Atkinson v. Rockport Amended Civil Right Complaint
James M. Atkinson
charges of racketeering, illegal possession of use of bugging devices,
and other important subjects.
http://www.tscm.com/Amended1983Complaint%5Bv10.0c-Final%5D%20copy.pdf
I would encourage citizens who witness significant wrongdoing on the
part of the government, or government contractor, or of a government
official or employee to report it, and the hell with the blow back.
This PDF file is 654 pages, and is just over 100 MB, so download it and
circulate.
It always pays to do the right thing... eventually, but initially you
can get hurt for pointing out official wrong doing, and corrupt
government contractors (which is what kicked a lot of this off), but end
the end justice will be served, and those corrupt officials will pay
dearly, quite dearly.
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
-jma
--
James M. Atkinson
President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
Granite Island Group
jm...@tscm.com
http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 546-3803
Ed Michaels
Ed Voice: 856.685.9435 NPPA: 259612 IFPO: Life Member Nikonians: eddiemichaels Amateur: KC2MWI
James M. Atkinson
to size, so I removed the recitation of defendants, and the causes of
action, and the exhibits and stuff so that you can see what I filed with
the Federal court on this suit.
There are something like 120 defendants, a dozen of so are companies or
government agencies, but most importantly, I am asking the Federal
Government to force the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to obey the Bill
of Rights and the Constitution of the United States , and to force them
to obey the U.S. Supreme COurt ruling and opinions.
If anybody is interested in helping out with donation to help defray the
costs of my filing suit, or the costs of getting the case rolling along
they can donate to me via PayPal (any donations will be greatly
appreciated), using the my E-mail address of: jm...@tscm.com (hint, I
can use all the help I can get on this matter, so please feel free to do
what you can, it will be greatly appreciated).
I filed the case "pro se" which is to mean that I wrote it for the most
part on my own, with some oversight and guidance by an attorney I
respect, and I handled getting it filed on my own, and I am handling
getting the summons served, and getting the case ruling on my own. I am
interested in working with a Civil RIghts attorney in the Boston area
who might be interested in representing me on the case (hint, hint,
hint), and woudl appreciate any introductions of recommendation to same.
There will be some more details to follow, but you will note that I am
claiming that some folks violated the racketeering statutes, violated
the eavesdropping statutes, and that there is some illegal equipment
floating around out there.
http://www.tscm.com/Amended1983Complaint%5Bv10.0c-Final%5D%20copy.pdf
11-CV-11073-NMG
AMENDED COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1. This action for deprivation of civil rights under color of law
challenges various Massachusetts statutes in regard to the keeping and,
or of bearing arms to the extent that they prohibit otherwise qualified
private citizens from keeping or carrying arms for the purpose of
self-defense. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
actual damages, and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
2. Second Amendment Rights are no different then First Amendment Rights,
nor the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, or 14th Amendments, nor for that matter
any other part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3. The government cannot exercise prior restrain in either matters of
the First Amendment, nor in matters of the Second Amendment. The
government may not prohibit the possession of a high volume printing
press any more then they may prohibit a high capacity magazine, high
capacity feeding device, high capacity firearm or assault weapon.
4. A high volume printing press in and of itself is no more or less
dangerous than a high capacity firearm or a high capacity firearm
magazine. In both cases a citizen is responsible or the use or misuse of
either, but the government may not impose prior restraint on either.
5. A printing press, arms of various sorts, and holy books are all
equally protected under the Bill of Rights. Not the States, nor the
Federal Government may outlaw a religion, may not mandate a certain
thickness or page count of the Holy Bible, nor the scripting of prayers
by the faithful, define the size of a Prayer Rule, mandate the Mass be
spoken in High Latin or English, nor impose the desires of the
Government in regards to religion or political choices, nor may they
impose undue control or restraint on the keeping and bearing of arms.
6. All firearms utilized by law enforcement for individual defense of
the officer or for entering homes, buildings, or vehicles are suitable
examples that these same or similar weapons are well suited for defense
of the home.
7. The firearm itself, the configuration of the magazines, of feeding
devices, the ammunition used, and the manner it which it is deployed are
all evidence that a weapon is well suited for home defense.
8. By their very design, firearms are dangerous, they are supposed to be
dangerous, and they are supposed to be deadly, any fool knows this.
People train to become proficient with arms in order to use them in a
dangerous and controlled manner, and in some cases a deadly manner. Any
assertions that a particular modern arm is more or less dangerous then
another is sheer and utter lunacy.
9. The “dangerousness” of any particular firearm lies in the intent of
the hands that wields it, and if those hands have evil intentions and
they lack access to one type of arms then they will turn to other
weapons and arms that are equally or more dangerous than firearms.
10. A high capacity magazine or feeding device is protected under the
2nd Amendment, the government may not dictate any aspect of the arms
that a person may choose for defense, not the feeding device or
magazine, nor the type of ammunition used. The U.S. Supreme Court
affirms this right, immunity, and privilege in both District of Columbia
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S.
___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010). decisions.
11. Any weapon used by a SWAT team for home or business entries and/or
raid is strong evidence that the same weapon is particularly suited for
home defense. Otherwise, logically, the SWAT Team would not be using
such weapons.
12. Logically then, any and all firearms which a law enforcement officer
would normally carry on a day to day basis anywhere in the country, or
which is endorsed for, sold for, endorsed as, or in any way considered
as a firearm suited for individual law enforcement officers to carry or
use is prima facia evidence that it is suitable for home defense as it
is generally accepted as safe. The same holds true of any firearm,
magazine, feeding device, or ammunition in common use by law federal,
state, and local law enforcement officers.
13. Under the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights, the police
are not entitled to any greater or lesser protection than that of the
common law abiding citizen. Nor may any law abiding citizen be denied
the ability to keep arms identical to, or similar to those carrier by
the police. In effect, by application of the Equal Protections clause of
the 14th Amendment the citizens of the United States and allowed to
permit arms, up to and equally those issued to, carried by, authorized
by, or used by members of law enforcement of the various states. Thus,
if a police off ice permitted to carry a type of arm, then so are
members of the public.
14. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Heller and in McDonald allows the
occupant of the home to determine which firearms are primarily useful
for home defense, and does not allow the government to dictate which
weapons be kept, or used in this regard. In fact, the law permits the
use of not only a firearm, but actually that of any arms available to
the person.
15. This weapon selection is highly personal, and can range from little
more then a pointy stick, to an edged weapon, a bayonet, a sword or
cutlass, or if they so choose a firearm of the sort they feel is most
suitable.
16. Conversely, should a citizen feel strongly against the keeping, or
the bearing of arms they are well within their rights not to possess or
to carry same, but they may not impose their religious, philosophical,
and social choices upon other citizens.
17. The state however, may not restrict the mere possession or “keeping”
or arms, nor can the state restrict the “bearing of arms” by normal law
abiding citizens, and at most may only control the manner in which they
are carried with a minimum of interference or control.
18. At most the state may impose certain controls to keep arms out of
the hands of convicted felons or those who are adjudged insane, but they
may not otherwise control, license, or ban arms.
19. The Bill of Rights, and the interpretations and decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court does not permit the state to prohibit the possession
of a Holy Bible, the Torah, or the Quran, or any other holy book which
the state may not like, but may control the retail sale of such to a
limited extent. Nevertheless, the State cannot control or license mere
possession of said holy books.
20. There is no requirement under the law to obtain a license for any
sort for a holy book of any religion or denomination, not a Bible, not a
Sermon Book, not a Prayer Book, not a Psalm book, or a Crucifix, or
prayer rug, not Statues, not candles, not high capacity church pews, not
ornate prayer rugs, not pipe organs, not grand pianos, not banners, not
standards, not religious iconography, not bells, not chalices, not
fonts, not baptisms, not incense, not crosses, not religious symbols,
not stained glass, not wafers, not hosts, not a hiram, not relics, not a
Yarmulkah or Yarmulke, nor Chalice Paten, nor Communion Paten, nor
Ciborium, nor Host Box, nor Missal, nor Chasuble, nor Albs, nor Altar
Cloths, nor Purificator, nor Finger Towels, nor Bread Trays, nor Cup
Trays, nor Bema, nor Shulcahn, nor NER TAMID, nor Corporals, nor Amices,
nor Palls, nor Cincture, nor Oil Stock, nor Pyx, nor Menorah, nor
Kiddush Cup, nor Vademecum, not head dresses, not a hijab, not
vestments, nor Tallit or Tallis, nor choir robes.
21. Neither is any government permission or license, or ID card (which
is a defacto license if it can be revoked) required for keeping Holy
Bibles or other religion artifacts in ones home, or to bear them up or
carry them in practice of ones chosen religion.
22. The Bill of Rights, and the interpretations and decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court does not permit the state to prohibit the possession
of a modern printing press (or Holy Bible) which the state may not like,
but may control the retail sale of such a press should it be overly
dangerous to operate, or should the Holy Bible be printed of plastic
explosive sheets. However, the State cannot control or license mere
possession of said printing press (nor of the Holy Bible), nor for that
matter arms.
23. There is no requirement under the law to obtain a license of any
sort for a printing press ownership, not for a quill pen, not a bottle
of ink, not a fountain pen, not a sheet of paper, nor an inkjet printer,
or even a high capacity laser printer, nor high capacity word processor,
nor even a super computer. Not type faces, not type, not metal plates,
not inking pads, nor composing sticks, not type cases, nor other tools
of the printing trade.
24. Neither is any government permission or license, or ID card (which
is a defacto license if it can be revoked) required to keep arms in ones
home, or to bear them up or carry them in defense of others, or even the
State.
25. The Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and is “fully applicable against the
States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010).
26. However, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts steadfastly refuses to
update the statutes of Massachusetts to reflect either the District of
Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
The Commonwealth continues to ignore both the Constitution of the United
States, the Bill of Rights, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, to
the level that the Commonwealth exhibits an attitude, and conducts legal
matters related to firearm with utter disregard for the civil rights of
the citizens, complete, willful arrogance in regards to the 2nd and 14th
Amendments, and even bolder affront to the U.S. Supreme Court, and even
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, whereby the
Commonwealth now chooses merely to ignore the ruling by this nations
highest court.
27. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts further demonstrates their evil
intentions by foisting a ruse of various licensing scheme that exists
for no reason but to deprive law abiding citizens of defensive arms in
their home or businesses.
28. As if this arrogance of the Commonwealth could not run more afoul of
the U.S. Constitution; the Bill of Rights; the various rulings of the
U.S. Supreme Court; and Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First,
Article XVII, the Commonwealth continues to unlawfully and with ill
intent forcibly and with deceit enter law abiding businesses, and homes
of citizens who are qualified by law to possess arms, and to take those
arms away by force and by deception in direct violation of Federal law,
and they do so with the approval of the Attorney General of the
Commonwealth, and with a approval of the District Attorneys, who then
empanel Grand Juries, so that the Attorney General and District
Attorneys are “making law” and trying to illegally force precedent, and
misusing the Grand Jury system for political power and social controls,
instead of obeying the law themselves. In some cases the police or the
district attorneys will trick a Judge or Magistrate into issuing a
search warrant or an arrest warrant, even when it is prohibited by law.
29. The Commonwealth encourages law enforcement officer to lie and to
perjure himself or herself in order to gain arrest or search warrants,
and to confect a gross deception on the court system. These law
enforcement officer do this knowing they the District Attorneys nor the
Attorney general will prosecute then, even when they are caught in this
state sponsored deception.
30. Plaintiff seeks to establish that the recognition and incorporation
of the Second Amendment – the right to possess and carry weapons in case
of confrontation – renders the State’s present regulatory choice
unconstitutional. Whatever the contours of a constitutional scheme might
be, the Second Amendment renders a ban on the keeping and, or carrying
or arms, or firearms impermissible.
35. PLAINTIFF
36. Plaintiff ATKINSON, is representing himself at this time in this
matter pro se and propria persona and hereby serves notice pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 5.1 “Constitutional Challenge to a
Statute - Notice, Certification, and Intervention” and formal notice of
“Civil Right Violation, Infringement, and Deprivation”.
37. Notice of this Constitutional challenge has previously been made to
the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the manner
required by rule 5.1.
38. Plaintiff resides at 31R Broadway, Rockport, MA 01966 in Essex County.
a. The Supreme Court noted that "[i]n the federal courts, the right of
self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings
of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92,
enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day
before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the
courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own
causes personally or by the assistance of counsel.'" Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806, 813 (1975).
39. Plaintiff Atkinson brings this notice, claim, and complaint forwards
on his own behalf before this court.
40. Comes now the Plaintiff, JAMES M. ATKINSON, who is a U.S. Citizen by
birth, a civil libertarian, a disabled U.S. Veteran with Honorable
Service, a recognized, and published, expert in the subject matter of
technical counter-intelligence, TEMPEST, TSCM, espionage defenses, spy
hunting, an expert in the use and handing of arms, teaching of open
handed combat, non-lethal use of force, less-lethal use of force,
improvised weapons, small arms, SWAT, Hostage Rescue (HRT), and
Emergency Response (ERT) teams in all forms of firearms, chemical
weapons instructor and master instructor, long range sniping instructor,
machine gun instructor, explosive entry specialist, covert
bio-regulators use instructor, nerve toxics and poisons at both the
lethal and non-lethal levels, improvised explosive devices, concealed
firearms carry instructor, and vehicle combat driving instructor, and
vehicle commandeering instructor.
41. Plaintiff is also a highly skilled factory trained and certified
armorer with every major weapons platform used by major law enforcement
agencies, federal agencies, the U.S. Military, Diplomatic, Special
Operations Forces, and the military, diplomatic, and police agencies of
foreign countries.
42. He was also a volunteer Emergency First Responder (EFR) and
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) in his community, a CPR and First Aid
Instructor, Life Member of the National Rifle Association, Life Member
of the Police Marksmen Association, and Life Member of the Law
Enforcement Association, of America.
43. Plaintiff James M. Atkinson, is the President and Senior Engineer of
Granite Island Group located in Gloucester, MA, which is a small veteran
owned company that since 1987 has specialized in the field of
electronics engineering. The firm has special capability involving the
protection of classified, confidential, privileged, or private
information against technical attack, eavesdropping, or exploitation.
44. Plaintiff Atkinson is responsible for performing visual and
instrumented TSCM (Technical Surveillance Counter Measure) surveys. This
includes the analysis of all signals present on the airways; evaluation
of telephone lines, computer networks, detection of computer viruses and
Trojan horses, security of voice and data switching systems, and any
mechanism by which a spy could commit technical eavesdropping or
surveillance against or exploitation of a target through technical
means. Also included in these responsibilities are the studies of
electromagnetic interference (EMI), and the study of electromagnetic
compliance (EMC), to include the performance of visual and instrumented
TEMPEST inspections, and measures to mitigate other technical weaknesses
in communications and computer systems.
45. He has attended extensive private and government sponsored TSCM,
TEMPEST, cryptographic, technical intelligence, electronics, and
security training both in the United States and abroad. I have been
involved in many hundreds of TSCM, TEMPEST inspections, over the past 25
years of government and private sector assignments. I have been
extensively published on these subject matters, and have authored
materials that have affected national policy.
46. His clients include major corporations, heads-of-state, diplomats,
government agencies, defense contractors, hospitals, courthouses, police
stations, banks, universities, publicly traded companies, private
companies, stockbrokers, ranchers, farmers, fisherman, accountants, law
firms, restaurants, political leaders, ministers, small businesses, and
private individuals.
47. Plaintiff Atkinson is a long-term resident of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and more specifically Rockport, MA; has testified
multiple times before Congress as a subject matter expert in regards to
technical counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism, and has been
consulted in person on matters of diplomacy or technical espionage
directly by sitting Presidents, and leaders of other countries, the
intelligence services of a wide range of countries including the United
States Government.
48. He has provided goods, services, and advice to virtually every U.S.
Intelligence Agency, and to all elements of the U.S. Military over a
period spanning over three decade, including intelligence, diplomatic,
and military contractors, sub-contractors, and covert cut-out and, or
front companies. He is also a scientist working on a cure for diabetes
and neuropathy, and a skilled fine arts photographer.
49. Plaintiff Atkinson is a law-abiding citizen, who is over the age of
21, with tremendous respect of the law, a kind, charitable, and gentle
man, and has a sworn duty both as a citizen and a veteran to uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States (against all enemies
foreign and domestic).
50. He has never been convicted of any crime; has never been convicted
of any felony; is not a fugitive from justice; is not under Indictment;
is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any control substance; is not
an alcoholic; has never been treated for any kind of drug or alcohol
addiction or disorder; has not been adjudicated as a mental defective,
nor has he been committed or confined to any mental institution; nor has
he been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
51. He is not now, nor has he been in the past the subject of any court
order in regards to any intimate partner, or any other person. Plaintiff
Atkinson is not an alien, nor has he at any time renounced his
citizenship, nor has he at anytime engaged in acts of war against the
United States or America, or of any political division or subdivision.
52. Plaintiff Atkinson served honorably, and with distinction in the
Active Duty Armed Forces of the United States, and was granted an
Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force. Plaintiff has
never been the subject of any court order in regards to harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
53. Nor has Plaintiff been convicted of any crime of domestic violence.
54. In short, Plaintiff Atkinson has been a lawful, responsible, and
safe user of projectile, edged, impact, chemical, and other arms for
over 40 years, and has both kept and borne arms for his own defense, and
for the defense of the nation and of the state.
55. Plaintiff Atkinson is in no way disqualified is exercising his
Constitutional rights in regards to the keeping and, or of bearing the
arms of his choosing.
[snip, removed recitation of Defendants]
302. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
303. The Second Amendment provides:
a. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed. - U.S. Const. Amndt. II.
304. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to
carry operable arms in all non-sensitive public places for the purpose
of self-defense.
305. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the requirements of the
Second Amendment against the States and their units of local government.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3042 (Jun. 28, 2010).
306. The States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying
handguns within constitutional parameters; to prohibit the carrying of
handguns in very specific, narrowly defined sensitive places; to
prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second
Amendment protection; and, to disqualify specific, particularly
dangerous individuals (convicted criminals and the mentally insane) from
carrying handguns.
307. The States may not completely ban the possession or carrying of
handguns or other arms for self defense, may not deny individuals the
right to carry handguns or other arms in non-sensitive places, may not
deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to carry handguns
or other arms, or impose any licensing scheme of any sort which that are
inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
308. The States also may not restrict, or license the possession of
firearms, pistols, rifles, revolvers, swords, foils, daggers, or other
useful arms that the own selects as being most suited to their own
defense, and which have been historically useful in defending the home
or business.
309. The States are not allowed to dictate which weapons may or may not
be kept within the home, only that certain overly unstable or overly
dangerous firearms (by reason of a design flaw). For example, a large
carriage-mounted cannon would be most unsuited for defense inside the
home, but pretty much any modern shotgun, rifle, pistol, revolver, or
edged or impact weapons or other weapons would be well suited to home,
business, and property defense.
310. FACTS
311. Plaintiff Atkinson was repeatedly and falsely arrested as a result
of a matter for which there was no probable cause; however, the
initiating Rockport Police officers and FBI Agents manipulated
fabricated the "facts" in order to obtain arrest warrants for falsely
filed charges. In addition, the issuing magistrate knew or should have
known, or should have questioned of the falsity of the "facts" related,
and the point of law in order to obtain the warrants used to injure
Plaintiff.
312. In addition, Plaintiff was charged with various violations of
Massachusetts' gun laws; however, all of these charges were again false
arrests since no criminal conduct existed under the U.S. Supreme Court
decisions in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010),
and also in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), The
continued and false arrests were malicious and designed to obtain a
illegal access to the Plaintiff home and business, and for illegal
purposes and result not within the ambit of legitimate criminal
investigation or prosecution.
313. The Rockport Police Department, Rockport Ambulance Department,
Rockport Fire Department, Lyons Ambulance, OEMS, Beverly Hospital, and
several John Does working in their official capacity and individually
deprived Plaintiff Atkinson of his civil right while operating under the
color of authority.
314. These defendants engaged in activities to harm and attempted to
injure, and did rob, steal from, and seek to discredit Plaintiff
Atkinson as a government witness, when it was discovered in August 2009
that Plaintiff would be a States witness against half of the Police
Officers, Firemen, and EMT’s in Rockport, and likely a witness against
several hundred additional corrupt public safety employees on the North
Shore of Boston, including but not limited to Rockport, Gloucester,
Ipswich, Essex, Boxford, Topsfield, Wenham, Beverly, and others.
315. The Rockport police officers and others confected a conspiracy
whereby they would get a shipment of the Plaintiffs goods from Research
Electronics delayed for a few weeks by causing export documents (later
discovered not required by law) to be repeatedly rejected or approved
delayed by Research Electronics, and would then arrest and charge the
Plaintiff for not delivering the goods to an overseas client, falsely
charging Plaintiff with a crime by virtue of these delays in shipment
caused by the police and others.
316. Based on these manipulations by the police alone (and no actual
convictions), that when arrested the Plaintiff involved his 5th
Amendment rights and refused to make statements, the Chief of Police in
Rockport punitively and unlawfully revoked the Plaintiffs License to
Carry Firearms, and then illegally demanded that all firearms be turned
in, even though such a request was a violations of the Plaintiff civil
rights, an infringement, and a deprivation.
317. The defendant Tibert acting under the color of authority and as a
Rockport Police Officer then threatened to use violence to forcibly
break into the Plaintiff’s home and to seize the firearms, and to charge
Plaintiff with other crimes if he did not comply, knowing thereafter
that Plaintiff had experienced a heart attack and was hospitalized being
unable to comply.
318. Upon Plaintiff's return to his home from the hospital cardiac unit
several days later at 8:30 PM on Saturday night, he was awakened at 8:30
AM Sunday by a multitude of armed officer of the Rockport Police
Department and federal agencies, who unlawfully smashed thought the door
while the Plaintiff was still asleep, brutalized the Plaintiff, and
caused a secondary cardiac emergency, from which the plaintiff was
unable to recover.
319. In fact, this situation turned into a life-threatening medical
situation, which eventually required surgical intervention within days.
320. The defendants then proceeded to steal for their own personal use,
coins, gold, silver, cash, radio equipment, computers, keys, batons,
body bunkers, books, manuals, not covered under any warrant and never
reflected on the police inventory, although photographs provided by
defendants of several stolen possessions appeared in newspapers.
321. During this wholesale looting of the Plaintiffs home, two
defendants (FBI agents not reflected as being present in police
documents) joined in, removed computers, and other things, which have
not yet been accounted for in any way.
322. Additional Rockport Police Officer, including the Chief of the
Rockport Police Department, also joined the sacking of the Plaintiffs
home and business, and removed several hundred thousand dollars of
American Gold Eagles and gold bullion, at least $5,000 in cash, and over
1600 ounces of silver bullion, plus tools, goods, equipment, and
supplies, and well as destroyed at least $300,000 of highly
sophisticated laboratory test equipment.
323. Further, an inert and inactive expended rocket launcher tube and
fireworks were planted in Plaintiff's home by these defendants.
Plaintiff was then charged with multiple felony charges in regards to
lawfully possessed firearms.
324. The Rockport Police lied to confect the initial case, and then they
and others lied to confect the search warrant.
325. The Rockport Police and others even went so far as to burglarize
and search the Plaintiff home a full day before they got the actual
warrant by illegally entering plaintiff's home and copied several
thousand files of damaging information to various Defendants along with
deleting several thousand files of incriminating evidence against
Defendants which plaintiff had obtained through various dealings in the
past with State, the FBI and other federal agencies (this illegal search
took place while the Plaintiff was still in the Hospital, and before
any, albeit illegal search warrant was actually issued).
326. The Rockport Police Department and others also unlawfully seized
five computers, and maliciously smashed the motherboards of two of
these, and smashed the cases, and in others they removed, and or lost
the internal or external hard drives.
327. The Rockport Police also trashed the home and business of the
Plaintiff, and rendered it is a state of disorder that it took several
weeks to straighten it back up.
328. The Rockport Police also installed an illegal tracking device into
two of the Plaintiff vehicles.
329. The Police and others also stole over 1200 DVDs full of source
code, the computer on which a highly valuable and proprietary RAPHAEL
database was maintained, back-up tapes, back-up DVD’s, and CD’s and
pieces of computer media related to the database.
330. The RAPHAEL Database is a highly proprietary trade secret and has a
minimal approximate value of $40 Million, and represents several decades
of work. The RAPHAEL Database had also been actively sought after by the
FBI, CIA, State Department, Department of Energy, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army,
Research Electronics, various defense, and intelligence contractors, and
others. The database and associated source code is of such considerable
value that both the FBI and the CIA had requested that the Plaintiff
leave it to them in his will.
331. The Rockport Police and others also seized customer records, and
records that were not on the search warrant, just scooping up armloads
of these records and dumping them into the back of an unsecure pickup
truck, that was in no way supervised.
332. The business records, and records on these computers are highly
proprietary trade secrets and valued well in excess of eight million
dollars.
333. The Rockport Police and others then notified at least three
different defendant colleges that the Plaintiff was attending as a
student on either a full time or part time basis, and did conspire with
others to get the Plaintiffs enrollment suspended at the schools (based
merely on being charged, not upon an actual finding of guilt), and to
deny the Plaintiff any process to appeal this suspension in a timely
manner in order to violate the Plaintiffs civil rights under the color
of authority.
334. These schools then punitively suspended the Plaintiff without any
due process, seize his property that was on school property, refused to
allow student to return to school, refused him access to complete the
semester, refused to allow him to complete exams as required by
professors, or to come on school property or to complete the semester.
335. Defendant Montserrat further refused to issue grades for one class
(the professor stated that the Plaintiff had earned an A), and for
another class issued a D- as a grade when in fact the Plaintiff had
earned a B-.
336. The Rockport police and the various schools deprived Plaintiff of
his civil rights for political and monetary gain.
337. The Police and other Defendants conspired with OEMS (the State
agency which licenses EMTs), who then illegally suspended the Plaintiffs
EMT license (which the Plaintiff held as a volunteer EMT in his
community), and refused to provide due process, and refused to afford
Plaintiff his civil rights. The Rockport Police, the Rockport Ambulance
Department, the Town of Rockport, and OEMS deprived Plaintiff of his
civil rights for political and monetary gain.
338. CAUSES OF ACTION (1-54 inclusive)
339. Plaintiff ATKINSON, calls into question the constitutionality of
the following Massachusetts General Laws, Statutes, Regulations,
Policies, Codes, and Procedures, and asserts that both each is
individually, and as a whole body of statues are in fact unlawful, that
all are individually, and together a violation of Federal law and the
Constitution of the United States, a violation of the Amendments to the
Constitution to include the Bill of Rights and the Subsequent
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including but not limited to the
Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 2, and other
civil rights laws, and that they represent a serious and very grave and
direct infringement upon the civil rights of the Plaintiff ATKINSON, and
also an infringement upon the civil rights upon all citizens of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and an infringement of the civil rights
all Citizens of the United States of America who may travel to, from, or
through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
340. Plaintiff ATKINSON, asserts that based on the decisions published
by Supreme Court of the United States in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S.
___, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), and also in District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008), that most, if not all of the Massachusetts Firearms
statutes, regulations, and policies are fundamentally flawed, a
violation of Federal Law, a violation of the most basic of American
civil rights, an affront to justice and due process, a corruption of
government, and a grave danger to the security of a free State, of
country, and Constitution of the United States by a domestic enemy and
tyrant. That most of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts “Gun Control
Laws” and related statues are so fundamentally flawed, vague, perverted,
discriminatory, arbitrary, biased, self serving, and unlawfully imposed
or enforced that it utterly shocks the conscience.
341. Plaintiff ATKINSON, further asserts the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Laws, Statutes, and Regulations listed below are in
violation of an infringement upon and deprivation of the guarantees,
privileges, and immunities of Massachusetts Constitution Part The First,
Article XVII; the U.S. Constitution as a whole; Constitution of the
United States, Article IV, Section 2; the U.S. Constitution, Amendment
II
(also known as the Second Amendment); and the U.S. Constitution,
Amendment IX (also known as the Ninth Amendment); and the U.S.
Constitution, Amendment XIV (also known as the Fourteenth Amendment);
the Ku Klux Klan Act (or the Civil Rights Act of 1871); 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(also called "section 1983"), including but not limited to the
Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 2, English Bill
of Rights of 1689, and other relevant laws.
342. Plaintiff ATKINSON, asserts the under that Fourteenth Amendment,
that no State (including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) may make any
law to the “abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens,” and the
rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller (2008) and in McDonald
(2010) make it clear that the 2nd Amendment fully applies to the States,
and that in turn no State may make, pass, or enforce any law which
infringes upon the 2nd Amendment with regards to the keeping and, or of
bearing arms. Further, because of this ruling by the U.S. Supreme court,
the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in regards to both the
keeping of arms, and the bearing of arms is thus unconstitutional, null
and void, an infringement and deprivation of civil rights of not only
the Plaintiff, but also upon all of the citizens of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
[snip, removed, recitation of various laws, and Constitutional argument]
408. Plaintiff ATKINSON further brings to the courts attention the U.S.
Supreme Court cases and other authorities of: United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894);
United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009); Maloney v. Cuomo,
554 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874
(5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Scroggins, 551 F.3d 257 (5th Cir.
2010); United States v. Heredia-Mendoza (9th Cir. 2008); United States
v. Artez, 290 Fed. Appx. 203 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Boffil-Rivera (11th Cir. 2008).; Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2nd Cir.
2005); Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749 (2d Cir. 1998);
Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897); City of Lakewood
v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988); Cohens v. Virginia,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821); Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 383
N.E.2d 828 (1978); Crowe v. Bolduc, 365 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2004); Dearth
v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7737 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 2011); Houghton
v. Shafer, 392 U.S. 639 (1968); Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942);
Kaplan v. Bd. of Registration in Pub. Accountancy, 452 Mass. 1026, 897
N.E.2d 67 (2008); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992); Sarah C. Roberts vs. the
city of Boston, December 4, 1849 (1870); Muscarello v. United States,
524 U.S. 125 (1998); Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 US 400
- Supreme Court 1968; New Hampshire Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203
F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000); Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009);
Number Three Lounge, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 7
Mass. App. Ct. 301, 387 N.E.2d 181 (1979); Ord v. District of Columbia,
587 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d
370 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Peruta v. County of San Diego, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 130878 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2010); Peruta v. County of San Diego,
678 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ); Plummer v. United States, 983
A.2d 323 (D.C. 2009); Seegars v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005);
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969); The
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873); United States v.
Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Masciandaro, 2011
U.S. App. LEXIS 5964 (4th Cir. March 24, 2011); United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939); United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir.
2010); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 10 A.3d 1167 (2011); Woollard v.
Sheridan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137031 (D. Md. Dec. 30, 2010).
409. “[T]he concept of due process is equivalent to ‘fundamental
fairness.’” Newman v. Massachusetts, 884 F. 2d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1989)
(citation omitted). Due process requires that impacted individuals be
“entitled to the Constitutional minimum of ‘some kind of hearing’ and
‘some pre termination opportunity to respond.’” O’Neil v. Baker, 210 F.
3d 41, 47-78 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (footnote omitted). “The ubiquity
of the ‘notice and opportunity to be heard’ principle as a matter of
fundamental fairness is deeply engrained in our jurisprudence.” Oakes v.
United States, 400 F. 3d 92, 98 (1st Cir. 2005) citations omitted.
410. In Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934), the Court
spoke of rights that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of
our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” As the Supreme Court has
found in the McDonald, and Heller decisions, the right to keep and bear
arms, particularly within the sanctity of one’s home, is an ordered
liberty of United States citizenship fundamental and beyond the pale of
discretionary, subjective regulations by the States.
411. Plaintiff ATKINSON, respectfully submits that any statutory scheme
which invades the fundamental liberty right of self defense within the
home by enacting any scheme which attempts to regulate the possession
and/or storage of any firearm(s) providing a basis to interfere in any
way or attempt to revoke or impinge upon such a right without the barest
of fundamental fairness and due process such as a Loudermill type
hearing, is fatally flawed and wholly prohibited under the application
of the Second Amendment to all of the States in light of the newly
decided authority contained herein. Under the present status of
jurisprudence, in light of newly decided authorities, it is respectfully
submitted that without a prior showing cloaked with the fairness of a
Loudermill type hearing that an individual is either a convicted felon
or legally and previously adjudged insane, any interfere with a
Massachusetts citizen’s unqualified right to keep arms within the
sanctity of the citizen’s home is per se unreasonable and prohibited.
412. Although McDonald’s five Justice majority reached the conclusion
that the right to keep and bear arms is a protected liberty interest
under the Second Amendment in different ways, under either the Due
Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause, a majority confirmed
that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”
McDonald at 3026. Where a “fourteenth amendment liberty interest is
implicated…the state therefore must adhere to rigorous procedural
safeguards.” Valdivieso Ortiz v. Burgos, 807 F. 2d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 1986);
see also Kuck v. Danaher, 600 F. 3d 159, 165 (2d Cir. 2010) (same).
413. “[T]he concept of due process is equivalent to ‘fundamental
fairness.’” Newman v. Massachusetts, 884 F. 2d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1989)
(citation omitted). Due process requires that impacted individuals are
“entitled to the Constitutional minimum of ‘some kind of hearing’ and
‘some pre termination opportunity to respond.’” O’Neil v. Baker, 210 F.
3d 41, 47-78 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (footnote omitted). “The ubiquity
of the ‘notice and opportunity to be heard’ principle as a matter of
fundamental fairness is deeply engrained in our jurisprudence.” Oakes v.
United States, 400 F. 3d 92, 98 (1st Cir. 2005) citations omitted.
414. In Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934), the Court
spoke of rights that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of
our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” As the Supreme Court has
found in the McDonald and Heller decisions, the right to keep and bear
arms, particularly within the sanctity of one’s home, is an ordered
liberty of United States citizenship fundamental and beyond the pale of
discretionary, subjective regulations by the States.
415. The Supreme Court’s prior restraint doctrine mandates higher standards:
a. It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that
an ordinance which… makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the
Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an
official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or
withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional
censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.
416. Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 (1958) (citations
omitted); see also FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 226 (1990)
(plurality opinion); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151
(1969); Strassser v. Doorley, 432 F. 2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970); Berger
v. Rhode Island Bd. Of Governors, 832 F. Supp. 515, 519 (D.R.I. 1993)
[snip, prayers for relief]
[snip, various appendix]
David Johnson
James M. Atkinson
and then there is the amended complaint (643 pages),
If the amended complaint (275) pages or so is the body of the document,
the other 441 pages are exhibits.
I am considering a 2nd amended complaint, or to correct the autocorrect
or grammar errors, so if you care to review what I posted and let me
know what error you see, or even if there is an area that you find
somewhat unclear in the complaint and that you thing I should expand on,
or explain better I woudl be happy to do so.
In short, any spell checking, grammar check, or suggestions of areas to
explain better woudl be MOST appreciated.
Essentially, I am asking the Federal Government to step in and to
enforce the law, and to compel the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to obey
the Supreme Court.
I am doing this because of Honor, and all that I am seeking is Justice.
-jma
--
Dave Mcgauley 07866206112
What DID!! kick all this off??
regards Dave UK TSCM (in Greece on holiday)
Sent from Samsung tablet
"James M. Atkinson" <jm...@tscm.com> wrote:
>Here is the updated version of the civil right lawsuit, which includes
>charges of racketeering, illegal possession of use of bugging devices,
>and other important subjects.
>
>http://www.tscm.com/Amended1983Complaint%5Bv10.0c-Final%5D%20copy.pdf
>
>I would encourage citizens who witness significant wrongdoing on the
>part of the government, or government contractor, or of a government
>official or employee to report it, and the hell with the blow back.
>
>This PDF file is 654 pages, and is just over 100 MB, so download it and
>circulate.
>
>It always pays to do the right thing... eventually, but initially you
>can get hurt for pointing out official wrong doing, and corrupt
>government contractors (which is what kicked a lot of this off), but end
>the end justice will be served, and those corrupt officials will pay
>dearly, quite dearly.
>
>All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
> - George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
>
>-jma
>