"Complaint" in federal complaints
Moderators: family_man, LindaJM
"Complaint" in federal complaints
"Complaint" in federal complaints
http://www.lansnerkubitschek.com/news/whatnew-1.html
NY victims of domestic violence case
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, on behalf of victims of domestic violence and their children. In this action plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to them under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also seek damages for the deprivation of their rights under the New York constitution and laws. Under the misnomer of "child protection," defendants routinely harass and terrorize victims of domestic violence and their children, violating their fundamental rights.
NY victims of domestic violence case
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, on behalf of victims of domestic violence and their children. In this action plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to them under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also seek damages for the deprivation of their rights under the New York constitution and laws. Under the misnomer of "child protection," defendants routinely harass and terrorize victims of domestic violence and their children, violating their fundamental rights.
http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/muell ... amcplt.pdf
Mueler case
1. This is an action for damages for deprivation of constitutional rights leading to
emotional distress and mental anguish suffered by Plaintiffs, and in addition, for physical pain
suffered by Taige L. Mueller, a minor.
Mueler case
1. This is an action for damages for deprivation of constitutional rights leading to
emotional distress and mental anguish suffered by Plaintiffs, and in addition, for physical pain
suffered by Taige L. Mueller, a minor.
http://www.pgh.aclu.org/pdf/20031003_underwood-c.pdf
SELENA UNDERWOOD case
COMPLAINT
This case arises from the unlawful seizure of two infant children from the care and
custody of their mother, Selena Underwood, and the efforts to permanently separate Ms.
Underwood from her children. The seizure of the children – in one case separating a new born infant
from her mother while both were in the hospital recovering from delivery – was the beginning of
Selena Underwood and her children’s ordeal. Almost two years after Defendants took her first
child, Ms. Underwood’s family has yet to be reunited. The seizures of William Underwood and
Na’Dayja Underwood Carter, and the prolonged and continuing separation of the Underwood
family, was without prior judicial authorization, and without any basis to believe the children were
abused, neglected or in imminent threat of harm. This action is brought, inter alia, to redress
Defendants’ arbitrary and malicious abuse of government power.
Plaintiff, Selena Underwood, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children
William Underwood and Na’Dayja Underwood Carter, by and through her counsel, Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart LLP, Wilder & Mahood, P.C. and the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union, therefore, brings this action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of
law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and supplemental state law claims.
SELENA UNDERWOOD case
COMPLAINT
This case arises from the unlawful seizure of two infant children from the care and
custody of their mother, Selena Underwood, and the efforts to permanently separate Ms.
Underwood from her children. The seizure of the children – in one case separating a new born infant
from her mother while both were in the hospital recovering from delivery – was the beginning of
Selena Underwood and her children’s ordeal. Almost two years after Defendants took her first
child, Ms. Underwood’s family has yet to be reunited. The seizures of William Underwood and
Na’Dayja Underwood Carter, and the prolonged and continuing separation of the Underwood
family, was without prior judicial authorization, and without any basis to believe the children were
abused, neglected or in imminent threat of harm. This action is brought, inter alia, to redress
Defendants’ arbitrary and malicious abuse of government power.
Plaintiff, Selena Underwood, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children
William Underwood and Na’Dayja Underwood Carter, by and through her counsel, Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart LLP, Wilder & Mahood, P.C. and the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union, therefore, brings this action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of
law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and supplemental state law claims.
http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/0 ... _zed.shtml
EDWARD S. MCLARNON case
1. This is a complaint for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, with pendant state claims, against certain current and past officials, workers, and judges in the Massachusetts court system, along with other institutions, agencies, social workers and conspirators:
A. For declaratory and injunctive relief - Defendants, in conspiracy with David Douglas and each other, violated Mr. McLarnon's protected due process rights by a pattern and practice of criminally editing, falsifying, and manipulating official court hearing tapes, docket records, case files, and impounded files in his Probate and Family Court restraining order case, and used the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law to deprive him of any meaningful remedy.
B For damages - Defendants, in conspiracy with each other, deprived Mr. McLarnon of due process and equal protection of the law in the Massachusetts State Courts for seven years, resulting in the "kidnapping" of his son under color of state law.
C. For Pendant State Claim - Defendants, by their actions intentionally interfered with Mr. McLarnon's parent-child relationship, by their fraudulent and deceitful actions in his restraining order case.
EDWARD S. MCLARNON case
1. This is a complaint for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, with pendant state claims, against certain current and past officials, workers, and judges in the Massachusetts court system, along with other institutions, agencies, social workers and conspirators:
A. For declaratory and injunctive relief - Defendants, in conspiracy with David Douglas and each other, violated Mr. McLarnon's protected due process rights by a pattern and practice of criminally editing, falsifying, and manipulating official court hearing tapes, docket records, case files, and impounded files in his Probate and Family Court restraining order case, and used the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law to deprive him of any meaningful remedy.
B For damages - Defendants, in conspiracy with each other, deprived Mr. McLarnon of due process and equal protection of the law in the Massachusetts State Courts for seven years, resulting in the "kidnapping" of his son under color of state law.
C. For Pendant State Claim - Defendants, by their actions intentionally interfered with Mr. McLarnon's parent-child relationship, by their fraudulent and deceitful actions in his restraining order case.
http://www.lassennews.com/News_Story.edi?sid=3556
Amy McConnell case (molestation of her children while in foster care)
The suit, filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, alleges the defendants violated the plaintiff’s’ Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments. The suit also charges the defendants with intentional infliction of emotional distress, liability under state law for negligence for failure to fulfill a mandatory duty and negligence.
The plaintiffs in the case, Amy McConnell and her four minor children, seek at least $11 million in damages from the defendants — more than $10 million for “wrongful deprivation of their rights” and more than $1 million for “general damages.”
In addition, the plaintiff seeks “compensatory damages, liquidate, exemplary, punitive damages and such monetary relief as may be deemed appropriate …” including costs and attorney fees.
Amy McConnell case (molestation of her children while in foster care)
The suit, filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, alleges the defendants violated the plaintiff’s’ Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments. The suit also charges the defendants with intentional infliction of emotional distress, liability under state law for negligence for failure to fulfill a mandatory duty and negligence.
The plaintiffs in the case, Amy McConnell and her four minor children, seek at least $11 million in damages from the defendants — more than $10 million for “wrongful deprivation of their rights” and more than $1 million for “general damages.”
In addition, the plaintiff seeks “compensatory damages, liquidate, exemplary, punitive damages and such monetary relief as may be deemed appropriate …” including costs and attorney fees.
http://www.falseallegations.com/drano11 ... -21-04.htm
VERIFIED COMPLAINT: JURY CLAIM AS TO ALL COUNTS
Brian J. Meuse ["Meuse"] of Massachusetts hereby asserts the following claims against the defendants in the above-entitled action:
Paragraphs
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: arrest ……………………………………
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: detention and confinement ……………..
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: conspiracy ……………………………… violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: refusing or neglecting to prevent ………
malicious prosecution …………………………………………………
abuse of process ………………………………………………………
violation of Mass. Civil Rights Act (M.G.L. c. 12, sec. 11I) ………… false arrest and imprisonment …………………………………………
assault ………………………………………………………….……..
battery ………………………………………………………….……..
conspiracy ………………………………………………………….…
defamation …………………………………………………………….
intentional infliction of emotional distress ……………………………
VERIFIED COMPLAINT: JURY CLAIM AS TO ALL COUNTS
Brian J. Meuse ["Meuse"] of Massachusetts hereby asserts the following claims against the defendants in the above-entitled action:
Paragraphs
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: arrest ……………………………………
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: detention and confinement ……………..
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: conspiracy ……………………………… violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: refusing or neglecting to prevent ………
malicious prosecution …………………………………………………
abuse of process ………………………………………………………
violation of Mass. Civil Rights Act (M.G.L. c. 12, sec. 11I) ………… false arrest and imprisonment …………………………………………
assault ………………………………………………………….……..
battery ………………………………………………………….……..
conspiracy ………………………………………………………….…
defamation …………………………………………………………….
intentional infliction of emotional distress ……………………………
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests