IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL DIVISION
MARY T. JEAN,
Plaintiff.
vs.
MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE,
Defendant.
No. 06-40031
PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT,
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINT AND SHOW CAUSE, AND FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COMES NOW MARY T. JEAN and invokes the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court to award her temporary restraint and show cause, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE, as hereinafter set forth.
I. JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction in that the civil actions hereinafter pled arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Constitutional deprivation is that of free speech without prior restraint, protected under U.S. CONST. Amend. 1, as statutorily implemented at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq.
II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff MARY T. JEAN is a citizen of Worcester County, Massachusetts. She has the capacity to sue in that she can demonstrate an injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The nature of the Plaintiff’s injury is deprivation of her constitutionally protected free speech by the chilling effects of an impermissible exercise of the Commonwealth’s police powers.
3. Defendant MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE is an entity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that may be served through its General Counsel, Ann M. McCarthy, 470 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01702-5309 and upon the Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Government Bureau, One Ashburton Place, Room 2019, Boston, MA 02108.
III. VENUE
4. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts, Central Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
IV. FACTS
5. Plaintiff is a private citizen engaged in political activity. Plaintiff operates two internet websites, “worcestervoice.com” and “Conte2OO6.com,” the second of which is at issue in this case. The “Conte2OO6” site has arguably been instrumental in encouraging the District Attorney of Worcester County, MA, Hon. John Conte, not to seek re-election as he had previously announced.
6. In her legitimate political activities vis a vis Mr. Conte, Plaintiff posted on her “Conte 2006” website, a videotaped recording of what she believes to be a warrantless and unlawful entry upon the premises of Mr. Paul Pechonis by the so-called “C-Pac” Unit of the Massachusetts State Police, a unit assigned to the selfsame Worcester County District Attorney. The recording involved was, upon information and belief, automatically videotaped by a child security system at Mr. Pechonis’s home. The videotape, provided to her by Mr. Pechonis, captures what is arguably unlawful conduct by the Defendants here, the Massachusetts State Police. In no way does the Plaintiff s conduct involve activities for which she has been threatened with felony prosecution under MASS. GEN. L. ch. 277 § 99, an anti-wiretapping statute intended to foil organized crime. She was in no way involved in making the videotape involved and indeed, did not even know Mr. Pechonis at the time the videotape was made.
7. Understandably, the posting of this videotape on Plaintiff s website is an embarrassment to the Defendant Massachusetts State Police and Mr. Conte. Thus, in retaliation, the Defendant sent to Mrs. Jean a self-styled “cease and desist’ letter, a true an correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporate herein by reference for all purposes.
8. It is Plaintiff s position that Exhibit “A,” is an unlawful use by the Defendant of the chilling effects of the Commonwealth’s police powers to restrain her rights to free speech and expression, as set forth in letter to counsel, a true an correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporate herein by reference for all purposes.
V. FIRST COUNT: VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER § 1983
9. Plaintiff re-alleges pars. 5-8 in support of this claim.
10. At time of trial, plaintiff will prove that the conduct complained of chillingly, and with prior restraint, deprives her of her rights to free speech as prohibited in Amend. I of the United States Constitution, as implemented in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She also pleads for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees for herself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1988.
VI. EMERGENCY EX-PARTE REQUEST FOR TRO AND SHOW CAUSE
11. Plaintiff pleads that unless a TRO issues against the defendant to preclude it from further threatening conduct, she will suffer irreparable harm in that, as alleged above and verified below, plaintiff believes that her further exercise of free speech will subject her to unlawful arrest. The harm is imminent. Plaintiff further pleads that unless a TRO issue, she will have no other adequate remedy at law to protect her rights to free speech and expression, the deprivation of which for even an instant is without legal redress. She further pleads that because of the record extant in this case, that she is likely to prevail on the merits. She also pleads that any potential injury to her far outweighs any injury sustained by the defendant if injunctive relief were granted. She further pleads that injunctive relief would have a positive effect on the public interests involved. She further pleads that the TRO issue ex-parte, if necessary, in that the defendant has already been alerted to the pendency of this action and has been invited to appear.
12. Because of the nature of the conduct involved and the inherent public interests involved, she asks that a bond be set in a de minimis amount.
13. Plaintiff also requests that the requested TRO contain an ORDER to the Defendant to appear and SHOW CAUSE why the temporary relief granted therein should not be extended for the duration of this lawsuit in the form a Preliminary Injunction and why such other relief which, upon hearing of the evidence, this Court also deems appropriate, should not be granted. In the alternative, should a TRO not issue, she asks for an expeditious setting of a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction.
VII. REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
14. Plaintiff also requests that upon completion of trial of this case, a permanent injunction issue to prevent further violations of the unlawful conduct cited herein.
VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
15. Plaintiff asks that TRO and show cause orders issue ex-parte if necessary and that upon notice and hearing, she have the preliminary injunctive relief sought or, in the alternative, that she have an expeditious hearing of her application for a Preliminary Injunction. She also asks for permanent injunctive relief. She also asks for reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees as provided by law. She asks for such other and further relief to which she may show herself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL J. SHEA, P.C.
By:
DANIEL J. SHEA (ECF) B.B.O.# 652896
1928 West Bell Street
Houston, TX 77019-4814
(713) 942-7500 Telephone
(713) 942-7507 Telecopier
(832) 647-3612 Mobile
DJS7500@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,
MARY T. JEAN
VERIFICATION OF MARY T. JEAN
I, the undersigned MARY T. JEAN hereby state under pains and penalties of perjury that I am the plaintiff in the above styled lawsuit. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, mentally competent, and not otherwise disqualified by law from making an affidavit. I have supplied the facts that are contained in the above pleadings at pars. 5-8. 1 have read and review those facts as set forth above. I have first hand knowledge of those facts, except where otherwise indicated as being on information and belief, and those facts are true and correct. I further ver
ify that the Temporary Restraint and Show Cause Orders requested are needed for the reasons pled above.Signed this 17th day of February 2006.
MARY T. JEAN
