONG of malice for punitive is demonstrated, please view the NOTICE OF TORT, as above said, EXHIBITS. This attached appendix gives vivid detail of the individual’s personal culpability.
COUNT TWO
Libel Per Quod: Defendants have not only did this libel PerSe allegation five (5) times which displays their subjective intent for malice, but that in doing so, they have also committed Libel Per Quod.
17. This Libel PerQuod is simply the fact, that after projecting an image to the public eye that the plaintiff has been charged five (5) times for burglary lrst Degree, now the moral and social character of the plaintiff in the community is that of a career burglar, criminally insane, habitual felon, and mentally ill person.
18. The five (5) projected burglaries have simply gave an “inference” for the public to perceive the plaintiff as such immoral person being a career burglar, habitual felon, criminally insane person, and mentally ill.
This discussed “INFERENCE” of character left to the public from the defendants is simply Libel Per Quod and this allegation’s assertions are Prima Facie as a cognizable allegation, as the apex of these articulated assertions fall in context of the scheme for rule of required “inference” and this allegation vividly outlines the scope and statute of libel Per Quod.
20. As stated in count one (above) the defendants were repeatedly begged to stop both informally and formally, being verbally, two separate tort claims filed with A.C.C.O. and a previous lawsuit in which Attorney Firm Collins, Zorn, and Wagner represented them. The defendants are Sufficiently Culpable for the Subjective Prong of Malice in which Mens Rea has been met to allot punitive award.
21. As articulated above, in count one, to see each individual defendant’s personal role in culpability view the here-in attached appendix, EXHIBIT TWO.
DAMAG ES
22. Under Doctrine of rules of Discovery, damages are subject to include additional injuries and damages that have not accrued or vividly surfaced.
Currently damages and injuries include, loss of friends, being questioned in humility by just about everybody in society. Death threats have even occurred, loss of potential job opportunities in the community, as well as several other social complications.
23. These above listed damages have anguishing ,frustrating, and overly burdensome
By not only portraying ill moral character of the plaintiff, but by the time taken in attempt to explain the truth of the matter, which is seemingly in vain attempts.
RELIEF REQUESTED
ai. COMPHENSATORY: This is the above listed and current damages for general tort in an amount of more than Ten Thousand (10,000.00) dollars. (INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES)
25. PUNITIVE: The recklessness, malice, and deliberate indifference of the instant matter as well as subjective culpability of others in the past, an amount of more than Ten Thousand (10,000.00) dollars is requested. (INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES)
26. INJUNC11ON: A Court Mandate compelling the entities to stop this defaming act and a retraction in the community newspaper. (OFFICIAL CAPACITIES)
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
27. Plaintiff spoke to Garfield County Sheriff, Spoke to County Commissioners clergy, filed two tort claims with A.C.C.O., filed and dismissed a former civil suit, and now
has instituted the instant question of law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
28. WHEREUPON, Plaintiff, prays that this Honorable Court grant judgment in his favor and against defendants, above titled, for award of more than ten thousand (10,000.00) dollars. Along with issue injunction mandate, thus, compelling the entities to formally retract the burglaries and stop the defamation.
29. The plaintiff, InProPer, is not a licensed attorney and cannot meet the stringent standards of licensed professionals, but that in general, layman are allowed amends and the court .Sua Sponte liberally construes layman pleadings.
30. Plaintiff herby swears under penalty for perjury that the above and foregoing is completely true and correct without any intentional misrepresentations of fact.

Outcome: On this 20th day of August, 2015, the court was presented with a Motion to Dismiss filed August 12, 2015 on behalf of Jerry Niles and John Marcus, and the Plaintiffs response. The court now enters the following order.
Plaintiff contends the Garfield County Sheriff wrongfully provided his mug shot to the publisher of the OK Jailbirds, LLC for repeated publication. He complains that OK Jailbirds, LLC continues to publish his photo repeatedly in the Jailbirds publication with the heading “First Degree Burglary”. In support of his claim, he attaches his photo (presumably taken in 2011) with the caption “first degree burglary” published in Jailbirds in November 2011 and a more recent photo with the same caption published in April 2014. His action is based in libel.
Defendants have attached affidavits of Jerry Niles and John Marcus showing they were acting within the scope of their authority and pursuant to the open records act (51 0.S. 24A.5 & 24A.8 in providing information to JailBirds, which Plaintiff has failed to controvert. There is no showing that either Niles or Marcus participated in the manner it was published by Jailbirds.
Defendants acted within their authority and pursuant to the Open Records Act. Plaintiffs action against Jerry Niles and John Marcus is dismissed. There being no defendants remaining, this matter is dismissed, the subpoena duces tecum issued to Phillip Deisher is quashed, and the remaining motions are moot.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: