UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO 03-CV-10785 RCL
HEIDI K. ERICKSON
Plaintiff
VS. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS REILLY ET. AL.
Defendants
1. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the State of Massachusetts and relies upon the statements of fact, allegations, claims and the pleadings previously filed in her Complaint except for her previously filed Amended Complaint replacing it with this Ordered Amended Complaint filed pursuant to Orders issued by Judge Lindsey on November 12th, 2003.
2. The Defendants are all duly appointed, employed by the either the City of Boston and/or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during all relevant times hereto except for LeBlanc and Frank.
1) Thomas Menino, Mayor “Menino” and/or “City of Boston” an employee of the City of Boston and of the Commonwealth, Respondent Superior for the City of Boston and all its Departments, employees and agents not all inclusive of: the Boston Police “BP”; Boston Inspectional Services “BIS”; and the Boston Animal Control “BAC”. Menino encouraged and oversaw the unlawful search and seizure in Plaintiff’s apartment despite continuous and numerous media reports each day and evening showing his employee’s continued wrongs comitted over the coarse of several days in a unwarranted, unrestrained and unquestioned trespasses of Plaintiff’s Constitutionally protected areas condoning the deprivation of her rights is herein being sued individually and professionally.
a) On information and belief, Menino is, and at all times material herein, responsible for: the ultimate decision to train, and supervise his employees especially and importantly Defendants Evans, Joyce and Cahill; protect Plaintiff’s Constitutional interests; property interests including care, transport, and to reasonably provide humane care to Plaintiff’s seized animals pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act, the laws of the Commonwealth and of this country; to abide by the Constitution, federal regulations and the laws of the Commonwealth from governmental intrusions.
b) Menino has a duty of care owed to Plaintiff not all inclusive of his appointment as Major of the City of Boston, and at all times material herein unlawfully, wrongly, negligently, discriminately and maliciously condoned and aided the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights protected by the Constitution. Menino is not entitled to qualified immunity because of his individual, ignorant and negligent disregard for the knowingly wrongful conduct of his employees. Menino’s conduct is not objectively reasonable and was thoroughly unprofessional.
2) Thomas Reilly, Attorney General, “Reilly” an employee of the Commonwealth, granted powers by the Commonwealth, duly appointed and elected ultimately responsible for representation of the interests of the Commonwealth, state offices and the licensing, appointments and supervision of police officers, special police officers and the District Attorneys office including appointments of State Sanitarians. Reilly is herein being sued individually and professionally.
3) Manuel Kyriakakis, Chief Justice of the Boston Housing Court, “Kyriakakis” an employee of the Common-wealth, duly appointed and granted powers of the Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her property and her established constitutional protections.
4) Robert Lewis, Clerk Magistrate of the Boston Housing Court “Lewis” an employee of the Commonwealth, duly appointed and granted powers of the Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established US and Massachusetts Constitutional protections.
5) Boston Police Chief Paul Evans, “Evans” employee of the City of Boston is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally granted police powers and entrusted by the Commonwealth, appointed and/or supervised by both Defendants Menino and/or “City of Boston” and “Reilly”, knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her property and her established constitutional protections.
a) On information and belief, Evans is, and at all times material herein, responsible for: the ultimate decision to train, and supervise his employees; protect Plaintiff’s Constitutional interests; property interests including the care, supervision of searches and seizures of Constitutionally protected areas from governmental intrusions by his employees, agents and others according to the policies and laws of the Commonwealth and of this country.
b) Evans has a duty of care owed to Plaintiff not all inclusive of his appointment as Chief of Police for the City of Boston, and at all times material herein unlawfully, wrongly, negligently, discriminately and maliciously condoned and aided the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights protected by the Constitution. Evans is not entitled to qualified immunity because of his individual, ignorant and negligent disregard for the knowingly wrongful conduct of his employees. Evans’ conduct is not objectively reasonable and was thoroughly unprofessional.
6) Boston Police Officer D’Oyle “D’Oyle” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally granted and entrusted with police powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
7) Boston Police Sergeant Doe “Sergeant Doe” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally granted and entrusted with police powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections
8) The Defendant Boston Animal Control by it’s Director Cahill hereinafter “Cahill” ‘employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally granted and entrusted with special police powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections. Cahill and his agents, at all times material herein, was charged with the care and supervision of Plaintiff’s ‘seized animals’ (6 adult & 1 kitten pedigreed Persians ‘1 red, 1 black, 4 white’, 1 adult male Pedigreed harlequin Great Dane dog and wrapped frozen deceased Persian carcasses) seized on 4/27/03 (hereinafter “seized animals” refers to the animals dead and/or alive seized from Plaintiff’s apartment at 103 Charles Street Beacon Hill, Boston, MA on 4/27/03 and is also referred to as seized property).
a) On information and belief, Cahill is, and at all times material herein, responsible for the decision to train, and supervise his employees; care, transport, and to reasonably provide humane care pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act, the laws of the Commonwealth and of this country, including to abide by the Constitution, federal regulations and departmental policies.
b) Cahill at all times material herein unlawfully, wrongly, negligently, discriminately and maliciously deprived Plaintiff her rights protected by the Constitution, neglected her ‘seized animals’ and seized property aided in the malicious prosecution and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff her Constitutional protections.
c) Cahill did have a duty of care that he knew and or should have known, he condoned his employees to enter Plaintiff’s apartment without right or consent, and he knew these actions to be wrong did nothing to correct and thus aided and betted the wrongful prosecution of Plaintiff and the wrongful withholding of her animals against her right done knowingly and purposely to deprive Plaintiff her property and her established constitutional protections
9) Boston Animal Control Officer Rudack hereafter “Rudack” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally granted and entrusted with special police powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
a) On information and belief, Rudack is, and at all times material herein, responsible for the care, and to reasonably provide humane care pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act, the laws of the Commonwealth and of this country and to supervise his subordinate officers Pacitta and Conroy.
10) Boston Animal Control Officer Conroy hereafter “Conroy” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally granted and entrusted with special police powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
11) Boston Inspectional Services “BIS” a governmental agency of the City of Boston and of the Commonwealth is being sued not all inclusive to theories under the Administrative Agency Act and violations of due process committed by its agents and employees duly appointed by and supervised by the Commonwealth for the deprivations of Plaintiff’s Constitutional protections.
12) BIS employee Commissioner Kevin Joyce, “Joyce” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally. Joyce granted and entrusted with special licensenship powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
a) On information and belief, Joyce is, and at all times material herein, responsible for the decision to train, and supervise his employees, and to reasonably provide protections of Plaintiff’s property pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth and of this country, including to abide by state and federal regulations and departmental policies.
b) Joyce has a duty of care owed to Plaintiff not all inclusive of his appointment as BIS Commissioner for the City of Boston, and at all times material herein unlawfully, wrongly, negligently, discriminately and maliciously condoned and aided the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights protected by the Constitution. Joyce is not entitled to qualified immunity because of his individual, ignorant and negligent disregard for the knowingly wrongful conduct of his employees. Joyce’s conduct is not objectively reasonable and was thoroughly unprofessional.
13) BIS employee Edward Kennedy, ”Kennedy” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally. Kennedy granted and entrusted with special licensenship powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
a) Kennedy has a duty of care owed to Plaintiff not all inclusive of his appointment and special licsenship for the BIS under the City of Boston, and Commonwealth but at all times material herein unlawfully, wrongly, negligently, discriminately and maliciously acted to deprive Plaintiff of her rights protected by the Constitution. Kennedy is not entitled to qualified immunity because of his individual, ignorant and negligent disregard of Plaintiff rights that he knew and or should have known his conduct not objectively reasonable and was thoroughly unprofessional.
14) BIS employee Paul Curran, “Curran” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally. Kennedy granted and entrusted with special licensenship powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
15) BIS employee Hearing Officer, ”Rice” employee of the City of Boston is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is being sued in her personal and professional capacity for the deprivations of Plaintiff’s Constitutional protections.
16) BIS employee John Doe, “BIS Doe 1” employee of the City of Boston duly appointed and licensed by the State of Massachusetts is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City of Boston and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally. , “BIS Doe 1” granted and entrusted with special licenship powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
17) BIS employee John Doe, “BIS Doe 2” employee of the City of Boston is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is being sued in his personal and professional capacity for the deprivations of Plaintiff’s Constitutional protections. , “BIS Doe 2” granted and entrusted with special licenship powers by the Commonwealth knowingly and purposely deprived Plaintiff her established Constitutional protections.
18) Chief of the Boston Fire Department, “Chief Doe” employee of the City of Boston is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is herein being sued professionally, and individually is personally and professionally, and at all times material herein, responsible for the ultimate decision to train, and supervise his employees and at all time material herein wrongly deprived Plaintiff her rights.
19) John Doe #1, Boston Firefighter employee of the City of Boston “FF Doe 1” is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is responsible to Plaintiff both professionally and personally to the wrongs committed against her in violation of her protected rights.
20) John Doe #2, Boston Firefighter employee of the City of Boston “FF Doe 2” is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is responsible to Plaintiff both professionally and personally to the wrongs committed against her in violation of her protected rights.
21) John Doe #3, Boston Firefighter employee of the City of Boston “FF Doe 3” is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is responsible to Plaintiff both professionally and personally to the wrongs committed against her in violation of her protected rights.
22) John Doe #4, Boston Firefighter employee of the City of Boston “FF Doe 4” is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is responsible to Plaintiff both professionally and personally to the wrongs committed against her in violation of her protected rights.
23) John Doe #5, Boston Firefighter employee of the City of Boston “FF Doe 5” is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is responsible to Plaintiff both professionally and personally to the wrongs committed against her in violation of her protected rights.
24) Michael Wiseman, owner of Aftermath Cleaning and agent of the Commonwealth “Wiseman” employee of the City of Boston is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is herein being sued individually and professionally, together its agents responsible at all material times as an agent for the Commonwealth and responsible to Plaintiff under the all applicable Federal and State Consumer Protection laws. Wiseman acted in concert and conspired with defendants to deprive Plaintiff her protection guaranteed by the Constitution. Wiseman knew and or should have known that entering Plaintiff’s apartment wrong, without right and conspired to deprive Plaintiff of her property. Wiseman is personally and professionally, and at all material times responsible to train, supervise his employees, and committed intentional, malice, and negligent wrongs against and upon Plaintiff.
25) Jane Doe, employee of Aftermath Cleaning “AMC Doe 1” and agent of the City of Boston is responsible at all material times as an agent to the Commonwealth is responsible at all material times as an agent of both Aftermath Cleaning and of the Commonwealth and is responsible to Plaintiff both professionally and personally to the wrongs committed against her in violation of her protected rights.
26) John Doe, employee of Aftermath Cleaning “AMC Doe 2” and employee of the City of Boston is responsible at all material times as an agent of the City and Commonwealth is responsible at all material times as an agent of both Aftermath Cleaning and of the Commonwealth and is responsible to Plaintiff both professionally and personally to the wrongs committed against her in violation of her protected rights.
27) The foregoing Defendants, including the Defendants named in the original Complaint, their Departments, agencies, and committees except for LeBlanc and Frank, are governmental entities and shall sometimes be collectively referred to herein as “the Public Entity Defendants” and shall not survive a motion to dismiss on protections of immunity as their acts collectively and individually knowingly violated Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights, was made with intentional malice, negligent and knowingly wrong. All Public Entity Defendants unknown by name herein referred to as Doe. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint, to state Defendants name when the same becomes known to Plaintiff.
28) Gordon LeBlanc, “LeBlanc” of Watertown, landlord to Plaintiff and has a duty of care due Plaintiff, conspired and aided and abetted the Deprivations committed by those Public Entity Defendants and other government employees not mentioned herein to deprive Plaintiff her Constitutional protections and to convert her property.
29) Joseph Frank, “Frank” of Boston, conspired with, fraudulently reported false information to law enforcement and all Defendants thereby aiding and abetting the Deprivations committed by those Public Entity Defendants and other government employees not mentioned herein to deprive Plaintiff her Constitutional protections and to convert her property.
This action arises under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1870, 42 USC sec 1983 et seq.; Sec 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986; 18 USC 241 & 243; the Americans with Disabilities Act and those related to Article 14 & 15 of the Massachusetts Constitution and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act
This Honorable Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 USC sec 1331 s& 1343, there is no jurisdictional requirement as to the amount of damages claimed and as to counts in this Complaint which are based on state law are a basis for invoking the supplementary jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 USC sec 1367a, and 42 USC 1441.
ADDITIONAL CAUSES OF ACTION NOT NUMERATED HEREINBELOW CHARGED UPON BY PLAINTIFF UPON ALL PUBLIC ENTITY DEFENDANTS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
DUE PROCESS
42 USC sec. 1983
VIOLATION 14th Amendment
As set forth herein below and incorporated therein.
EQUAL PROTECTION
42 USC sec. 1983
VIOLATION 14th Amendment
As set forth herein below and incorporated therein.
NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
Upon Defendants Menino, Reilly, Evans, Cahill, Joyce.
As set forth herein below and incorporated therein.
DISCRIMINATION
Americans with Disability Act and GL 151
As set forth herein below and incorporated therein.
FRAUD, BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL DUTY
MGL 93 A, 151D, 146 Sec 18
Upon Defendant LeBlanc, Wiseman
As set forth herein below and incorporated therein.
DEPRIVATION OF 1st AMENDMENT RELATING TO FREE ASSOCIATION
Upon the Defendants Reilly, Menino, Kyriakakis
As set forth herein below and incorporated therein.
Plaintiff relies upon her originally filed Complaint and amends, by incorporation the following:
11. On 5/6/03 Defendant Kennedy, under the request of Joyce filed within the Clerk’s Office of the Boston Housing Court a malicious and knowingly fraudulent request for an emergency hearing for preliminary injunction without service to Plaintiff nor entering a paper motion on to the docket 03 CV 0350 as required by Massachusetts Civil Procedure. Defendant Kyriakakis allowed to hear Defendant Boston Inspectional Services and Kennedy’s emergency motion. Kyriakakis denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal, a Motion for a Continuance requesting service upon Plaintiff and a Stay of the Proceedings since Plaintiff was not living at the address in question – all denied by Defendant Kyriakakis who happened to also be a Defendant in another Federal proceeding filed by Plaintiff 6 weeks earlier. The fact that there was no emergency that would require the denial of due process and the deprivation of Plaintiff’s protected constitutional rights Kennedy insisted there was and testified to false and misleading impressions to deceive the Court. On 5/6/03 Defendants acted in a concerted, conspired, unlawful and malicious way either by participation conducting a trial in fraud, furthering the interests of Defendants by participating with a knowingly fraudulent hearing with the Trial Court of Massachusetts to defraud the Court and deprive Plaintiff her right to due process of law and deprive her rights protected under the Constitution of the United States and of Massachusetts Article 15.
13. On or about 4/30/03 Menino gave a public address announcing to the media and declaring it his goal to ban Plaintiff from renting (living) on Beacon Hill and/or Boston. Thomas Menino, Major of the City of Boston and its agents, at all times material herein, knew and/or should have known that such a deprivation to be publicly stigmatizing, humiliating, to produce public scorn, in violation of Plaintiff’s 1st amendment rights, to be wrong and to imply deference upon Plaintiff. Menino knew and or should have known Plaintiff a person with a disability and that she uses animal therapy. Menino was responsible for the ultimate decision pursuant to not only the theory of respondent superior that training and supervision of its employees including but not limited to the Boston Police, Animal Control, Inspectional Services. Menino knew and or should have known and at all times material herein, that his actions and those actions of his employees were wrong, negligent, discriminatory and made a great effort to interfere and deprive Plaintiff her established rights protected not only under the First Amendment that secures her rights to freely associate and live on Beacon Hill and/or Boston but under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution, but those of Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution. Menino with reckless disregard condoned unlawful conduct.
14. Kevin Joyce, Commissioner of the Boston Inspectional Services and its agents, at all times material herein, was charged with the training and supervision of its employees including but not limited to the Sanitarians of Inspectional Services he knew and or should have known and at all times material herein was, responsible for the ultimate decision to train, and supervise his employees; provide fair and equal justice for the general public he served and according to established Federal guidelines, the US and the Massachusetts Constitution and at all time material herein wrongly intentionally, negligently, discriminately and maliciously deprived Plaintiff her rights. Joyce knew and or should have known that his actions were fraudulent and wrong, intentionally made a great effort to both interfere and deprive Plaintiff her First Amendment right to freely associate but also to ruin her reputation, produce public scorn and deprive Plaintiff her established rights protected by the Constitution. Joyce knowingly gave false, misleading, fraudulent and defamatory remarks about Plaintiff and/or the conditions of the inside of her apartment in a concerted, conspired and unlawful attempt to ruin her reputation and deprive her the established protection under the Constitution.
15. On numerous occasions since 4/27/03 Plaintiff requested verbally and in writing of Reilly, Menino, Evans, Cahill, Joyce, Kennedy and Curran the return of her seized property including her service dog used as an accommodation for her disability, her seized cats and the return of her property held by them against her right and necessary to accommodate her disability.
16. On numerous occasions since 4/27/03 Plaintiff requested verbally and in writing of Reilly, Menino, Evans, Cahill, Joyce, Kennedy, Curran and Wiseman the return of her seized property including her clothes, toiletries, blankets, food and irreplaceable personal and sentimental property seized and held by them against her right and necessary to for daily living.
17. The said Defendants continuously refused to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for the return of her property and upon Judge Kyriakakis TRO issued 7/7/03 Ordering the BIS, Joyce, Kennedy and Wiseman to immediately return Plaintiff’s property refused to respond to those court orders. Kyriakakis arbitrarily refused to enforce his orders and left the Defendants unrestrained.
FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
(By Plaintiff against all Defendants)
COUNTS
I-IV
VIOLATION
OF 42 USC sec 1983
VIOLATION
OF THE 1st, Amendment
VIOLATION
OF THE 4th Amendment
VIOLATION
Article 14 Massachusetts Constitution
SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
(By Plaintiff against all BIS Defendants Joyce, Kennedy and Rice)
COUNTS
IV - V
VIOLATION
OF 42 USC sec 1983
VIOLATION
OF THE 4th Amendment
PUBLIC
& JUDICIAL DECEPTION
THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
(By Plaintiff against all Public Entity Defendants)
COUNTS
V - VIII
VIOLATION
OF 42 USC sec 1983
VIOLATION
OF 1st Amendment
VIOLATION
OF THE 4th Amendment
FOURTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY
RICO
ACT TITLE IX
COUNTS
IX-XIII
CONSPIRACY
TO VIOLATE THE 4th Amendment
CONSPIRACY
TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF PRIVACY
CONSPIRACY TO FRAUDULENTLY PROCURE CIVIL and/or CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
(By Plaintiff against all Defendants)
100. Damages are an appropriate and judicially manageable remedy for an invasion of personal interests in liberty for the case presents a focused remedial issue without difficult questions of causation and valuation and there are not applicable special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.
101. On or about 4/27/03 and through 5/1/03 and thereafter the above mentioned Defendants, and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to jointly participate, for their mutual benefit, and unknown Media persons unidentified at the time of this writing and for the purpose of this amended Complaint are known as M Doe; and named Public Entity Defendants hereinabove as including Defendants LeBlanc and Frank filed fraudulent reports and sought criminal and civil redress.
102. On or after 4/27/03 the Public Entity Defendants Kennedy, Curran Joyce and IS Doe #1-2 Ordered Defendants Wiseman, AMC Doe #1 and AMC Doe #2, using the power, prestige imbued by the Commonwealth to deprive Plaintiff her Constitutional protections and property and to produce scorn in the eyes of the public and The Defendants Wiseman, AMC Doe #1-2 conspired and agreed and trespassed upon Plaintiff apartment, her personal property and effects, removed Plaintiff’s personal property and effects, destroyed Plaintiff’s personal property and effects, photographed Plaintiff’s personal property and effects and private interior and otherwise recorded private images of Plaintiff apartment.
103. The Public Entity Defendants hereinabove mentioned paragraph conspired with the Public Entity Defendants Clerk of the Boston Housing Court and Judge Defendant Kyriakakis and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, did the acts and things herein alleged, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and above-alleged agreement under the Inspectional Services long-standing contractual relationship and policy custom and practice to Order condemnation and complaints upon landlords not tenants filed a for a fraudulent hearing that the Defendants knew to be in fraud and not pursuant to due process and civil procedure, violating Plaintiff’s Constitutional protections and Article 15 of the Massachusetts Constitution.
104. The above said Defendants furthered the conspiracy by acting as agents of the Commonwealth and Defendant Reilly and Menino, and by ratifying, condoning, and adopting and aiding the conduct of the said Defendants, and their agents, servants and employees. Defendants, and each of them, agreed among themselves to act against Plaintiff unlawfully, or for an unlawful purpose were clearly supported by the power, property and prestige of the State Government which imbued them with the power and prestige of Government officials. As a consequence individually and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, were acting under the color or authority and pretenses of the statutes, laws, regulations, customs and usages of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States. Defendants, and each of them, were clothed with the authority of the State and were purporting to act thereunder.
105. The Defendants Reilly, Kyriakakis and Clerk furthered the conspiracy by acting as agents of the City of Boston while the City employees (Defendants Evans and Menino and other Public Entity Defendants not previously mentioned, ratified, condoning, breaking into and adopting and aiding the conduct which lead to the Defendants unlawful trespass, search and seizure, and each of them agreed amongst themselves to act against Plaintiff unlawfully or for an unlawful purpose.
106. Because of the above-recited acts and omissions, all the Public Entity Defendants, and each of them, acting under the color or authority and pretenses of the statutes, laws, regulations, customs and rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including, but not limited to:
a. Plaintiff’s 4th Amendment right o privacy and security in her person, house, papers and effects, to be free against unreasonable searches;
b. Plaintiff’s 4th Amendment right to be free in her person against unreasonable seizure; and
c. Plaintiff’s unalienable right under Article I, section 1, to enjoy and defend life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
107. As a direct and proximate result of the outrageous and wrongful acts of each of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered extreme indignities and humiliation, severe emotional and physical distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of liberty and loss of standing in the community and has been held up to ridicule before her peers.
108. Plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all actual damage, in a sum to be determined according to proof at trial, proximately caused by the wrongful acts hereinabove complained f and alleged herein.
109. All the Defendants each of them, acted willfully, maliciously, intentionally, oppressively, and in wanton and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the possible consequences of their conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands punitive and exemplary damages by way of punishing and deterring Defendants in an amount of no less then Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
110. The actions of the Defendants, jointly and severally entitle Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
TRESPASS
(By Plaintiff against all Defendants)
111. Plaintiff re-alleges and alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-17 hereinabove and incorporates them by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
112. All at time relevant to the allegation of this Complaint, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her apartment under the circumstances. Plaintiff’s apartment was not open to the public and Plaintiff lived alone at the end of a private way, which is not easily accessible by the general public. Residents in the surrounding neighborhood and community are very private and keep to themselves.
113. At no time did the Plaintiff give her permission, consent or authorization to the any of the Defendants, individually and/or through her agents to enter, search, photograph, and/or remove any of her items including but not limited to seizure of real and personal property or record in any why Plaintiff’s real and or person private property inside and or out side of her apartment, garden area and/or private entryway, nor did any of the Defendants have any license or privilege to search and or otherwise enter Plaintiff private residence.
114. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant entry into Plaintiff private residence and garden area and private hallway.
115. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant to photograph private images of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway.
116. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant’s to disseminate private images and impressions of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway which were disseminated by Defendants intentionally, and purposely.
117. The trespass by the Defendants, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, onto Plaintiff’s private residence, into her private and personal belongings, was intentional and in reckless and willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
118. Plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all actual damage, in a sum to be determined according to proof at trial, proximately caused by the wrongful acts hereinabove complained of and alleged herein.
119. As a direct and proximate result of the trespass by the defendants, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages including, but not limited to, damage to real property, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, severe emotional pain that no other human in a civilized world should be expected to endure and the forever loss of privacy. Plaintiff is entitled to recover for damage to her belongings and other actual damages, including without limitation, severe mental anguish, severe emotional and physical distress, pain and suffering, and humiliation and embarrassment, to be determined according to proof at trial. The amount of damages will be to compensate for all detriment proximately caused thereby.
120. The Defendants and each of them acted willfully, maliciously, intentionally, oppressively, and in wanton and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the possible consequences of their conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands punitive and exemplary damages by way of punishing and deterring Defendants in an amount of no less then ten (10) million dollars ($10, 000,000.00).
121. The actions of Defendants, jointly and severally, entitle Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(By Plaintiff against all Defendants)
122. Plaintiff re-alleges and alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-17 hereinabove and incorporates them by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
123. All at time relevant to the allegation of this Complaint, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her apartment under the circumstances. Plaintiff’s apartment was not open to the public and Plaintiff lived alone at the end of a private way, which is not easily accessible by the general public. Residents in the surrounding neighborhood and community are very private and keep to themselves.
124. At no time did the Plaintiff give her permission, consent or authorization to the any of the Defendants, individually and/or through her agents or theirs to enter, search, photograph, and/or remove any of her items including but not limited to seizure of real and personal property or record in any why Plaintiff’s real and or person private property inside and or out side of her apartment, garden area and/or private hallway, nor did any of the Defendants have any license or privilege to search and or otherwise enter Plaintiff private residence.
125. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendants entry into Plaintiff private residence and garden area and private hallway.
126. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendants to photograph private images of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway.
127. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendants to disseminate private images and impressions of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway which were disseminated by Defendants intentionally, and purposely.
128. The trespass by the Defendants, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, onto Plaintiff’s private residence, into her private and personal belongings, was intentional and in reckless and willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
129. On or about April 27th, 2003 the Public Entity Defendant as described in paragraphs 7-8 and 45-48 entered Plaintiff’s apartment and except for the Boston Fire Fighter Defendants, remained in and had control over Plaintiff’s apartment for days with the intent to photograph or otherwise record and participate in a public humiliation campaign aimed at destroying Plaintiff reputation and good name in the community, aimed at harming Plaintiff’s emotional and physical well-being intending to harm and produce scorn upon Plaintiff in the public eye to the fullest extent possible. Said Defendants search of Plaintiff’s private property was not by license nor right and/or authorization. The Defendants individually and through their agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, unlawfully trespassed upon Plaintiff, private property, invaded Plaintiff’s privacy and unlawfully searched through and seized private images of her personal property and staged photographs to make a damaging and knowingly and with purposely made to make a false impression and disseminated images and fraudulent impressions and knowingly made false statements.
130. The said Defendants mentioned in the paragraph immediately above, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, thereafter also published said photographs and other accounts as well as information that was the product of their illegal search and seizure of the events which took place on 4/27/03-5/1/03 including conducting a public hearing on 5/1/03 and 5/6/03 inviting the media offering the private images taken by them in the privacy of Plaintiff’s private residence. At no time did the Plaintiff give her consent, permission or authorization for the publication of said photographs or other accounts.
131. The said Defendants mentioned in the paragraph immediately above, and each of them, thereafter also spoke intentionally false and defamatory words describing the private interior of Plaintiff’s apartment, falsely described Plaintiff’s cats as sick and diseased. And falsely spoke about their purposeful ruse to the media and general public.
132. The conduct of the said Defendants mentioned in the paragraph immediately above, individually and through their agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, in unlawfully trespassing upon Plaintiff’s apartment, invading Plaintiff’s privacy and unlawfully searching through and seizing private images of her real and personal property was extreme and outrageous and was done with the intention of causing, or in reckless disregard for probability of causing extreme emotional distress to Plaintiff that no person in a civilized world could be expected to endure, were a reasonable person would know that the actions and inactions would produce emotional and physical pain and produce public scorn.
133. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff has suffered unbearable mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body. Defendants’ as mentioned in this section their conduct resulted in emotional and physical injury and constituted a substantial invasion of a legally protected interest, that caused a significant impact, including emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Such emotional distress includes, but is not limited to Plaintiff’s suffering from physical discomfort, fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin disappointment, worry, loss of public respect, scorn and the loss of all of her possessions, clothing, furniture irreplaceable photographs and personal belongings and produced public scorn.
134. At all material times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiff owned and possessed certain real property located at 103 Charles Street Garden Apartment, in the exclusive Beacon Hill area of Boston, MA for which Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy and security.
135. At all material times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy in apartment under the circumstances. Plaintiff is the owner of several highly valuable and genetically valuable and unique, pure bred and pedigreed show Persians and Great Dane dog who was specifically highly trained to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability. Up until the time of this incident complained about herein, Plaintiff’s disability was accommodated by the use of the dog and cats, Plaintiff also breed her cats as a hobby and as a source of personal fulfillment and enjoyment of which she has been deprived and some of Plaintiff’s property has been irreparably and maliciously destroyed by the actions of Defendants.
136. Plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all actual damage, in a sum to be determined according to proof at trial, proximately caused by the wrongful acts hereinabove complained of and alleged.
137. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct as mentioned in this section, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages including, but not limited to, damage to real property, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of privacy. Plaintiff is entitled to recover for damage to her property and other actual damages, including, without limitation, severe mental anguish, severe emotional and physical distress, pain and suffering, and humiliation and embarrassment, to be determined according to proof at trial. The amount of damages will be to compensate for all detriment proximately caused thereby.
138. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ intention to inflict emotional distress and purposeful actions and inactions as mentioned in this section, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur special damages. The full amount of such damage is not known to Plaintiff at this time and Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint, to state such amount when the same becomes known to Plaintiff, or according to proof at trial.
139. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff will continue to suffer extreme mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering in the future as a result of the injuries alleged herein. The exact amount of damage is not known to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff will move to amend this Complaint to state such amount when the same becomes know to Plaintiff or according to proof at trial.
140. The Defendants as mentioned in this section, acted willfully, maliciously, intentionally, oppressively, and in wonton and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the possible consequences of their conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands punitive and exemplary damages by way of punishing and deterring Defendants in an amount of no less then Ten (10) Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).
141. The actions of Defendants, jointly and severally, entitle Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(By Plaintiff against all Defendants)
142. Plaintiff re-alleges and alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-17 hereinabove and incorporates them by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
143. All at time relevant to the allegation of this Complaint, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her apartment under the circumstances. Plaintiff’s apartment was not open to the public and Plaintiff lived alone at the end of a private way, which is not easily accessible by the general public. Residents in the surrounding neighborhood and community are very private and keep to themselves.
144. At no time did the Plaintiff give her permission, consent or authorization to the any of the Defendants, individually and/or through her agents or theirs to enter, search, photograph, and/or remove any of her items including but not limited to seizure of real and personal property or record in any why Plaintiff’s real and or person private property inside and or out side of her apartment, garden area and/or private hallway, nor did any of the Defendants have any license or privilege to search and or otherwise enter Plaintiff private residence.
145. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant entry into Plaintiff private residence and garden area and private hallway.
146. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant to photograph private images of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway.
147. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant’s to disseminate private images and impressions of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway which were disseminated by Defendants intentionally, and purposely.
148. The trespass by the Defendants, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, onto Plaintiff’s private residence, into her private and personal belongings, was intentional and in reckless and willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
149. On or about April 27th, 2003 the Public Entity Defendant entered Plaintiff’s apartment and except for the Boston Fire Fighter Defendants, remained in and had control over Plaintiff’s apartment for days with the intent to photograph or otherwise record and participate in a public humiliation campaign aimed at destroying Plaintiff reputation and good name in the community, aimed at harming Plaintiff’s emotional and physical well-being intending to harm and produce scorn upon Plaintiff in the public eye to the fullest extent possible. Said Defendants search of Plaintiff’s private property was not by license nor right and/or authorization. The Defendants individually and through their agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, unlawfully trespassed upon Plaintiff, private property, invaded Plaintiff’s privacy and unlawfully searched through and seized private images of her personal property and staged photographs to make a damaging and knowingly and with purposely made to make a false impression and disseminated images and fraudulent impressions and knowingly made false statements.
150. The said Defendants mentioned in the paragraph immediately above, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, thereafter also published said photographs and other accounts as well as information that was the product of their illegal search and seizure of the events which took place on 4/27/03-5/1/03 including conducting a public hearing on 5/1/03 and 5/6/03 inviting the media offering the private images taken by them in the privacy of Plaintiff’s private residence. At no time did the Plaintiff give her consent, permission or authorization for the publication of said photographs or other accounts.
151. The said Defendants mentioned in the paragraph immediately above, and each of them, thereafter also spoke intentionally false and defamatory words describing the private interior of Plaintiff’s apartment, falsely described Plaintiff’s cats as sick and diseased. And falsely spoke about their purposeful ruse to the media and general public.
152. By undertaking to enter upon the private property and residence of Plaintiff under the auspices of a ruse the Defendants, individually and through their agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, assumed or were imposed with owing a duty of care to Plaintiff.
153. The Defendants, individually and through their agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, intentionally and unlawfully trespassed upon Plaintiff’s private property and residence entered her apartment, and remained therein coming and going for days without a search warrant and keeping an armed guard at the door of Plaintiff’s private residence preventing Plaintiff from accessing and all without a search warrant remaining to photograph, stage photographs and to search her personal belongings and to take all her property.
154. The Defendants, individually and through agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, thereafter also published photographs and other information that was the product of their illegal search and seizure as well as accounts of private impressions from the interior of Plaintiff’s apartment. Numerous publications and numerous stories ran everyday quoting the libelous slander Defendants knowingly told in deceit. At no time did Plaintiff give her consent, permission or authorization for the publication of said photographs or other accounts.
155. The Defendants, individually and through agents, servants and employees, and each of them, thereafter also published said photographs and other accounts as well as information that was the product of their illegal search and seizure of items in closed and sealed containers purposely destroying years of information and irreparably damaging the items exposed. The publications of photographs that were taken as a result of the warrantless and illegal entry by Defendants falsely reported that Plaintiff was an animal abuser and that there were sordid cat killings and that reports of Plaintiff evading the police every day there were articles and news broadcasts with statements made by Defendants, and characterizations made by Defendants and photographs resulted from the unlawful and warrantless searches conducted by Defendants in which Plaintiff was clearly identifiable and characterized Plaintiff in an incriminating, embarrassing, humiliating and inflammatory manner. Plaintiff suffered viewing previously deceased and wrapped bodies of her beloved Persians unwrapped and exposed on display on TV, and newspapers reports over several days and published on the Internet to this day publishing these painful and private images for profit and harming Plaintiff physically and emotionally. All of the Defendants actions accomplish over days of warrantless but armed searches of Plaintiff’s private apartment. At no time did Plaintiff give her consent, permission or authorization for the publication of said photographs or other accounts.
156. It was reasonably foreseeable that the trespass and presence over days and armed presence at Plaintiff’s apartment their invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and their search throughout her real property and personal belongings and the seizure of photographic images, her beloved cats, and dog and photographic images of the same would cause Plaintiff serious emotional distress and produce public scorn.
157. The Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that their trespass and presence on Plaintiff’s private property, their invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and their search throughout her real property and personal belongings and seizure of her beloved cats, dog and photographic images of the same would cause Plaintiff serious emotional distress and produce public scorn.
158. The Defendants breached the duty of due care they owed Plaintiff when, individually and through their agents, servants, and employees, and each of them, unlawfully trespassed upon Plaintiff’s private property (apartment), invaded Plaintiff’s privacy and unlawfully searched through and seized private images of her real and personal property.
159. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and negligent acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and emotional and physical distress and has been injured in mind and body. Defendants’ conduct resulted in emotional and physical injury and constituted a substantial invasion of a legally protected interest, that caused a significant impact, including emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Such emotional distress includes, but is not limited to, Plaintiff’s suffering from physical distress, fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin disappointment and worry, loss of community respect and associations.
160. At all material times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiff owned and possessed certain real property located at 103 Charles Street Garden Apartment, in the exclusive Beacon Hill area of Boston, MA for which Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy and security.
161. At all material times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy in apartment under the circumstances. Plaintiff is the owner of several highly valuable and genetically valuable and unique, pure bred and pedigreed show Persians and Great Dane dog who was specifically highly trained to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability. Up until the time of this incident complained about herein, Plaintiff’s disability was accommodated by the use of the dog and cats, Plaintiff also breed her cats as a hobby and as a source of personal fulfillment and enjoyment of which she has been deprived and some of Plaintiff’s property has been irreparably and maliciously destroyed by the actions of Defendants.
162. Plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all actual damage, in a sum to be determined according to proof at trial, proximately caused by the wrongful acts hereinabove complained of and alleged herein.
163. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages including, but not limited to, damage to real property, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, and loss of privacy. Plaintiff is entitled to recover for damage to the property in her apartment and other actual damages, including, without limitation, severe mental anguish, severe emotional and physical distress, pain and suffering, and humiliation and embarrassment to be determined according to proof at trial. The amount of damages will be to compensate for all detriment proximately caused thereby.
164. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur special damages. The full amount of such damage is not known to Plaintiff at this time and Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to state such amount when the same becomes known to Plaintiff or according to proof at trial.
165. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff will continue to suffer extreme mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering in the future as a result of the injuries alleged herein. The exact amount of damages is not known to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff will move to amend this Complaint to state such amount when the same becomes known to Plaintiff or according to proof at trial.
166. The Defendants, and each of them, acted willfully, maliciously, intentionally, oppressively, and in wanton and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the possible consequences of their conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands punitive exemplary damages by way of punishing and deterring Defendants in an amount of no less then Ten (10) Million Dollars ($10,000,000,00).
167. The actions of the Defendants, jointly and severally, entitle Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
EIGHTH
CAUSE OF ACTION
CONVERSION
(By Plaintiff against all Defendants)
168. Plaintiff re-alleges and alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-17 hereinabove and incorporates them by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
169. All at time relevant to the allegation of this Complaint, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her apartment under the circumstances. Plaintiff’s apartment was not open to the public and Plaintiff lived alone. Plaintiff’s apartment was not open to the public and Plaintiff lived alone. Plaintiff’s private front door at the end of a private way, which is not easily accessible by the general public. Residents in the surrounding neighborhood and community are very private and keep to themselves. Plaintiff’s apartment had a private foyer entrance not used by others and a separate solid 2” door facing the outside which faced the end of a cobblestone lane shared by only one other neighbor.
170. At no time did the Plaintiff give her permission, consent or authorization to the any of the Defendants, individually and/or through her agents or theirs to enter, search, photograph, and/or remove any of her items including but not limited to seizure of real and personal property or record in any why Plaintiff’s real and or person private property inside and or out side of her apartment, garden area and/or private hallway, nor did any of the Defendants have any license or privilege to search and or otherwise enter Plaintiff private residence.
171. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant entry into Plaintiff private residence and garden area and private hallway.
172. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant to photograph private images of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway.
173. There was no consent that could be implied under the circumstances to allow any of the Defendant’s to disseminate private images and impressions of Plaintiff’s private residence and garden area and private hallway which were disseminated by Defendants intentionally, and purposely.
174. The trespass by the Defendants, individually and through their agents, servants and employees, onto Plaintiff’s private residence, into her private and personal belongings, was intentional and in reckless and willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
175. At all material times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiff owned and possessed certain real property located at 103 Charles Street Garden Apartment, in the exclusive Beacon Hill area of Boston, MA for which Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy and security.
176. At all material times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy in apartment under the circumstances. Plaintiff is the owner of several highly valuable and genetically valuable and unique, pure bred and pedigreed show Persians and Great Dane dog who was specifically highly trained to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability. Up until the time of this incident complained about herein, Plaintiff’s disability was accommodated by the use of the dog and cats, Plaintiff also breed her cats as a hobby and as a source of personal fulfillment and enjoyment.
177. At all times the Defendants were acting in a concerted and preconceived, customary plan that is unconstitutional and unlawful in the Commonwealth.
178. By the actions of Defendants to convert, Order the removal of Plaintiff’s property damaging it and refusing Plaintiff access and enjoyment thereof Plaintiff animals resulting in the deterioration, and death therefore all the Defendant’s are liable to the Plaintiff.
179. At all relevant times the Defendant’s were acting under within the scope of their duties as an employee of the City of Boston and/or Massachusetts.
180. By the actions of Defendants to convert, Order the removal of Plaintiff’s property damaging it and refusing Plaintiff access and enjoyment thereof all the Defendant’s are liable to the Plaintiff for these losses of her belongings under the theory of respondent superior for the acts of their employees committed while acting within the scope of their duties and authority.
181. At all relevant times the Defendant’s Menino and Reilly were acting under the theory of respondent superior for the acts of their employees committed while acting within the scope of their duties and authority granted by them under and within the scope of their duties as an employee of the City of Boston and/or Massachusetts.
Prayer for Relief:
1. Plaintiff requests, relying upon her Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law Supporting Preliminary Injunction (to be filed) that this Honorable Court issues Orders to restrain Defendants from destroying her property, thawing the frozen felines, to Order a bond payable by the Defendants equally as referred to hereinbelow at paragraph 10 and for the immediate return her animals and property unlawfully seized prior to trial on the issues.
2. Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction upon the Defendants from depriving her rights protected by the 1st, 4th, 14th Amendments and her due process rights, her rights of free association with landlords, residents of Boston, and other cat fanciers, the enjoyment of her beloved hobby interests and to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures, governmental harassments and equal protection of the law.
3. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court find in favor of Plaintiff and vacate Orders relating to her premises issued from the Boston Housing Court and Massachusetts Appeals Court.
4. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court find in favor of Plaintiff and vacate Orders, records and all material relating to the premises and permanently remove from the Boston Inspectional records the condemnation records of April as they relate to Plaintiff’s residence at 103 Charles Street Boston, MA.
5. Plaintiff request that this Honorable Court find in favor of all claims and/or any portion thereof and immediately return all her property including her cats, kittens, and various items seized during the unwarranted seizure on 4/27/03.
6. Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction upon any of the Defendants from interfering with, touching and or otherwise all contact with Plaintiff and her property including but not limited to her cats, kittens and dog(s).
7. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court find in favor of all claims and/or any portion thereof and Order a stay of Condemnation, permanent removal of all reports, notes, emails, logs and all other mater relating to the condemnation of her unit.
8. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court find in favor of all claims and/or any portion thereof and order a public apology from the City of Boston, Mayor Menino, Attorney General Thomas Reilly, Judge Kyriakakis and the Clerk of the Boston Housing Court, former Boston Police Chief Evans and current Boston Police Chief; former Inspectional Services Commissioner Joyce and current Commissioner; Boston Animal Control Director, and Officers Rudack, Conroy and Kennedy to be posted in all newspapers in the Commonwealth and in any media were the circumstances of this litigation was published and/or disseminated.
9. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court find in favor of all claims and/or any portion thereof and order treble damages, special damages, consequential, proximate and actual damages in the amount found at trial and any and all other relief it deems fair and just.
10. Request is hereby made that a Bond be posted by Defendants equally and collectively to be held at the Texas A & M University, in College Station, TX in the amount of the expected cost to clone each of the felines found frozen in Plaintiff’s apartment at 103 Charles Street Boston at an expected cost of $20,000.00 for each feline and the number of felines Defendant described as found frozen (60) therefore the amount of the Bond requested is 1 million, 200 dollars (1,200,000.00).
Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.
I Heidi K. Erickson attest and sign here under the pains and penalties of perjury that the facts herein are true.
Respectfully submitted by:
Heidi K. Plaintiff, pro se 4/22/04