Upload
oathkeepersok
View
11
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Complaint
Citation preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
STEPHEN REDFERN, : Plaintiff, : : VS. : C.A. NO.: : THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON, and : DEBORAH MAUGER, PETER KELLEY, : NORMAN COHEN, HANK MANZ, : JOSEPH PATO, individually and in their : as members of the Board of Selectmen of : the Town of Lexington, LYNN PEASE, : in her capacity as Executive Clerk of the : Town of Lexington, and MARK CORR, : In his capacity as the Chief of Police of : the Town of Lexington, : Defendants. :
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
This is an action to uphold the Plaintiff’s rights codified in the First Amendment
of the United States Constitution and Article XVI of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as Plaintiff’s Fouteenth Amendment right to
Due Process and rights pursuant to the Town of Lexington Bylaws and Regulations,
against the Town of Lexington’s content-based and unreasonable revocation of Plaintiff’s
special event permit for a political rally on April 19, 2013 at the Lexington Green.
Parties
1. Plaintiff STEPHEN REDFERN is a resident of the Town of Billerica, Massachusetts.
2. Upon information and belief Defendnat Town of Lexington is a municiapal corpoation
organized under Massachusetts Law.
3. Upon information and belief Defendant DEBORAH MAUGER is a resident of, and a
member of the Board of Selectmen of, the Town of Lexington.
4. Upon information and belief Defendant PETER KELLEY is a resident of, and a member
of the Board of Selectmen of, the Town of Lexington.
5. Upon information and belief Defendant NORMAN COHEN is a resident of, and a
member of the Board of Selectmen of, the Town of Lexington.
6. Upon information and belief Defendant HANK MANZ is a resident of, and a member of
the Board of Selectmen of, the Town of Lexington.
7. Upon information and belief Defendant JOSEPH PATO is a resident of, and a member of
the Board of Selectmen of, the Town of Lexington.
8. Upon informaitona and belief Defendant LYNN PEASE is a resident of, and the
Executive Clerk of, the Town of Lexington.
9. Upon information and belief Defendant MARK CORR is a resident of, and the Chief of
Police of, the Town of Lexington.
Jurisdiction and Venue
10. Jurisdiciton is proper in this Court because Plaintiff seeks Judicial Declarations pursuant
G.L. c. 231A § § 1-9 and Mass.R.Civ.P. 57, writs on mandamus pursuant to G.L. c. 249 §
5, and injuctive relief pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 65.
11. Venue is proper because the Town of Lexington is in Middlesex County
Facts
12. Plaintiff is now, or was formally, a member of the Pro-Second Amendment group Gun
Rights Across America.
13. The Lexington Green is public property.
14. The Town of Lexington has attempted to regulate the use of the Lexington Green,
including a procedure for hosting special events such as political rallies.
15. On March 4, 2013 Plaintiff applied to the Town of Lexington for a special event permit
to hold a Patriot’s Day celebration for veterans to honor the war dead, to hold a
Constitutional Oath renewal ceremonty, as well as to support gun rights during this
critical national debate.
16. The vast majority of anticipated attendees are to be retired and active duty armed forces,
police and fire personel.
17. On or about March 18, 2013 the Lexington Board of Selectmen approved Plaintiff’s
special event permit by a 4-1 margin.
18. The Lone dissenting vote came from defendant-Selctman Manz, who was quoted in a
March 24, 2013 Wicked Local Lexington article as stating; "I have not missed the
organizers' attempt to make a tie to April 19, [1775], but I fail to see any real link
between those who stood on the Green long ago, and those who would like to stand there
for the rally . . .I am no stranger to guns. Twenty-three months in a combat zone taught
me much far too much, and with the Newtown, [Conn.], shooting so fresh in my mind
along with all the other shootings and acts of violence we read about every day, I cannot
support this request."
19. Plaintiff was notified via electronic mail on March 21st, 2013 that his permit had been
approved, and included a list of conditions, including that Plaintiff must pay $1020.00 for
a police detail and $300.00 for the Department of Public Works to set up the podium and
sound equipment.
20. Plaintiff produced both the required $1020.00 and the $300.00 payments. In addition,
Plaintiff has spent of $7,000.00, in reliance on the permit, on logistics, including non-
refundable airline tickets for numerous presenters.
21. Plaintiff also met with Officer Manny Ferro of the Lexington Police to discuss logistics,
including Plaintiff’s agreeing that no participants would “open carry” rifles.
22. Plaintiff also discussed with Officer Manny Ferro that a number of counter-protests had
been planned.
23. Upon information and belief, no permits were sought, granted, or required for these
planned counter-protests.
24. On or About April 4, 2013 Plaintiff indirectly obtained an email originating from
Lexington Police Detective Lieutenant Michael A. McLean wherein he expressed
concern that third party groups may attempt to “open carry,” and sought advice in dealing
with such persons who were “well versed” in their rights so as to properly “deal[] with
any of them.”
25. On April 16, 2013 Plaintiff learnt that the Town of Lexington Board of Selectmen would
hold an emergency meeting to discuss the rally at 6 p.m. that night.
26. However, the Lexington Patch reported at 3:22 p.m., approximately 2.5 hours before the
scheduled emergency meeting, that the Board of Selectmen had already voted to impose a
moratorium on all permitted activity on the Lexington Green. The Lexington Patch article
also specifically mentioned Plaintiff’s rally.
27. If the Board of Selectmen collectively decided prior to the emergency meeting to impose
such a moratorium, it is a violation of the Massachusetts Open Meetings Act.
28. Plaintiff had grossly insufficient time to prepare for this meeting in order to defend his
vested interest in the special event permit.
29. The Town of Lexington Board of Selectmen did not provide enough time to develop an
adequate record in order to legally revoke Plaintiff’s permit.
30. At the April 16, 2013 emergency meeting, numerous outrageous and erroneous
statements were made by the Chief of Police and Members of the Board of Selectmen in
relation to the subject of Plaintiff’s planned rally:
31. Without any factual predicate, Defendant Board of Selectman Chair Mauger stated that
there seems to be some connection between the Patriots Day holiday and the terrorist
attack in Boston. Mauger continued by stating that the Board had concerns about the
Patriot’s day holiday and the symbolic representations around Patriot’s day.
32. Defendant Chief of Police Corr stated that April 19th is the anniversary of the Waco,
Texas incident and the Oklahoma City bombing, and that Lexington and the Minuteman
statute represent to a small group of Americans how to stand up to government and how
to fight back, and it is very possible that was a message being sent in the Boston terrorist
attack. Chief Corr also then stated he agreed with an FBI assertion that April 19th is a
significant date and that having an event on that day is probably a very bad choice. Chief
Corr also stated that because of the Boston terrorist attack he did not have the intelligence
he normally would have, and, if something were to happen, he would also not have the
resources to call in back up from outside Lexington that he would normally have.
However, there was no specific threat to Lexington.
33. Defendant Selectman Manz recognized the significance of April 19th, the Lexington
Battle Green, and the Minuteman statue. He stated that it should give pause that many
different causes and website use the Minuteman statue.
34. Defendant Selectman Pato stated that he was very concerned with a date (April 19th) that
could be linked to other kinds of events.
35. In discussions about what dates to include in the moratorium, Defendant Selectman
Kelly stated that the date April 19th is one of the most significant issues the Board of
Selectmen were dealing with. He then proposed a moratorium until only April 22nd.
36. The Board of Selectmen then ultimately voted to suspend all existing permits, and new
permits applications for special events, from April 17- May 1, 2013 at the Lexington
Green and Tower Park.
37. Despite the Board of Selectmen’s decision, upon information and belief, that has been no
credible evidence of, or even allegations of, a specific threat against, or during, the
Plaintiff’s April 19, 2013 special event political rally.
38. There is no basis in law or fact for the Town of Lexington’s moratorium on Lexington
Green special event permits.
39. The Board of Selectman’s decision is a de facto revocation of Plaintiff’s permit because it
will prevent Plaintiff’s event from occurring.
40. Plaintiff has exhausted all of his other remedies, including appeals to other governmental
bodies, and has no other adequate remedy.
41. The Board of Selectmen’s revocation of Plaintiff’s permit is illegal because it is a
content-based restraint on the Plaintiff’s right to free speech and peaceful assembly
codified in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article XVI of the
Massachusetts Constitution, that the Town of Lexington does not possess a compelling
interest in limiting.
42. The Board of Selectmen’s revocation of Plaintiff’s permit is illegal because it restricts the
Plaintiff’s right to free speech and peaceful assembly codified in the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution and Article XVI of the Massachusetts Constitution, is not
narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and, does not leave ample
alternative channels for communication of the information.
43. The Board of Selectmen’s revocation of Plaintiff’s permit is illegal because the Town is
not permitted by the Town of Lexington Bylaws and Regulations to revoke special
permits for the reasons proffered at the April 16, 2013 emergency meeting.
44. The revocation of Plaintiff’s permit is illegal as a procedural due process violation
because the Board of Selectmen provided the Plaintiff with insufficient notice of the
April 16, 2013 hearing, and the opportunity respond, in defense of his vested interest in
the special event permit, and there were other less restrictive means of action by the
Board.
45. Plaintiff has a stake in the outcome of this controversy and has advanced allegations that
entitle him to actual and articulable relief.
46. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the
harm if the Town of Lexington is allowed to prevent Plaintiff planned special event.
47. The Town of Lexington revocation of Plaintiff’s special event permit is without basis in
law or fact.
Count I: Declaratory Judgment
48. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation
herein pleaded.
49. The Plaintiff is entitled to Declarations concerning the invalidity of the Lexington Board
of Selectmen’s revocation of Plaintiff’s special event permit as violations of the
Plaintiff’s right to free speech, assembly and due process, as well as a violation of the
bylaws and regulations of the Town of Lexington.
WHEREOFRE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court:
a) Issue a Declaration that the Lexington Board of Selectmen’s purported revocation of
permission for the Plaintiff’s special event permit is in violaiton of the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States of America and Article XVI of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
b) Issue a Declaration that Lexington Board of Selectmen’s purported revocation of
permission for the Plaintiff’s special event permit is in violaiton of the Plaintiff’s due process
rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constituion,
c) Issue a Declaration that the Lexington Board of Selectmen’s purported revocation of
the Plaintiff’s special event permit is not authorized in the By-laws or Regulations of the Town
of Lexington.
d) Award costs of suit and attorney fees, and
e) Award whatever other relief thie Court deems meet and just.
COUNT II: Preliminary and Permanent Injuction
50. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation
herein pleaded.
51. Plaintiff will suffer irreprable harm and is without an adequate remedy at law if the
Defendants are allowed to prevent or interfer with Plaintff’s planned special event.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
a) Preliminarily and and Permanently enjoin all Defendants from interfering or hindering
Plaintiff’s special event scheduled on April 19, 2013 from 12:00 p.m. thoguh 4:00 p.m. on the
Lexington Green, absent a violation of law or evident public safety threat.
b) Award costs of suit and attorney fees; and
c) Award whatever other relief thie Court deems meet and just.
COUNT III: Mandamus
52. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation
herein pleaded.
53. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions necessary to obtain a special event permit from the
Town of Lexington.
54. The Town of Lexington granted Plaintiff’s special event license, and then revoked said
license without a basis in law or fact.
55. The Town of Lexington does not have discretion to refuse to reissue Plaintiff’s special
event permit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that
a) Issue a Writ of Mandameous comanding the Board of Selectmen and/or the Executive
Clerk of the Town of Lexington to Reinstate Plaintiff’s special event permit;
b) Award costs of suit and attorney fees; and
c) Award whatever other relief thie Court deems meet and just.
Stephen Redfern By his attorney, ____________________ Blake Filippi (#669590) 420 Angel Street Providence, R.I. 02906 401-744-2242
I, Stephen Redfern, under penalty of perjury, certify that I have read the attached complaint, and sewar to the veracity of each and every allegation made therein. ______________________ ______________________ Notary