Rebecca 696026 health insurance 9299

You’ve got it in one. Coudln’t have put it better.

Mikel Dee Danielson
SELF REPRESENTED
1588 North Fillmore Ave
Rialto CA 92376
mdanielson23@live.com
(909) 367-9073
(909) 697-2158 Fax

Attorney // Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mikel Dee Danielson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TXI
Defendant )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT,
INTRODUCTION
1. This complaint is brought in accordance to California Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b) and 18 U.S.C 1964 under provisions pursuant to § 2.07 of 18 U.S.C 1961 “Corporate Crime” The Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson is seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ. 65 (Local Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant (TXI) ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed, governed by the United States Constitution Art. § 3
2. The Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson (MDD) herby respectfully asserts the following cause of actions against the Defendant (TXI) I. Obstruction of Justice “malicious abuse of process and Fundamental Rights” violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(1)(2)(3), 201(1)(B) II. Asbestos Exposure “Refuse to Prevent” in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1961(2) III.. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, IV. Reserved for additional or furthermore appropriate cause of action if in which becomes known.
PARTIES
3. The Plaintiff; Mikel Dee Danielson (MDD) is an individual who is Self – Representative as Pro Se, and is a resident of the San Bernardino County, State of California and at all times relevant herein was a resident of the San Bernardino County, State of California.
4. . The Defendant; (TXI) is a Delaware Corporation, partner of Riverside Cement Company which is a California general partnership. TXI Riverside Inc is a privately held Delaware Corporation and a general Partner of Riverside Cement Company. TXI California Inc is a privately held Delaware Corporation and a general partner of Riverside Cement Company, Texas Industries Inc. is a publicly held Delaware Corporation which owns 100% TXI Riverside Inc. and TXI California Inc.
5. The Plaintiff (MDD) believes and based thereon alleges, each said defendant (TXI) proximately caused, connived and contributed to the injuries and damages the Plaintiff sustained.
6. At all times mention herein, the Defendant (TXI) is liable and owed legal duty to protect the plaintiff from any perpetrated unlawful act committed by each and every said Defendant.
7. At all times mention herein, the Defendant (TXI) was the agent, servant,
employee, manager, supervisor, joint-venture and or co-conspirator, and at all times acting within the course and scope of employment with direct authorization and or ratification of each said defendant, who was a principal, master or employer with managerial authority acting under denial with intent.
8. The Plaintiff (MDD) furthermore believes and based thereon alleges, the officers, shareholders, partners, owners and managing agents had advance knowledge and proof of the misconduct and are also responsible for the injuries and damages that were sustained
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
9. The Plaintiff, (MDD) furthermore believes and based thereon, the Defendant TXI Riverside Cement intentionally formulated and initiated retaliation against the Plaintiff for being a witness and inquiring on the defendant’s unlawful insider-dealing. While trying to avoid liability of the obligated requirements as an employer, the defendant would initiate unlawful investigations while giving manipulated misrepresentation to businesses, agencies, law enforcement, firms, individuals, employees, officials, and entities to engage in the same corrupt operations using the consumer’s recognition, marketing identification and reputation.
10. As part of the manipulation, each said defendant acted, knowingly, willfully and purposefully, with a malicious single purpose trying to escape liability, initiating a widespread criminal enterprise pattern of racketeering activity. The activity described herein consist of a wide-range of engagement conspiracy, involving private efforts to obtain property interest, landmarks, unmoral testimonies for “undisputed” contracts bribery, political bankrolling and personal gain, including financial gain which they have so undertaken, inflicting an economic hardship upon the Plaintiff with the intent of impairing, obstructing and discouraging the Plaintiff discovering the initial perpetrators, with a conscious disregard of the Rights, Health and Safety of others, including the Plaintiff.
11. The defendant (TXI) deliberately used the legal process to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed for, nor intended for, depriving the Plaintiff of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection. As a result of the defendant’s omissions, each act constitute numerous and multiple violations under Federal and State Laws in addition to the “Victims” Bill of Rights “Marsy’s Rights” California Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b). Furthermore becoming the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs unforeseen difficulties and hardship.

DOL/OIP-NYAV
FOIA Tracking No: 539537
Citation Order No: 6381194-01
Event No: 1128078
Complaint ID 193192

Case No: VVCV 042021 TXI v. Danielson
Case No: FVI024979 TXI v. Danielson
Case No: MVI049835
D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0029718- Ramos, TXI v. Danielson
Case No: FVA027339 TXI v. Danielson
Case No: MVI049833
D.A. Case No: 2006-00-0040766 Ramos, TXI v. Danielson
DA Case No: SBD9186898-207 Ramos v. Danielson *

Case No: HED 011658 Rommel v. Danielson
Case No: 200000000347554 Rommel v. Danielson
Case No: 100000000347554 Rommel v. Danielson
EEOC
No: 090825-001475 No: 090624-001524 No: 090912-000027
No: 090624-000000 No: 090825-001475
No: 090728-001074 No: 090821-000622

Case No: 08-O-14773 Danielson v. Miller
08-29598

Case No: VNRCI-13067 Danielson v. Competrol Mfg Inc (Obama campaign bribery)
Case No: RIC 530059 Danielson v. Riverside Cement
Case No: ED-CV-09-1442 Danielson v. Riverside cement

FBI No: 1133905-000
U.S. Department of Justice Appeal 09-2680 ADW:KAM
Right to Sue in accordance to 5 U.S.C 552(a)4(B)
Amongst Other Breech of Fiduciary Duty // Discovery

Pay-to-Play plot
AQMD vs TXI ex-wife 2006 phone bill…
Real Estate fraud. // Deeds Mortgage covered up payoff (2) transfers 5/2006
TXI // Brook hollow properties security exchange…

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. The Superior State Courts have original Jurisdiction to Enforce the Statue 18 U.S.C. 1964. The Plaintiff’s cause of action arising under violations under California Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b) and 18 U.S.C 1589, 201, 1961, 1513,
13. Venue is proper in this superior court because the unlawful acts were initiated here, the defendant resides and transacts business here.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14. The Plaintiff (MDD) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference, the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13 above are with the same force and effect as if set forth herein .
15 The Plaintiff (MDD) was hired as an employee by the defendant (TXI) “High Desert Oro Grande Facility” in September of 1999 and held the Lead man position in the D/C Maintenance Department until the Retaliatory Termination of employment in June of 2006. The Plaintiff’s obligations and responsibility was to lead assist the dept. in preventative maintenance and on Air Pollution Dust Control Units “D/C” and conduct AQMD quarterly inspection reports throughout TXI Oro Grande Riverside Cement facility.
16. On or about January of 2001, the Plaintiff (MDD) was a witness of the
defendants (TXI) Production manager; Kevin Deatley, Plant Manager Mark Smyth,
Maintenance Planner Doug Robins unlawful misconduct at an Anaheim Convention Center Super Cross Race Event., “the accused of a muti-million dollar money laundering scheme”. Soon thereafter, the Defendant terminated the all of them except for Production Manager Kevin Deatley who later transferred to the Riverside Rubidoux facility as Plant Manager and engaged in racketeering activity against the Plaintiff in order to hide his involvement and keep the Plaintiff from disclosing any relevant information. Former Plant Manager Gordon Johnson of the “Rubidoux facility” then transferred to the “High Desert facility” as Plant Manager…
17. Around 2002 , the Defendant (TXI) had two separate unannounced a.m.“MSHA” Inspections where the Plaintiff (MDD) was asked to wear a monitoring device that recorded emissions within his department “Long Kilns Skip Basement” TXI Equipment # NA:. The Plaintiff was told to do his daily duties like an ordinary day by the “MSHA Inspector”. The Defendants (TXI) Production Manager Kevin Deatley demanded the Plaintiff to disobey “MSHA” orders and have the Plaintiff stay out of his designated work area where he was to sit in an office for the eight hour day in order to avoid being shut down by MSHA.
18. On or around February of 2006 The Plaintiff (MDD) requested the Defendant (TXI) to stop direct deposit of the plaintiffs payroll due to unknown fraudulent activity. Account No: 0900439406. The defendants H.R “Rhonda Wright” had the Plaintiff fill out the required documents and sent to Corporate Office (TXI) Ontario California. The plaintiff was informed it would be stopped immediately and payroll would be disbursed by check by the following pay period. The following two pay periods the plaintiff still hadn’t received any pay roll. The Plaintiff complained to “H.R” Rhonda Wright that he was not receiving any his payroll was still being wired to the bank and requested the funds be paid in another form. The Plaintiff was informed corporate office will not disburse another check until funds were wired back to them.
19. The branch manager of “DCB” called local authorities as the plaintiff (MDD) entered the bank. The Plaintiff approached the teller and requested a cash advance from his credit card. The teller asked for I.D and his card and immediately walked into an office and closed the doors and called the local authorities. As the local authorities arrived they asked the branch manager why they were called and informed her she cannot call the them on the defendant TXI behalf and sent the Plaintiff on his way. The credit card was never even swiped.
20. The Plaintiff later discovered the branch manager “Monica” of “DCB” was
Involved in the fraud and related to both Plant Managers; Gordon Johnson and Kevin
Deatley.
21. In April of 2006, the Plaintiff (MDD) was given a job assignment at the Pack
House Loading Station 2 and 3. The assignment was to remove sheet metal and insulation around the draft pipes surrounding the loading stations Air Quality D/C systems and install inspection ports on each one.. The Plaintiff cut and removed the sheet metal and used a 100 psi air lance to remove the insulation off the draft pipes. The Plaintiff installed inspection ports on 3 of the draft pipes while working solo, the Plaintiff was stopped and was informed the insulation was Asbestos. A substance known to the State of California to cause Cancer.” CAL/OSHA Relations. The Plaintiff never received any sort of training prior to the exposure and removal. “MSHA” received a complaint early that morning Id 193192 which came out to investigate the complaint and the results determined the “insulation” was actual Asbestos. The defendant received three citations and the loading station was shut down while the remaining asbestos could be could properly removed.
EXHBIT A is attached hereto this complaint by reference
22. In May 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) started being questioned daily about his
personal finances by supervisors and managers. The Plaintiff had a meeting with Plant Manager Gordon Johnson and requested an explanation why the managers/supervisors are making false accusations stating the Plaintiff was involved in some “embezzlement scheme”. The Plant manager Gordon Johnson immediately replied, “There was No Embezzlement.” #
23. In May of 2006 Plaintiff s(MDD), Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” and plant manager (Gordon Johnson) had a meeting about the Plaintiff being harassed by other employees, and confrontations with official. The Plaintiff confronted the official with a witness and it was determined the official was setting up schemes trying to get the plaintiff terminated. Plant manager Gordon Johnson refused to bring the parties up stairs and said he would handle it in private with corporate Tom Fritts of Ontario CA. and quotes, “Were not handing out any freebees here, and if someone kicks your ass across the street at lunch or Joe Blow was to drive a truck through your house, there’s nothing I can do about it cause it didn’t happen here or I didn’t see it. Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” witness this statement.
24. In May of 2006 Jeanna Wright released private personal information in reference to Plaintiffs daughters’ daycare, its location and the name of the provider. The Plaintiff immediately reported to “Personnel Dept” “John Phillips” and Plant Manager Gordon Johnson. The Plaintiff pulled his daughter from the day care in fear of something would happen to her in another malicious act of retaliation hurting the Plaintiff. Gordon Johnson pulled Jeanna Wright upstairs and no disciplinary action was given.
25. Plaintiff received multiple phone calls in a two week period while at work by his alarm system provider (ADT) Monitoring no. X1NO15358229, Customer No: (MD) 5786166 stating alarm was triggered. The Plaintiff requested a week off of work after discovering the forced entry at his residence. The defendants H. R. Puckett wasn’t able to contact Plant Manager Gordon Johnson so she granted the week off herself after the Plaintiff let her listen to the evidence dated February 20, 2006
26. On the Plaintiff’s first day return back, plant manager Gordon Johnson
informed the Plaintiff (MDD) if he “was to miss one more day, be 1 minute late, or clock out 1 minute early,” the Plaintiff’s employment would be terminated on the spot.
27. In May of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) was in a confrontation with other employees over the unlawful misconduct at his residence. The Plaintiff immediately reported the incident he just encountered to his immediate Supervisor. The Plaintiff was in a “hyperventilating state” and his Immediate Supervisor took him to electrical MCC room where the plaintiff was told to wait until he could talk to his manager. Plaintiff was placed on medical leave to seek an evaluation until given a return back to work “Fit For Duty”. As the Plaintiff was being escorted out by Maintenance Manager “Terry Jacobs” the Plaintiff was told it is not safe here.
28. In June 2006 Rhonda Wright calls the Plaintiff (MDD) stating he was to go to Desert Valley Medical Center located on Main St. in Hesperia for an evaluation and the safety coordinator was to meet the plaintiff in the parking lot. The following morning the plaintiff went inside to check in and discovered no appointment was made and the “safety coordinator” was nowhere to be found. The Plaintiff tried calling the Safety coordinator on her cell phone but no one answered. The Plaintiff received a phone call by H.R. Rhonda Wright two and a half hours later stating the Plaintiff was supposed to go to the defendant (TXI) personal Dr. in Apple Valley. Reme Chavez was still there waiting for the Plaintiff to arrived.
29. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) arrived for a scheduled appointment with his Primary Care Facility. During check-in Plaintiff was told his benefits have been terminated. The Receptionist stated, “received a call from Riverside Cement and they said your benefits have been cancelled due to your termination.” The Plaintiff informed the receptionist he was on disability not terminated. With no notice of any termination or “COBRA” offered. The Plaintiff wasn’t able to seek immediate treatment for his injuries.
SEE EXHIBIT B is attached hereto this complaint by reference
30. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff went into the ER at Arrowhead Regional Medical Hospital requesting “Help” and was escorted to the Physic Unit to obtain an evaluation. The Plaintiff was released and referred to seek counseling.
SEE EXHBIT C is attached hereto this complaint by reference
31. The Plaintiff (MDD) never received a final paycheck due to the defendant (TXI) sending it to an unknown address.
SEE EXHBIT D is attached hereto this complaint by reference
32. In June of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) requested an emergency hardship withdraw from his 401K retirement plan but was informed by the retirement company that it must be done through the employer. The Plaintiff submitted the documents to the Defendant (TXI) corporate office in Ontario . The plaintiff received a letter one year later from the retirement company to the known address asking if the check was lost or if it was even received.
SEE EXHBIT E is attached hereto this complaint by reference
33. June 2006 the Plaintiff MDD received phone call from an employee of the
defendant (TXI) stating plant manager Gordon Johnson put your job up on the bid board and it shows the plaintiff was terminated.
34. June of 2006 Plant manager Gordon Johnson who (was in Florida at the time)
made false allegations to local authorities stating the plaintiff MDD came into the plant and
punched his fist through a piece of glass, (Safety Glass), falsified Police reports having the
Plaintiff (MDD) arrested (1st Arrest). The Plaintiff was falsely accused, and booked for
$50,000 plus in vandalism and Receiving Stolen Property with bail set at $50,000
SEE EXHIBIT F is attached hereto this complaint by reference
35. In June of 2006, Defendant (TXI) filed a restraining order against the Plaintiff (MDD) on plant manager (Gordon Johnsons) behalf and again made numerous false allegations stating the plaintiff was going to kill someone. The Plaintiff requested a meeting without the plant manager present to discuss the plant mangers family’s involvement of the fraudulent activity at the Plaintiffs bank and was in Fear and that his wife at the time and daughter had been attacked by co-workers due to the evidence that was found amongst other acts of wrong doing. SEE HED 011658 (Rommel vs. Danielson)
36. In June of 2006 Defendants (TXI) council falsified court documents’ stating the Plaintiff was called on his cell phone and was he informed of the time of hearing and was given directions to the court. The Plaintiff never received a phone call or a voice mail of any such nature.
SEE EXHBIT G is attached hereto this complaint by reference
37. In July of 2006 the defendant had multiple private and mass meetings with the entire facility and its employees to discuss procedure unwarranted information if and when any employee was to come into contact with the Plaintiff. SUB
38. The defendant called local authorities making false reports mulitpe times trying to have the Plaintiff arrested and incarcerated, specifically in July of 2006 the defendant was claiming the plaintiff was inside the facility destroying and flipping over portable restrooms not realizing the plaintiff was already in custody due to the last phone call.
39. In August of 2006 the Plaintiff (MDD) ex-girlfriend “niece” of an official of the defendant had called the plaintiff at his residence (Landline) stating her uncle A.P just called her and was told if she came in contact with the plaintiff she must call the local authorities on him … in order to have the plaintiff arrested.
40. In August of 2006 Plaintiff (MDD) called plant manager (Gordon Johnson) asking for therapy for his injuries, “Landline”. Plant manager (Gordon Johnson) states he is on vacation and he was terminated. The defendant called local authorities and falsified Police Reports and had Plaintiff arrested. The Plaintiff was falsely accused, charged, and imprisoned for terrorist threats with bail set at $500,000.
SEE EXHBIT H is attached hereto this complaint by reference
41. After the terrorist threats were dropped to a complaint, Defendant (TXI) had Personnel “John Phillips” and H.R. Rhonda Wright filed additional counts of terrorist threats in order to keep the plaintiff confined, while the defendant assisted the plaintiffs spouse in unlawful deed transfers and other unlawful transactions could be completed. HED 011658
SEE EXHBIT I is attached hereto this complaint by reference
43. The Plaintiff (MDD) was told by the public defender’s office, the defendant (TXI) gives a lot of money to this court and if the plaintiff doesn’t plea NOLO now and take this deal the Plaintiff is looking at least a year in county just for the terrorist threats, not including the 5 other arrest that were still pending, as well as a strike on Plaintiffs record. He also informed the Plaintiff the Plant Manager (Gordon Johnson), Official (A.P), employee (Jeanna Wright) , Official (Nathan Hardwick) are all here and are going to testify against him. Plaintiff witnessed all them inside the court but is not aware if a testimony was given in the court. The Plaintiff was pulled out of the court room for sending out Hand Gestures to the defendants personnel “John Phillips” H.R Rhonda Wright. When the Plaintiff was escorted back into the court John Phillips, Rhonda Wright, Gordon Johnson, A.P, Jeanna Wright and Nathan Hardwick were no longer present.
44. The Plaintiff (MDD) was imprisoned for over 180 DAYS.
SEE EXHBIT J is attached hereto this complaint by reference
45. The Plaintiff (MDD) discovered the defendant (TXI) attempted to assist in a $30.5 million dollar contract executed on February 20, 2007. The contract was intercepted.
SEE EXHBIT K is attached hereto this complaint by reference
46. The Plaintiff has reason to believe the defendant continues to conspire against him due to the defendants numerous claims filed against them and recent notice of EPA violations, furthermore discovering the the defendant assisted the Plaintiffs ex wife in divorce proceedings depriving the plaintiff of his rights which created wipe spread of corruption, furthermore lead to additional investigations, The Plaintiff discovered in January of 2010 the defendant bribed the plaintiffs ex wife in divorce proceedings, mortgage fraud and other assets and false claims. The Plaintiffs residence had a balance of $530,000 mortgage which was discovered was paid around May of 2006 which the plaintiff was told was falling into foreclosure proceeding. The plaintiffs name was unlawfully taken off of title prior to any divorce proceedings being filed nor being placed on disability then terminated.
SEE EXHBITS L is attached hereto this complaint by reference
47 Throughout 2006 and so on the Defendant (TXI) gave misleading false statements to The San Bernardino County to carry out the malicious unlawful transactions invading the little recovery the plaintiff gained including an employer where the plaintiff held 24 months earning a respected name and multiple promotions until the defendant discovered the Plaintiff employment and made threats against the owner and bribed the other managerial individuals for engagement t of unlawful acts against the plaintiff furthermore destroying the little structure the plaintiff worked two years trying to put his life back with what was left. The Plaintiff discovered the defendant was involved in another scheme and plot, conspiring against the Plaintiff involving forced labor and political bribes.
See HED 011658 Respondents“FL-150” Expense Report

48. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants omissions, the plaintiff has suffered from the following damages and injuries set forth below:
1ST SEPERATION FROM MY DAUGHTER(S): KATELIN WHO RELIED ON ME AS PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER, AND DEPRIVED MY RIGHTS TO ASHLEY
a) Since of Security
b) Anxiety
c) Emotional Distress
d) Humiliation
e) Violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights
g) Anger
h) Creditability
i) Invasion Right to Privacy
j) Public Policy
k) Family…

COMPLIATION OF THE UNITED STATES CODE BACKGROUND
49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 48 above are with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
50. Invasion to the Right to Privacy four factors (1) The use of a persons name or picture without permission (2) Intrusion upon an individual’s affairs or seclusion (3) Publication of information that places a person in a false light (4) Public disclosures of private facts about an individual that an ordinary person would find objectionable.
51. 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) The Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization Act, is supplemented from the The Universal International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which both are rendered supreme law by virtue of the supremacy clause “Pattern of Racketeering Activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of the last of which occurred within Ten Year period (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.
18. U.S.C. § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent— (B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States
18 U.S.C. § 1589: (Forced labor)
Obtaining labor or services by (1) threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against victim or another person; (2) scheme, plan, etc. causing victim to believe she’d suffer serious harm or physical restraint if labor/services not performed; (3) abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

MODEL PENAL CODE
The Model Penal Code § 2.07 18 U.S.C 1961 et seq provides that a corporation may be convicted of a crime in the following situations; (1) the criminal act by the corporations agent or employee within the scope of there employment and the purpose of the statue defining the act of the crime is to impose liability on a corporation (2) The crime consist of a failure to perform a specific affirmative duty imposed on corporations by Law (3) The crime was authorized requested commanded committed or recklessly tolerated by one of the corporations high managerial agents.
(TITLE VII) REGULATIONS
28 C.F.R. §36.208
29 C.F.R. §1630.2
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i) .
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(iii)
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(1)
29 C.F.R. §1630.2(r)
49 C.F.R. §391.41(b)(1) .
C.F.R. §36.208. (emphasis added)..
CAUSES OF ACTION
I. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 18 U.S.C. § 1589(1)(2)(3), 201(1)(B)
52 The Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 51 above are with the same force and effect as if set forth herein.
The defendant (TXI) deliberately failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the legal process commission and the defense, among other things, offered testimonies and altered evidence they knew to be false; corruptly influence and colored a witness’s testimony with the intent to encourage untruthful testimony (suborn perjury), in violation of 18 USC § 1503 and 18 USC § 1512; furthermore violating the Plaintiffs right to discovery under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a).. The Plaintiff was deprived of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection under Title VII of the Civil Right laws. The due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States
53. The defendant had the supervisory authority, over the plaintiff, the authority to conduct an proper investigation, discover, and attempt to prevent any further acts of wrong doing including the power of preventing the commission of the said malicious acts which could have been done by reasonable diligence. The defendant failed there legal duty. As a result of the defendant’s omissions, they constitute numerous and multiple violations state and federal laws. The failure of which was the proximate cause of the legal process to be overlooked
54. The Plaintiff used his rights to enforce equal protection and took initiation opening an investigation himself so the evidence that was being withheld, wrongfully sold, or destroyed by the defendant and public officials could be exposed in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities. As to each and every defendant; there was an unlawful objective to be accomplished, an agreement on the unlawful objective, perform the unlawful objective, causing the plaintiff harm and injury that were a direct result of the objective.
55. The plaintiff complained of defendant’s unjust fair treatment through the chain of command which later discovered in 2008, the chain of command was mislead and prepared for the plaintiff complaints, furthermore leading to all parties.
a) Paper Allied Industrial Union Local 08-192
b) TXI Riverside Cement Co. High Desert Facility - Oro Grande
c) TXI Operations LP Corporate Office - Ontario CA
d) TXI Corporate Dallas TX
e) County of San Bernardino
f) County of Riverside
g) Kaiser
h) Arrow Head Medical Center
i) EEOC
j) Department of Labor
k) The California State Bar
l) USWA
m) State of California Relations
n) Federal Bureau – Investigation / Identification
o) Local Authorities
p) U.S. Department of Justice
56. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ. 65 (Local Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed under U.S. Const. Art. § III. The Plaintiff demands a judgment against the Defendant, jointly and individually.
II. “ASBESTOS EXPOSURE REFUSED TO PREVENT”
VIOLATION 18 U.S.C. § 1961
57. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 56 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
58. The Defendant intentionally exposed the Plaintiff to a chemical/substance
Known to the state of California to cause Cancer - Division of Occupational Safety and Health § 25910 State Department of Industrial Relations (Cal / OSHA). The Plaintiff assignment was to remove insulation and install inspection ports. After three ports were installed the Plaintiff was told to stop and was informed the insulation was Asbestos. The phone call to MSHA (Compliant ID 193192) was placed that morning prior to the Plaintiff even being informed he was in harms way and at risk. While dealing with the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, which applies where, by virtue of the nature of the defendant’s unethical misconduct and the parties’ relationship to the misconduct, the defendant is liable and owes legal duty to protect the plaintiff from particular risk of harm. Especially placing an employee in harms way deliberately knowing it was Asbestos. (Event No: 1128078) The defendant ignored the big picture and tried to set up a lawsuit for the plaintiff exposing him to the substance followed by a 30 min video about the hazards and risks if an individual is exposed in which the defendant thought it would be deemed fair just and equitable for the torture the plaintiff was forced with, Specifically prepping a three year old little girl to tell her Daddy what happen when uninvited intruders forced themselves into our house and had their way, then having her apologize for their cowardly undertaken act.
The Plaintiff was deprived of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection. The due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States
59. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is personally seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ. 65 (Local Rule 65-1) in addition to the Model Penal Code “Corporate Prosecution” Criminal penalties against the defendant ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed under U.S. Const. Art. § III. The Plaintiff demands a judgment against the Defendant, jointly and individually.
III. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 63 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
61. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiff by maliciously attacking mentally verbally and physically, as well as forcing the Plaintiff to face life shattering obstacles due to the Defendant abusing the lawful process by an unlawful purpose, violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, terminating Plaintiff’s medical benefits without prior notification when trying to seek treatment, refusing to prevent harm injury or death, false arrest and imprisoning the Plaintiff, interfering with Plaintiff’s state civil rights by threats, coercion, intimidation using anyone from a toddler to fictitious names and corrupt campaign committees
62. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable within a civilized community. The emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe and of a nature that NO reasonable man could be expected to endure and survive what the Plaintiff Mikel Dee Danielson was forced to face
63. As a result of the Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct, the Plaintiff was, is, and, with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to the intentional exclusion. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, and humiliation.
64. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is seeking provisional relief under Fed. R. Civ. 65(Local Rule 65-1) in addition to Criminal and Civil penalties against the defendant ensuring the Laws of the United States are "Faithfully" executed. U.S. Const. Art. § 3. The Plaintiff Demands a judgment against the Defendant, jointly and individually
IV. RESERVED FOR CAUSE OF ACTION WHEN THEY BECOME KNOWN
65. The Plaintiff reserves for additional or more appropriate causes of actions
AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
66. In order to preserve and protect a victim’s rights to justice and due process, a victim shall be entitled to the following rights: Victims’ Bill of Rights “Marsy’s Rights” California Constitution, Article I, Section 28(b)

1. To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be free from
intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout the criminal justice process.
2. To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.
3. To have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the defendant.
4. To prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, which could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family or which disclose confidential communications made in the course of medical or counseling treatment, or which are otherwise privileged or confidential by law.
5. To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.
6. To reasonable notice of and to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding, the arrest of the defendant if known by the prosecutor, the charges filed, the determination whether to extradite the defendant, and, upon request, to be notified of and informed before any pretrial disposition of the case.
7. To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other post-conviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings.
8. To be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including any delinquency proceeding, involving a post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue.
9. To a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings.
10. Provide information to a probation department official conducting a pre-sentence investigation concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family and any sentencing recommendations before the sentencing of the defendant.
11. To receive, upon request, the pre-sentence report when available to the defendant, except for those portions made confidential by law.
12. To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant, and the release of or the escape by the defendant from custody.
13. To restitution.
A. It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.
B. Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.
C. All monetary payments, monies, and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim.
14. To the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence.
15. To be informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to provide information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the offender.
16. To have the safety of the victim, the victim’s family, and the general public considered before any parole or other post-judgment release decision is made.
17. To be informed of the rights enumerated in paragraphs (1) through (16).

. A victim, the retained attorney of a victim, a lawful representative of the victim, or the prosecuting attorney upon request of the victim, may enforce the above rights in any trial or appellate court with jurisdiction over the case as a matter of right. The court shall act promptly on such a request.
(Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(c)(1).
67. The Plaintiff respectfully is requesting Prayer for Relief .
CONCLUSION
. With In all Aspects of the Principals, the Law failed itself when the defendant was using the Legal Process as its body shield, as high rank officials looked the other way when the Plaintiff was in a desperate plea for help. The defendant went so far in recruiting associates, neighbors, members, police, the media…anyone they could find to threaten, harass and manipulate them with the intent to encourage untruthfulness rather than follow their own Mission Statement “Produce Cement”. The defendant lacks empathy and has dehumanized so many, as if they’re an extension of themselves, or instruments to be played as they wish physically, psychologically, and verbally. They view their victims as nothing more than a comfortable old chair that can be easily discarded should it become uncomfortable. Their level of comfort is their only concern and they will sell you down the river to hold onto that comfort and give out their same old speech, “We give our condolences to the families” or “It Was An Act of God.” The Plaintiff has had accept responsibility for the actions that has taken a toll on so many which has been difficult to heal from, but will not hold himself accountable for the devastating affairs that overlooked the legal process. The defendant needs to face responsibility for the actions they all agreed upon, rather than use a victims life shattering event or a political debate as a another plot trying escape liability every time there corrupt affairs get revealed.

History Does Not Need To Repeat Itself.
31-CA-17659 --- 31-CA-17924
The Evidence Rest “Prima Facie” and It Clearly Speaks for Itself !
I Mikel Dee Danielson the Plaintiff submit this complaint to the best of my knowledge based under the circumstances and evidence hereto set forth by reference. I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in this complaint will subject me to penalties of perjury. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AMERICA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. See 28 U.S.C 1746 and 18 U.S.C. 1621

Exucuted: March 9, 2010