|
|
is owned by A902 - THE BACKWARDS209A LAW SITE click hereto join the ring |
|
"A902" THE BACKWARDS 209AABUSE LAW SITE
Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces"but administered "with an evil eye
or a heavyhand" are discriminatory and violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .YickWo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356
JAME's SUCCESS STORY OF HOW TO SUE A COP ENFORCING A RESTRAINING ORDER
AND THE WINNING BRIEFJames' short, pithy description. . Here goes:
HOW TO SUE A COP FOR FALSE ARREST, PRO SE, FOR FUN AND PROFIT! Amazing but true! James A. Nollet (NOT "esq.") has been able to sue a cop for False , without an attorney, and WIN WIN WIN WIn WIN.
It all started about 5 years ago when he was arrested when his ex-wife, who had a Restraining Order on him, persuaded a cop to pursue a warrant for his arrest on an accusation of viiolation of that Restraining Order.
And what were the specifics of the accusation? Simple. Both of James' wives (ex and present) are from Poland and in fact knew each other. (James met the second through the first.) The present wife wrote a letter to the ex IN THE POLISH LANGUAGE! The ex took it to the cop and persuaded him that the letter constituted a violation of Restraining Order, in that it constituted impermissible 3rd-Party contact.
Well. First of all, the letter was legal and therefore constitutionally protected, since no Restraining Order existed between the 2 women. Secondly, nothing existed in the letter which incriminated James -- not
that the dumb cop knew that of his own knowledge, since he admitted he could not read the letter himself and never bothered to have it translated! In other words, the cop arrested despite the clear absence of ANY Probable Cause.Anyway, James spent 24 hours locked up courtesy of the (subsequently convicted) High Sheriff of Essex County "Chuckles" Reardon. Amongst other indignities, he was required to spend the entire night in the psycho
ward next to a raving lunatic who was having hallucinations about being in bed with his girlfriend but unable to perform!Except for a brief time when James had a Public Defender, James represented himself in the criminal phase of the case. He filed his own Motion to Dismiss the criminal case and WON!
Then he sued the cop who had the warrant written. The suit was filed in Federal District Court in Boston in 1999. James essentially won his case when the Defendant (with a high-price attorney) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (that means, to Dismiss the case) and LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST -- because James wrote an Opposition to Summary Judgment which carrried the day.
Afterward, he graciously agreed to accept $5,000 from the City of Lawrence (the cop's employer) to end the matter.
What follows below is a copy of James' Original Complaint, plus a copy of his Opposition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JAMES A. NOLLET, * VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff *
v. * CIVIL ACTION No.
JOHN S. DUSHAME, * CV99-12276-EFH
Defendant *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDCOMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF JAMES A. NOLLET, pro se, brings this action to obtain redress for the deprivation, under color of statute, of his federally protected Civil Rights, as guaranteed to him by the 1st, 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and as well by the laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant intentionally inflicted physical and emotional distress, in that he was subjected to false arrest and false imprisonment by the defendant.
JURISDICTION
1) Plaintiff claims Federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2, which extends the jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, this being an Action authorized by law to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, statute, custom, and usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to the Plaintiff at all times by the 1st, 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for violations of certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, by the Defendant under color of Law, in his capacity as a police officer of the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1331 and 1343. Pendant Jurisdiction is also claimed for violations of Plaintiff’s rights under Articles I, XII, and XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as well as Massachusetts General Law (MGL) 12 § 11I.
VENUE
2) Venue in the District of Massachusetts is proper under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b). During all times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiff was and is a citizen of the United States who resides within the District of Massachusetts. At all times mentioned herein, the Defendant was employed within the District of Massachusetts as a police officer for the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts and, of knowledge and belief, also resides there. Each of the claims for relief arose from actions entirely committed within the District of Massachusetts.
|
|
|
|
is owned by A902 - THE BACKWARDS209A LAW SITE click hereto join the ring |
|