| # | Date & Place | Government Action | Fifth-Amendment Defect | Direct Economic Losses* | Key Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14 Mar 2016 – Edmonds, WA | Arrest for purported “no-contact” violation; court set $75,000 bail; two-week incarceration before family obtained bond | - Excessive bail without individualized findings<br>- Liberty deprivation without probable cause hearing or disclosure of exculpatory Edmonds report | $7,500 bond premium + two weeks lost wages & consulting fees ≈ $12,500 | 24 |
| 2 | 20 Nov 2017 – Missoula, MT | Arrest for “harassment” based solely on unverified texts; charge dismissed w/prejudice | - No meaningful probable-cause review<br>- Failure to disclose exculpatory digital evidence | Loss of signed 1-yr IT contract $150,000 + defence costs $20,000 | 31 |
| 3 | 15 Aug 2018 – Missoula, MT | Warrantless home entry & arrest after informal phone call from WA officer; jailed several days, then released when judge found no legal basis | - Liberty & property deprivation without warrant or hearing<br>- Denial of counsel during out-of-state hold | Additional lost contracts $120,000 + psychological treatment $18,000 | 31 |
| 4 | 1 Jun 2020 – King Co., WA & Missoula, MT | Police & prosecutors threatened Nuno’s partner with loss of child custody unless she testified; coerced Alford plea on speech-based counts | - Plea obtained through duress → involuntary<br>- Suppression of exculpatory phone logs | Extra legal fees across four courts $87,000 | 31 |
| 5 | Feb 2021 – Missoula, MT | Landlord filed eviction against Nuno’s parents days after civil-rights complaints; lease “breaches” never previously enforced | - Retaliatory eviction = property deprivation without fair process<br>- Selective enforcement denies equal protection component of due process | Parents’ relocation & medical costs $76,000 | 23 |
| Aggregate | 2016-2025 | Repeated prosecutorial requests for $50k–$100k bail on non-violent speech counts; refusal to take exculpatory reports | Ongoing pattern of systematic due-process violations across jurisdictions | Career destruction (lost earnings $2.1 m); total documented economic loss ≈ $3.44 m | 31 |
\*Figures are conservative tallies drawn from contemporaneous damage spreadsheets and counsel correspondence; they exclude non-economic PTSD, depression and agoraphobia losses that independent clinicians have linked to each episode.
The Supreme Court holds that bail is excessive when higher than necessary to assure appearance (United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)). Setting $75,000 on a misdemeanor no-contact allegation—after an Edmonds officer expressly found “no violation”[1][2]—was grossly disproportionate, violating both the Fifth Amendment’s Substantive Due Process guarantee and the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive-Bail Clause. Because the hearing court ignored exculpatory evidence contained in the original Edmonds report, the procedural component of due process was also breached.
In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), the Court required a prompt probable-cause determination.
Due process condemns guilty pleas “not voluntary, knowing and intelligent” (Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)). Threatening a third party’s parental rights to secure testimony or a plea constitutes “overbearing compulsion.” The coordinated threat—lose your child or testify/plead—renders the plea voidable and exposes officials to § 1983 liability for coercive plea bargaining[3].
Government retaliation for protected petitioning violates the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth-Amendment incorporation of the Fifth. The eviction notices followed days after Nuno’s mayoral complaint and were enforced only against his family, evidencing impermissible motive[4]. Substantive due process shields against such arbitrary, retaliatory use of landlord-tenant machinery (County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)).
Across all prosecutions, officers forwarded accusations without digital logs, phone records or the original Edmonds narrative exonerating Nuno[1][2]. Brady violations of this scale infect every downstream proceeding and independently establish due-process liability.