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