Docstoc

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - Download as DOC

Document Sample
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - Download as DOC Powered By Docstoc
					COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Superior Court

Franklin, ss.

Civil Docket No

Linda Hamilton [Plaintiff] v. Robert Chesbro-Attorney [Defendant]

Complaint Introduction This action is civil in nature-as the Plaintiff has been deprived of her rights by an agent under the color of law, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 s i983, 42 USC. This action is being brought by Linda Hamilton, a Pro se litigant, herein after "Plaintiff", a Massachusetts resident keeping a place of abode in Franklin County. Plaintiff challenges the professional conduct of her retained attorney from 2000, who had represented her in a criminal proceeding. Robert Chesbro, herein after the Defendant has violated both Massachusetts and Federal law, as well as The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.

1.Parties 1) Plaintiff (Linda Hamilton), is a resident of Massachusetts, who keeps her place of abode within Franklin County. 2) Defendant (Robert Chesbro), of Williamstown, Massachusetts is an attorney. He is being sued in both his individual and official capacities . The following parties may be called to testify 1) Assistant District Attororney Kelly Mulcahy who resides in North Adams, Massachusetts. 2) Attorney Gregory Hession who resides in Belchertown, Massachusetts. 3) Detective Richard Lesniak who resides in North Adams, Massachusetts . 4) Sargeant Robert O'Hare of the Shelburne Falls State Police barracks. 5) Lt. Col. Gerard Regin of MSP Internal Affairs. 6) Lt. Butler of MSP Internal Affairs. 7) Major Appleton Commander of Troop B, retired. 8) Mr. James Harkins, aka who resides in Wilmington, Massachusetts 9) Lt. Kevin Kelly of MSP, Dept. of Education and Training. 10) Eric Goodchild who resides in Shelburne, Massachusetts 11) Clerk of Courts Northern Berkshire, Mr. Dennis J. D’arcangelo 12) Sgt. Potter, MSP Cheshire Barracks 13) Sheriff of Franklin County, Fred MacDonald 14) Deputy Sheriff Robert Hall, Franklin Co. House of Correction) 15) Attorney Cynthia Carrithers of Franklin Co. 16) Attorney Cairns of Berkshire Co. 17) Massachusetts State Police Trooper Earl Reopel, retired 18) Former Clerk of Courts, North Adams, Mr. Trottier 19) Chief Morocco, North Adams Police Dept. 20) Attorney Michael O’Rourke 21) Col. Foley, MSP retired 22) Jennifer Deraway of Ashfield Massachusetts

23) Susan Bush reporter-North Adams Transcript/Berkshire Eagle 24) Mr. Jeff Stoicheff Penske Logistics 25) Russell Hamilton, Shelburne 26) Trooper Michael E. Riley 27) Nancy Clemo, Private Investigator, Pittsfield, Ma. 28) Mary Marlow R.N., North Adams, Ma. 29) Ann Hahn R.N., North Adams, Ma. 30) Lt. Lemay, Shelburne Barrack 31) Nancy Snow, Gunowner’s Action League 32) Wayne Garfinkle, D.C. 33) Stephan Topolski, M.D. 34)) Caroline Chase, M.S. LMHC 35) Judge Barbalunga, Lenox, Ma. 36) Michael Baggett, Bridgewater, Ma. 37) Trooper Ann Marie Robertson 38) Trooper Rosemary Curran 39) Allison Cloutier, Board of Bar Overseers

2. Facts

1) The Defendant acted for the Plaintiff between March 2000 and January 2001. 2) The Defendant conspired with others to place the Plaintiff into a position of legal jeopardy, ab initio. Such legal jeopardy caused emotional, physical, and financial` damages. 3) The Defendant intentionally distorted the truth to his client (the Plaintiff) contrary to MRPC ( Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct) hereinafter Rule 1.2(a) “Scope of Representation.” 4) The Defendant advised the Plaintiff to lie on the stand contrary to MRPC 1.2(d). 5) The Defendant acted with no diligence whatsoever contrary to MRPC (13) in that he did not object to the testimony of MSP troopers and Detective Lesniak even though the police report had been suppressed.

6) The Defendant would not produce a copy of the Plaintiff’s file when requested on three occasions. The Defendant also failed to notify the Plaintiff as to why she was being brought to court to testify, contrary to Rule 1.4 communication of MRPC. The Plaintiff found out only at the hearing that it was a show cause hearing for the opposing party. 7) The Defendant is in violation of Ch. 8.4 (c); (d); in that he did engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; and engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 8) The Defendant never notified the court that the prosecution had not been forthcoming with any of the discovery material. 9) The Defendant did not seek testimony from a professional instructor of tractor trailer drivers. 10) The Defendant did not ask for MSP written procedure regarding what constitutes reasonable cause for stopping a vehicle. 11) The Defendant did not subpoena a senior MSP Officer to testify what constitutes reasonable cause, and the procedure to employ, if the trooper believes that searching a vehicle is warranted . 12) The Defendant never objected to the attorney representing Mr. Harkins slandering the character of the plaintiff. 13) The Defendant never subpoenaed any character witnesses for the plaintiff. 14) The Defendant never questioned Mr. Harkins about the fact he gave the police a false address. 15) The Defendant never asked Mr. Harkins to explain his multiple aliases and social security numbers.

16) The Defendant never researched or questioned Mr. Harkins about his outstanding arrest warrants. 17) The Defendant never did a criminal background check on Mr. Harkins. 18) The Defendant misrepresented the truth when he told the plaintiff “Jury trials, are never held in North Adams.” 19) The Defendant forged the plaintiff’s signature to get the case moved to Pittsfield. The Defendant lied to the court when he told them the plaintiff wanted the case moved out of Judge Ripp’s Court. 20) The Defendant never mentioned to the court that Detective Richard Lesniak was out of his jurisdiction and had no authority in the town of Florida, nor did he questioned him about his comment, "I really don't know much about the gun laws." 21) The Defendant never issued a subpoena to Major Charles Appleton as to why he refused to conduct an investigation into wrong doing and criminal acts by Troopers Robertson and Curran, Sgt. Robert O’Hare and Sgt. Potter. Nor did he question him about the illegal and threatening letter he sent the plaintiff. 22) The Defendant never issued a subpoena to, nor questioned Chief Morocco as to why he did not investigate and discipline Detective Lesniak. 23) The Defendant never questioned Detective Lesniak about his long standing history of battering and harassing women. 24) The Defendant never questioned Troopers Robertson and Curran about why they did not detain Mr. Harkins or check his license and registration. 25) The Defendant never questioned the Mr. Harkins about his illegal CDL. 26) The Defendant breached attorney client privilege when he discussed the case with Attorney Hession without the Plaintiff’s permission. 27) The Defendant never questioned Sgt. O’Hare as to why he never dispatched a car to find the trucker. 28) The Defendant never questioned Troopers Robertson and Curran as to why a police investigation was never done. 31) The Defendant committed constructive fraud when he never revealed to the bar that he had a felony record in violation of the rules of professional conduct, Rule 4:01 Sect. 12 32) The Defendant never objected to the fact that there was never a pre-trial hearing. 33) The Defendant never objected to the fact that there was never a show cause hearing. 34) The Defendant did not follow the Plaintiff’s instructions on which Supreme Court decisions to submit when filing a motion to suppress the firearm as evidence. 35) The Defendant never asked the court why the “Motion to Dismiss” filed by the plaintiff was never ruled on by Judge Ripps. 36) The Defendant entered into a conspiracy with the prosecutor and clerks of court to deny the plaintiff justice and her civil liberties.

37) The Defendant attempted to threaten and coerce the Plaintiff into pleading to sufficient facts. 37) The Defendant told the Plaintiff that pleading to sufficient facts was not the equivalent to pleading guilty. 38) The Defendant never questioned the troopers as to why they never told the plaintiff the reason for the stop as they must do by law. 39) The Defendant lied to the plaintiff regarding phone messages that he never left. 40) The Defendant lied to the plaintiff when he said the plaintiff had to appear in court when it was not required. 41) The defendant conspired with Ms. Mulcahy to lie to Judge Rutberg for the purpose of making an excuse to make the Plaintiff come to court solely for the purpose of traumatizing her. 42) The Defendant conspired with Ms. Mulcahy to get the MSP to come to the Plaintiff' House with a fraudulent subpoena knowing that it would terrify her. 43) The Defendant never issued a subpoena to Lts. Regin and Butler of IAD to question them as to why they conducted a phony investigation and took no action to discipline Troopers Curran and Robertson and Sgt. OHare and Lt. Potter. 44) The Plaintiff was a nurse with a thirty-five year flawless nursing career. She had never even had a speeding ticket in her life. The Defendant did not present this information to the court. 45) The prosecutor, Ms. Mulcahy acted with malice in the malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff 46) Since the incident the Plaintiff experiences night terrors and suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression. 47) The actions of the Defendant have damaged the professional and personal reputation of the Plaintiff 48) The Defendant knew that Mr. Harkins and Attorney Cairns met in collusion with Ms. Mulcahy before the Plaintiff’s trial making a deal that if Mr. Harkins would change his testimony and lie under oath she would not prosecute him. 49) The Defendant never entered a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint not only wasn’t sworn to in front of a clerk, it was never signed by anyone. 50) The Defendant never challenged Troopers Robinson and Curran and Sgt. O’Hare as to why they kept calling the general store a “liquor store.” 51) The Defendant never challenged the statement from Mr. Harkins that he did not want to file a complaint. The troopers had no authority to file a complaint. 52) The Defendant never challenged the fact that words were added to transcriptions that the Plaintiff never spoke. 53)) The Defendant never challenged the fact that no receipt was given to the Plaintiff for her husband's property which, by law, must be. 54) The Defendant never brought to the attention of the court that a victim advocate was never assigned to the plaintiff by Gerard Downing as by law he must after Mr. Harkins was charged with “Driving to endanger.”

55) The Defendant never challenged the fact that the alleged police “statement” by Mr. Harkins was never witnessed nor sworn to making it null & void 56) The Defendant never challenged the fact that the Mass. State Police destroyed evidence of the tape of the call the Plaintiff made to the Shelburne barracks and the tape from the Cheshire barracks of conversation between the troopers and Sgt. Potter. 57) The Defendant never questioned Trooper Robertson about the entry she made in the police report referencing Deputy Hall's inappropriate, untrue, and illegal slanderous comment. 58) The Plaintiff never questioned Sgt. Potter as regards to protocol as to assigning work details to Rookies. 59) The Defendant never challenged the prosecutor to prove intent. (Us v Crutkshank Us 542 Headnote 12. 60) The Defendant never demanded that Trooper Robertson and Sgt. Potter produce their Investigation of “alleged” gun violation. 61) The Defendant never requested that Trooper Robertson and Sgt. Potter produce their investigation of the “alleged assault with a dangerous weapon.” 62) The Defendant never asked Trooper O’Hare to explain his comment “The trucker could File a complaint.” 63) The Defendant never challenged Troopers Robertson & Curran as to why they were in abeyance to MGL. 263 Sect. 2 nor did he question them as to what their reason was for detaining the Plaintiff. 64) The Defendant never challenged the prosecutor who was in abbeyence of standing Order 2-26 II & III requiring her to provide the Plaintiff with a complete discovery discovery package at the time of arraignment and meet the requirements of a pre trial conference. 65) The defendant was in abeyance of Rule 3, c and Rule 4, (b), (d) and (e) as he did not protect the Plaintiff’s right to a show cause hearing or and indictment before arraignment. 66) The Defendant was in abeyance of Rule 19 (a) as the Plaintiff never was given a waver to sign and file with the clerk waiving the rights to a jury trial.

AFFADAVIT OF FACTS The statements below are made in good faith and to the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge. On March 1, 2004, just a little before noon I was leaving my job at North Adams hospital to go home. I drove down Eagle St. and when I got to the light where Union St. (Rt. 2) is it was green and I took a left onto Union St. (Rt. 2) I did notice that when I came to the light on my right at a red light was a white 18 wheel truck. He was stopped there at a red light. I proceeded to drive eastbound. The speed limit on that part of Rt. 2 is 30 mph. When I looked in my rear view mirror and saw the truck coming through the intersection very fast. My first thought was that he was somehow distracted and didn’t see me in front of him. He continued to drive fast so I sped up a bit and just before he got to my bumper, he pulled out into the left hand lane. And I thought well good, he’s going to pass me. He’s just one of those aggressive truck drivers. But he didn’t pass me, he pulled half way up my vehicle. I couldn’t see him, but I could hear him. So I slowed down hoping that he would pass me. As soon as I slowed down, he put something on that I now know is the Jake brake. It makes a lot of noise. And it made the truck back up very quickly. He pulled behind me then to the point where the only thing in my view was his grill. I couldn’t see his windshield. He repeated this same action again. At this point, I started to get frightened and I thought possibly he was driving under the influence. I was going to pull off the road, but the place where I was right then were abandoned mill and there were no people around. I was afraid he might pull in after me. At this point I was really getting fearful for my life. At this point, I thought that I might be able to get away. I knew there were houses coming up and I was planning on trying to pull into one of the driveways where he couldn’t follow me and run behind the houses towards Cumberland Farms to use the phone. I have a license to carry a concealed firearm and carry a Charter Arms .38 in my purse. I also had a bumper sticker that said “More guns Less Crime-Read the book. The firearm was in a small black holster. I reached in my purse and put it in my right hand. I put my

hand back on the steering wheel getting prepared to turn into one of those driveways when he all of a sudden put his brake on and just backed way off. His cab was very high and I didn’t even know he could see in my vehicle. I thought he must think that I had picked up a cell phone. So I just sped up and pulled into Cumberland farms. He went by me and headed up the mountain. It was a white truck with no markings that I could see. I called the Shelburne Barracks which would be about 15 miles head of the truck on Rt. 2. Sgt Robert O’Hare answered the phone. I told him exactly what happened, and as soon as I told him I had a gun, he yelled at me that I couldn’t have a gun, that the trucker could file a complaint. I couldn’t get him to somehow focus on the fact of what happened to me. I finally said “ Would you please do something? He could be driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This man could hurt someone.” And he said to me “Oh ok, we’ll go look for him.” I found out later he never even attempted to send any troopers to look for him. Unbeknownsed to me, there were two rookie troopers a few fines up the road doing radar. Note: I believe it is against MSP policy for rookies to be out on their own without a more senior trooper. According to later testimony when the trucker saw them he stopped his truck, jumped out and made the statement. “Some lady waved a gun at me.” He then gave them a description of my car and my license number. The troopers never detained him nor did they check his license or ID. I then proceeded up Florida Mountain. I had my gun, still in its’ holster next to me on the passenger seat. I know this is leagal as long as I am alone in the vehicle. I was going east and two state troopers passed me going very fast in a Westerly direction. I thought “Oh good they are looking for the trucker, but they’re going in the wrong direction. I thought there must be other troopers on the other side of the mountain. So I proceeded on up Florida mountain. Just before Randall’s general store (about 1.5 miles) I noticed a blue car tailgating me. There was no police bubble, no sirens or lights. I thought, “what is happening today?” I pulled into Randall’s store to let the car go by. When I pulled into the parking lot the blue car pulled in behind me and another car that I hadn’t seen that was a marked state police care. Then they put their lights on and I sat in the car. After a minute or so Trooper Curran came up to my window and faced me yelling at me to put my hands on the wheel which I did. She continued to yell, “Is there a gun in the car, Is there a gun in the car, Is their a gun in the car?” She did this in rapid succession, leaving me not time to answer the question. When she finally stopped yelling, I volunteered to get out of the car and explain what had just happed. She ignored what I said and I was becoming increasingly concerned about her erratic, unprofessional behavior. She left for a short time, then came back and ordered me out of the car. I tried several times to explain to both troopers what had just happened and asked them to check with the Shelburne Barracks. I don’t know if they ever did. Every time I would try to explain they would interrupt me and not let me finish. I was never even informed as to why they had stopped me. The police report said I was stopped for a gun violation. They asked me if they could search my car. I said no. They asked me if they could search my person. I said no but they could search my jacket because that was the only place I could have concealed anything. Then trooper Robertson padded me down in spite of the fact I had not given her permission and they had not given me a reason for the stop or that they had any reason to think I had committed a crime. Trooper Robertson sent back to the car radio a couple of times. One time she came and said to the other trooper that the car was registered to my husband. In all this time I was never asked for my license nor was I ever allowed to complete a sentence. After one of the radio calls in which they apparently were talking to Sgt. Potter of the Cheshire Barracks who seemed to be giving them step by step instructions from long distance they finally said “Can we see some ID so we know who you are?” I told her I would get my purse and give it to her and tell her where the ID was. To this point their behavior had been so erratic I was afraid of what might happen if I reached in my purse.

I handed her the purse and she went to her car. She left my purse on the hood of her car and got back in her vehicle. When she came back this time she told Trooper Curran I did indeed have a legal driver’s license and a license to carry concealed firearm. At this point I was not told I was free to go. We were just standing there. Then this man in a gray suit appeared. I had not noticed a car pull up. He did not identify himself to me. He just walked up to me and said “What did you do to piss the trucker off.? He went in my car, took my gun off the passenger seat and removed the bullets, put them in his pocket and then put the gun back on the seat. I later found out he is Detective Richard Lesniak form the North Adams police department. We were in the town of Florida where he has no jurisdiction. Once again, none of them seemed to know what to do next and I still wasn’t told that I was free to go. At this point I asked if I could go in to the store to buy some water, and they said yes. So I went in and bought some water and came back out. I don’t know what they had been discussing but then Detective Lesniak pointed to my gun on the seat and said to the troopers “ Well that right there is against the law. You can’t have a gun in a car.” When he was later questioned by my lawyer as to why he said that, his response was, “I don’t really know much about the gun laws.” He then removed the gun from my car and handed it to Trooper Robertson. I asked for a police escort home as I was now defenseless and didn’t know where the trucker was. They refused my request. They then all went back to their vehicles and left me standing there. About 30 seconds later Trooper Robertson jumped back out of her car, ran over to me and read me my Miranda rights but didn’t tell me what I was being charged with. Then they all left. She asked me if I wanted to come to the barracks and make a statement. I said “no, I want to go home and call a lawyer Both my husband and myself requested Major Charles Appleton to investigate these violations of my civil rights. I also requested Chief Morocco of the North Adams Police Dept. to investigate Lesniak’s illegal behavior. Neither requests were honored. Fourteen days later I received a charge unsigned and not sworn to in front of a clerk of courts of “Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.” The police did not witness the event. There were no witnesses. There was never a police investigation and Mr. Harkins stated he did not want to file a complaint.

1) Attorney Chesbro had only been in the practice of law for three years when the Plaintiff retained him.He had no trial experience. He appeared to start out well and convincingly. 2) Attorney Chesbro described himself as a defender of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. 3) He charged the police with theft of a firearm which was denied by the clerk who cited as a reason “ It is not their intent to deprive you of your property forever ”The Defendant told the Plaintiff that there was no remedy to the clerk’s decision and that it could not be appealed to the judge. 4) The Plaintiff was never indicted by a grand jury nor did she at any time waive formal indictment in violation of MGL C. 263 Sect. 4 and U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights Article 5. 117 U.S. 348 Macon v U.S. “Implied waver of right to indictment is not possible. 5) The Defendant never objected to the non-indictment. 6) The Plaintiff never challenged the fact that there was never a show cause hearing before or after arraignment. 7) The Defendant told the Plaintiff “There is no Second Amendment in the Massachusetts Constitution.

8) When the Plaintiff pointed out to the Defendant the law regarding pleading to sufficient facts the Defendant told the Plaintiff " the courts do not look at the law as it is written." 9) Even though the Plaintiff was billed for a pre trial conference there never was one. 10) The Defendant tried to frighten the Plaintiff with loss of her nursing license if she didn’t lie under oath. 11) Key witnesses that would have affected the outcome of the case were never called or interviewed. 12) Objections were not given upon suppressed material, nor motions filed which the Plaintiff requested to be entered into the record. 13) The Defendant was calling Mr. Hession without the Plaintiff’s knowlege or permission and telling him things that had no basis in fact and resulted in harm to the Plaintiff and affected the manner in which Mr. Hession was defending her. 14) Attorney Chesbro deliberately delayed the legal proceeding due to the publicized nature of the case to further his name and notoriety. 15) Due to the fact the Plaintiff could no longer work the Plaintiff and her husband lost their house. 16) The Plaintiff is now on SSI disability and will not be able to hold a job for the foreseeable future. 17))The Defendant’s actions have shattered the belief structure of the Plaintiff and destroyed any shred of her dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence that she once enjoyed.. 18) The Defendant acted in a reckless immoral way with no regard for the safety of the Plaintiff. 19) The actions of the defendant harmed the Plaintiff he patients and staff at North Adams Regional Hospital. By telling the Plaintiff she had to be in court when it wasn’t necessary which caused unnecessary delays in surgery and a staff shortage. 20) The Defendant lied to the plaintiff when he told her the case could not be heard in Superior Court 22) The actions of the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of her second amendment rights and left her vulnerable and not able to protect herself against criminals. 23) The actions of the Defendant caused the Plaintiff to be put in harms way. 24) The Defendant conspired with the Clerks of Court to lie to the Plaintiff’s husband for the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering to both the Plaintiff and her husband. 25) The Defendant conspired with the clerks and the prosecutor to send letters containing lies to the plaintiff allegedly signed by Judge Ripps. 26) The Defendant may have had full knowledge that the State Police provided funds to bribe Judge Barbalunga. 27) The Defendant made a deal with the prosecutor to betray the plaintiff in exchange for a favor. 28) The Defendant caused immense damage to plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation. 29) The Defendant never challenged the fact that the complaint against the Plaintiff was not sworn to in front of a clerk, nor was it signed by anyone making it null & void.

30) It is a proven fact that stress suppresses a person’s immune system putting the Plaintiff at increased risk for serious illnesses. 31) The defendant never issued a subpoena to Deputy Hall to question his malicious motive as to why he lied and slandered the Plaintiff’s good name which is evident in the police report. 33) The Defendant never questioned the Troopers why they put in the police report that the reason for the stop was a gun violation, nor did he demand a copy of their alleged investigation. 34) The Defendant falsified the motion to suppress and included information that slandered the plaintiff’s character. After meeting with Attorney Carrithers in which she stated the plaintiffs civil rights were violated she abruptly backed out with no explanation. The Plaintiff proposes that she contacted the Defendant, violating Attorney-Client privilege, and that was scared off by threats made by the Defendant. 35) Sgt. O’Hare made an entry in the daily log that said that he “…called the Cheshire barracks later that day and was assured that Mrs. Hamilton had been arrested.” The Plaintiff was never arrested.The defendant never questioned Sgt. OHare about this. 36) The Defendant breached attorney client privlege when he shared information with the Plaintiff’s husband without the Defendant’s permission. 37) The Defendant never questioned Detective Lesniak why he violated the Plaintiff’s civil Rights under Title 18 USC. Sec. 241 and MGL 265: Section 37 38) The Defendant never questioned Troopers Robertson and Curran why they failed to protect the Plaintiff’s rights and allowed an illegal, warrentless search of her vehicle. 39) The Defendant never asked Sgt. Potter why he gave the troopers instructions to Violate the Plaintiff’s rights. 40) The Defendant never questioned Sgt. O’Hare why he lied under oath when he said the Plaintiff reported the truck was “ following too close”when actually she stated “The Truck was trying to ram her vehicle. 41) The Defendant never questioned Trooper Robertson why she never informed the of the reason she was being detained in violation of MGL Chapter 263 section 1. 41) The Defendant violated the rights guaranteed by the Massachusett’s Constitution Declaration of Rights Article XI.

4 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1. The actions of the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s due process right to effective assistance of Counsel as protected under the de jure Constitution of the United States of America, Amendments 5 & 6 as well as the equal th protection clause of the 14 Amendment. 2. The actions of the Defendant violated the plaintiffs right to indictment by a grand jury as protected under the de jur Constitution of the United States of America. 3. The actions of the Defendant have violated the plaintiff’s due process and equal protection rights. 4. The action of the Defendant who is a state official, i.e. officer of the court, juristic court actor of the fiduciary known as the state bar, was under color of the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1983 NS 1985. 5. The actions of the Defendant were in violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Sections 1.1; 1.2 (4); 1.2 (d); and 8.4 (b); and 8.4 (c) 6. STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 US 668, 104S.Ct. 2025, Led. 2d 694 (1984) Strictland established the two prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel:

7. The defendant’s preparation was deficient in that he did not appeal, object nor interview key witnesses. 8. Had the Defendant adequately performed his job detrimental evidence would not have been altered and testimony would have been used that would have rendered a favorable decision, as any reasonable jury would have found in the Plaintiff’s favor. 9. The Defendant lied to Attorney Hession causing him the give the Plaintiff advice that was guaranteed to cause harm to Plaintiff. 10. The Defendant had full knowledge that the MSP provided money to bribe Judge Barbalunga. 11) The Defendant never challenged Mr. Harkins to explain why he has an illegal CDL 15) The Defendant never brought to the attention of the court that the phones of the Plaintiff and Trooper Earl Reople may have been. tapped by the MSP without a warrant.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court with the following prayers: 1. Declare that the actions of the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s due process rights to effective assistance of counsel pursuant to the de jur Constitution of the United States of America under Amendments 5; 6, and 14 covering equal protection, clause. 2. Declare that the actions of the Defendant violated Plaintiff’s right to an indictment by grand jury pursuant to the de jur Constitution of the United States of America, under Amendment 5. 3. Declare that the actions of the Defendant have violated the Plaintiff’s due process, and equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. 4. The Plaintiff would ask that the Honorable Court award damages for pain and suffering in the sum certain of four million United States dollars. ($4,000,000.00) 5. Further the Plaintiff would ask that based on the foregoing counsel be declared ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington 6. Grant such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. 7. The plaintiff asks the honorable Court to issue a restraining order against the Defendant because he is an illegal gun owner without a permit and the Plaintiff is a fearful for her life.

The Plaintiff would like to thank this Honorable Court for the use of valuable time and would pray for a favorable decision in this matter.

Respectfully submitted this twenty fourth day of November in the year of our Lord Two thousand-four by Linda Hamilton: pro se (413)625-9687


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:179
posted:11/14/2009
language:English
pages:15