Sie sind auf Seite 1von 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 98

PageID #: 45

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
CIVIL NO. 1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA
on her own behalf, and as Next Friend to the
court on behalf of all other low income disabled
and homeless tenants in Maine who are now,
have ever been or may ever be similarly situated,
Plaintiff
v

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Leigh Saufley
in her individual and official capacities
as an employee of the Maine Judicial Branch and
as Chief Justice of Maine Supreme Court
Joseph Jabar

VERIFIED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Violation of

in his individual and official capacities


as an employee of the Maine Judicial Branch and
as Justice of Maine Supreme Court

42 USC 12132,
42 USC 3601, 3604(f) & 3617,
28 USC 1746,
1st, 7th, and 14th Amendments

Donald Alexander
in his individual and official capacities

42 USC 1981, 1983, 1985(2), 1986

as an employee of the Maine Judicial Branch and


as Justice of Maine Supreme Court
Donald Marden
in his individual and official capacities
as an employee of the Maine Judicial Branch and
as Judge of Kennebec County Superior Court
Robert Mullen
in his individual and official capacities
as an employee of the Maine Judicial Branch and
as Judge of Kennebec County Superior Court
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 1 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 98

PageID #: 46

Michaela Murphy
in her individual and official capacities
as an employee of the Maine Judicial Branch and
as Judge of Kennebec County Superior Court
Valerie Stanfill
in her individual and official capacities
as an employee of the Maine Judicial Branch and
as Judge of Augusta/Waterville District Courts
Defendants
Table of Contents
I.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 5

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................ 12


28 USC 3101, Prejudgment Relief ................................................................. 13

III.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY ................................................................. 14

IV.

PARTIES ............................................................................................... 16
GinA ................................................................................................................... 16
Leigh Saufley..................................................................................................... 17
Joseph Jabar ..................................................................................................... 17
Donald Alexander ............................................................................................. 18
Robert Mullen ................................................................................................... 18
Donald Marden.................................................................................................. 18
Michaela Murphy .............................................................................................. 18
Valerie Stanfill .................................................................................................. 18

V.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND ................ 18


Maine Code Judicial of Conduct ....................................................................... 18
5 CFR 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service .......................................... 19

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 2 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 98

PageID #: 47

5 CFR 2635.601 - Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the


Executive Branch ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
28 USC 144 - Bias or prejudice of judge ........................................................ 21
28 U.S. Code 453 - Oaths of justices and judges ........................................... 21
28 U.S. Code 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge .. 22
28 USC 1631 - Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction .................................... 24
28 USC 1746(2) Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury ................ 24
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq. ............................. 24
The Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 USC 3601 - 3631 ................................... 25
42 USC 12132. Discrimination ......................................................................... 26
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ........................................................... 26
42 USC 3617 - Interference, coercion, or intimidation ................................. 27
42 USC 1981 Equal rights under the law .................................................. 28
42 USC 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights ................................... 28
42 USC 1985(2) - Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
........................................................................................................................... 28
42 USC 1985(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges ........................ 29
42 USC 1986 Action for neglect to prevent ................................................ 29
VI.

COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ALL JURISDICTION ............................ 10

VII.

RELATED FEDERAL AND STATE COURT CASES......................... 10


Supreme Court of the United States ................................................................ 10
Closed Related Federal Court Cases ................................................................ 10
Closed State Court Cases ................................................................................. 10
Pending State Court Cases ............................................................................... 11

VIII.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................. 30

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 3 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 98

PageID #: 48

Disabilities, Operating After Suspension, Evictions in Maine, (FY10-FY15) 30


GinAs History with Defendants since 2007 .................................................... 38
HIPAA, GinAs Disabilities and Drivers License #1491178 ........................... 39
IX.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................. 71


Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12132 ............................. 74
Medical Suspension under 29-A MRSA 2458(2)(D), January 5, 2010 ......... 74
Congressional Fair Housing Policy, 42 USC 3601 ........................................ 77
Disparate Impact .............................................................................................. 77
Augusta Maines Low Income Housing Crisis of 2015 .................................... 77
Eminent Domain prohibited ............................................................................. 78
Destruction of Perham and 32 Court Streets residences ................................ 78
Capital Judicial Center, 1 Court Street, Augusta, 2009 2015 ..................... 79
Disparate Treatment ........................................................................................ 79
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 USC 3604(f) ............................. 79
239 Cony Street, Unit 2 .................................................................................... 80
Traffic Violation, Ticket #2576761, February 10, 2011 ................................... 80
AUGDC-CR-2011-512 and AUGDC-CR-2011-513 ........................................... 80
AUGSC-CR-2012-286 ........................................................................................ 83
AUGSC-CV-2013-226, KEN-14-52 ................................................................... 83
3 Washington Street Place, Unit 1 ................................................................... 84
AG Criminal Investigation September 2013, MTJL ....................................... 84
32 Court Street, Unit 1 ..................................................................................... 86
Interference, Intimidation, Coercion, 42 USC 3617 ..................................... 88
2528 West River Road, Sidney ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 4 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 5 of 98

PageID #: 49

COUNT I, 42 USC 12132 .......................................................................................... 88


COUNT II, 42 USC 3601 ............................................................................................. 88
COUNT III, 42 USC 3604(f) ........................................................................................ 89
COUNT IV, 42 USC 3617 ............................................................................................ 89
COUNT V, 28 USC 1746........................................................................................... 89
COUNT VI, 1st Amendment ........................................................................................ 90
COUNT VII, 7th Amendment ...................................................................................... 90
COUNT VIII, 14th Amendment ................................................................................... 91
COUNT IX, 42 USC 1981 ......................................................................................... 91
COUNT XI, 42 USC 1983 ......................................................................................... 91
COUNT XII, 42 USC 1985(2) ................................................................................... 92
COUNT XIII, 42 USC 1985 (3) ................................................................................. 93
COUNT VIX, 42 USC 1986....................................................................................... 93
DEMAND FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 96

I.

INTRODUCTION

GinA brings this civil action against Leigh Saufley, Joseph Jabar, Donald
Alexander, Donald Marden, Robert Mullen, Michaela Murphy and Valerie Stanfill
in their individual and official capacities as government agents for the State of
Maine Judicial Branch and as justices and judges for the Maine Judicial Branch.
Each Defendant is legally bound by all canons, maxims of law, code of judicial
conduct, rules of procedure, statutes, Constitution, high court precedents, oaths of
office, and rules of fair play when acting in their judicial capacities for the Maine
Judicial Branch.
GinA has attempted to exercise her right to access court services as a low
income, disabled and sometimes homeless woman since 2011 to redress her legal
grievances with private parties and her government.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 5 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 6 of 98

PageID #: 50

GinA has never been treated fairly, impartially, or lawfully by Defendants.


All orders Defendants have issued in GinAs favor to this date have only
occurred because Defendants knew they could never overcome any higher court
appeal if they ruled against GinA and GinA exercised her proper appellate rights.
Defendants never accused GinA of filing frivolous, malicious or vexatious
papers until Donald Alexander acted with a complete absence of jurisdiction on
March 30, 2016 in KEN-CV-16-16 denying GinAs Rule 91 Application to Proceed
without Fees after the court refused to exercise jurisdiction and delayed its
order for more than two months after AVANGRID paid GinA a certain sum of
money as a partial payment toward total damages after her complaint was filed
and then claiming GinAs complaint against AVANGRID was frivolous and not
brought in good faith.
GinA demands declaratory, monetary, injunctive and equitable relief for
Defendants acting in complete absence of all jurisdiction while maliciously
prohibiting GinA from exercising her federal rights under color of state laws to
access state courts, to speak, to not speak, to attend and participate in hearings, to
enjoy equal protection of the laws, procedural and substantive due process, to
exercise her right to present her cases in a trial by jury of her peers, receive prompt
action on motions, and receive reasonable accommodations for her known
disabilities, inter alia, for the purpose of concealing Defendants conspiracy as
related to their activities about 32 Court Street Augusta and 2528 West River Road
Sidney.
All lower state court criminal and civil cases referenced in this lawsuit, which
is not an all-inclusive list, are proffered as publicly recorded prima facie evidence of
Defendants typical patterns of behavior, habit or policy of discriminating against
GinA as a disabled unrepresented litigant thus violating GinAs federal rights to
have access to state courts, to speak, to be heard, to bring suit, to be a party, to
enjoy due process and equal protection, to present her material evidence and
witness testimony to a jury of her peers to protect her federal fair housing and civil

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 6 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 7 of 98

PageID #: 51

rights, inter alia, when GinA files any lawsuit in a Maine state court for any legal
redress of any of her grievances against any party.
GinAs demands for a jury trial in her eviction cases are always denied.
GinAs steady defense of state court evictions has given state judges, clerks,
government agents, landlords, and their attorneys limitless reasons to hold negative
biases and to illegally discriminate against GinA.
Most of GinAs evictions were baseless, punitive and discriminatory and
never adjudicated in accordance with the 1st, 7th and 14th Amendments.
GinAs recent history of homelessness was caused by Defendants separate
and joint conspiracies in their individual and official capacities:
1. March 1, 2012 until January 13, 2013,
(See Watson v. Turcotte, AUGDC-SA-2011-___)
2. October 19, 2013 until January 22, 2014,
(See Ray Corp. v. Turcotte, AUGDC-SA-2013-332 and AP-13-35)
3. September 26, 2014 until November 11, 2014,
(See Roy v. Turcotte, AUGDC-SA-2014-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14-410,
1:15-cv-00031-NT; and Turcotte v. Roy, KEN-CV-14-176)
GinA alleges Defendants underhandedly acted as Greg Roys secret legal gent
and advisor during court proceedings for AUGDC-SA-14-453, KEN-CV-14-176, AP14-56, and KEN-14-410 violating GinAs federal fair housing and civil rights.
Court records prove Defendants showed Greg Roy prejudicial treatment as a
pro se litigant under color of state laws by refusing to enter a proper default
judgment required by law in GinAs favor despite Greg Roys multiple rule
violations and defaults amply evidenced throughout court records.
Court records prove Defendants showed Greg Roy extreme favorable
prejudice by ordering Greg Roys inept pleadings under color of state laws in
AUGDC-SA-14-453, KEN-CV-14-176, AP-14-56, and KEN-14-410.
Court records prove Defendants and habitually granted all of Greg Roys
inept pleadings under color of state laws in furtherance of Defendants conspiracy

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 7 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 8 of 98

PageID #: 52

with Greg Roy to transfer legal title of 32 Court Street to the Maine Governmental
Facilities Authority on October 29, 2014.
On August 17, 2015 Michaela Murphy granted Greg Roys attorneys motion
to continue the August 18, 2015 hearing in KEN-CV-14-176 under color of state
laws despite the motion having no legal basis.
Michaela Murphy denied GinAs August 18th objections to Michaela Murphys
order of continuance of the August 18th motion hearing which directly resulted from
Michaela Murphy having ex parte communications with Matthew Morgan, Esq.
between August 4 17, 2015.
Michaela Murphy ordered Greg Roys motion for continuance which directly
resulted from Greg Roys attorney having ex parte contact with Michaela Murphy
by knowingly and intentionally sending GinAs copy of the motion to continue to a
non-existent postal address which directly prevented GinA from having any
opportunity to oppose the motion before it was granted ex parte on August 17th.
Michaela Murphy granted Greg Roys motion to continue without any
hearings at all.
Court records prove Defendants always require GinA to strictly adhere to all
rules of procedure, rules of evidence, and rules of appellate procedure without any
exceptions.
Court records prove Defendants have violated GinAs human and civil rights
to have access to the courts and enjoy equal rights and protections of the laws inter
alia to protect her federal fair housing and civil rights.
Court records prove Defendants have held GinA to higher legal standards
than they hold licensed practicing BAR attorneys.
Court records prove Valerie Stanfill advised Tavis Hasenfus, Esq. about how
to present his clients case during the fraudulent eviction trial on December 9, 2015
at 8:30am for WATDC-SA-15-271.
Court records prove Valerie Stanfill entered a judgment of eviction in
WATDC-SA-15-271 against GinA after recording several pieces of material evidence
and Plaintiffs own testimony that he lacked legal standing to bring the eviction
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 8 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 9 of 98

PageID #: 53

action because GinA bought the property in violation of GinAs federal fair housing
and civil rights.
Court records prove Defendants have behaved in prejudicial, improper and
malicious ways toward GinA in every state court eviction lawsuit in which GinA has
ever been or is now currently involved in violation of GinAs federal fair housing and
civil rights.
Defendants and habitually discriminate against GinA because she is a
disabled unrepresented litigant who has a federal right to file civil lawsuits without
any payment of court fees.
Defendants and habitually discriminate against GinA because she is
adequately skilled to present and defend her own lawsuits without the assistance of
a licensed attorney.
Defendants and habitually discriminate against GinA by expecting GinAs
personal legal performance to exceed all legal standards applied to judges and
licensed BAR attorneys.
Defendants violated GinAs federal fair housing and civil rights to enforce
GinAs rental contract for Unit 1 at 32 Court Street, Augusta under color of state
law by preventing GinA from being heard and to speak.
Defendants violated GinAs federal fair housing and civil rights under color of
state law to be a party to a lawsuit and to sue for legal redress of her grievances.
Defendants violated GinAs federal fair housing and civil rights under color of
state law to give evidence in her civil and criminal lawsuits as referenced herein.
Defendants violated GinAs federal fair housing and civil rights under color of
state law to enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws and court proceedings for the
security of GinAs person and property.
Defendants violated GinAs federal rights under color of state law to receive a
trial by a jury of her peers to protect her federal fair housing rights as enjoyed by
citizens of the other states in violation of the 1st, 7th and 14th Amendments.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 9 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 10 of 98

PageID #: 54

Defendants violated GinAs federal rights under color of state laws by


prohibiting GinA from filing unnotarized affidavits which substantially comply with
28 USC 1746.
Defendants violated GinAs federal rights under color of state laws by
prohibiting GinA from receiving reasonable accommodations for her disabilities by
rejecting her unnotarized affidavits.
Defendants judicial actions, individually and collectively, under color of state
laws have deprived GinA of numerous federal fair housing and civil rights under
color of state laws in all cases proffered as evidence in this complaint without any
lawful resolution in the foreseeable future without the federal courts intervention.
II.

RELATED FEDERAL AND STATE COURT CASES - EVIDENCE

Supreme Court of the United States


1.

No. 14-8391, Petition For Writ of Certiorari denied

Closed Related Federal Court Cases


2.

1:15-cv-00031-NT

3.

1:15-cv-00382-NT

Closed State Court Cases


4.

Violation Bureau Ticket #2576761, February 10, 2011

5.

29-A MRSA 2458(2)(D) suspension, restored March 8, 2011

6.

AUGDC-CR-2011-512

7.

AUGDC-CR-2011-513

8.

AUGDC-CR-2012-301

9.

AUGSC-CR-2012-286

10.

WATDC-CR-2012-491

11.

AUGSC-CR-2012-667

12.

AUGDC-SA-2012-102

13.

AUGSC-CV-2013-226

14.

AUGDC-SA-2013-237

15.

KEN-2014-52

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 10 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 11 of 98

16.

AUGDC-SA-2014-453

17.

AP-2014-56

18.

KEN-2014-410

19.

KEN-CV-2015-59

PageID #: 55

Pending State Court Cases


1.

KEN-CV-2014-176

2.

KEN-CV-2015-58

3.

WATDC-SA-2015-271

4.

KEN-RE-2015-68

5.

KEN-2015-0534/534-1 (Estate of Wayne Richard Leach)

6.

KEN-CV-2016-16

7.

KEN-AP-2016-04
III.

COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ALL JURISDICTION

GinA alleges all Defendants acted with a complete absence of all judicial
authority in the following cases only:

AUGDC-SA-14-453

KEN-CV-14-176

AP-14-56

KEN-14-410

GinA alleges Defendants judicial authority in the following pending cases is


highly questionable because the cases itemized below all manifested as a direct
result of Defendants wrongful orders in AUGDC-SA-14-453, KEN-CV-14-176, AP14-56, and KEN-14-410.

KEN-CV-15-58

KEN-CV-15-59

WATDC-SA-15-271

KEN-RE-15-68

KEN-2015-0534 (Estate of Wayne Richard Leach) (Probate J. Mitchell


is not a Defendant)

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 11 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 12 of 98

PageID #: 56

It is an irrefutable fact the State of Maine Judicial Branch aggressively


targeted land containing Perham Street and 32 Court Street, Augusta from March
2009 March 2015 to build a $66M Capital Judicial Center and its parking lots at
public taxpayer expense.
GinAs alleges Defendants were completely absent all judicial authority in
AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14-410 and KEN-CV-14-176 which is
sufficiently proven by an abundance of public records regarding the State of Maine
Judicial Branchs procurement of 32 Court Street, Augusta which are held in public
records by City of Augusta, Maine Governmental Facilities Authority,
Administrative Office of the Courts Maine Judicial Branch, and their private and
public agents.
GinA is unaware of Joseph Jabars judicial authority in her lawsuits but
GinA alleges Joseph Jabar played a critical role in causing GinAs injuries insofar
as Joseph Jabar publicly spearheaded selecting the location, design and
construction of the Capital Judicial Center and its parking lots. If Joseph Jabar
acted in any judicial capacity in KEN-14-410 he acted absent all judicial authority
due to his involvement in procuring land at 32 Court Street for the courthouse
parking lot.
IV.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

GinA claims federal jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331 & 1343 and Article III
2 which extends jurisdiction to all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States.
GinA is authorized by 28 USC 2284 to request a three-judge court who have
never worked with any Maine Judicial Branch judges to preside over this case and
the companion case 1:16-cv-00100-NT.
GinA is authorized by 28 USC 2283 to request a stay of all pending state
court proceedings, except GinAs lower probate court cases KEN-2015-0534 and
KEN-2015-0534-1, as described and justified by the facts of this complaint.
GinA claims federal jurisdiction under 42 USC 12133 for discrimination in
public services on the basis of GinAs disability in violation of 42 USC 12132.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 12 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 13 of 98

PageID #: 57

GinA claims federal jurisdiction under 42 USC 3613(a) as amended by the


Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 for Defendants conspiracy with City of
Augusta, City of Augusta Police Department, City of Augusta All_Police Officers,
William Stokes, Matthew Pouliot, William Bridgeo, Matt Nazar, Royce Watson, Ray
Corporation, Greg Roy, David Brennan and all of their attorneys as GinA detailed in
this case and the companion case filed under 1:16-cv-00100-NT.
Declaratory and other proper relief is authorized by 28 USC 2201 & 2202
and 42 USC 3613(c) & 12133.
28 USC 3101, Prejudgment Relief
GinA is authorized by 28 USC 3101 to request all proper prejudgment relief
in the likely event GinA obtains a favorable judgment against any Defendant on
any one or more of her counts.
GinA requests the following prejudgment relief:
1.

all necessary internal investigations by a federal government oversight


agency,

2.

preliminary injunctions,

3.

temporary or permanent protection from harassment and restraining orders,

4.

writs of prohibition,

5.

writs of mandamus for all pending state lower court cases requiring
immediate judicial action in accordance with the constitution, statutes and
rules of procedure,

6.

proper writs of attachment against all Defendants personal and professional


property,

7.

proper garnishments, sequestrations, replevins,

8.

forensic financial audits and supervision of Defendants personal and


professional financial activities since January 2010 until entry of a final
order in these proceedings,

9.

lien Defendants personal and professional assets held in each of their names
both alone and jointly with any other person or in the name of any of their
privately owned businesses with no exceptions for any LLCs created in

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 13 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 14 of 98

PageID #: 58

Defendants names or by Defendants or someone acting on behalf of


Defendants,
10.

all proper attachments, repossessions and replevins against all personal and
professional assets which were recently transferred to any other person or
corporation.
GinA is authorized by 18 USC 241 & 242 and 42 USC 3631to request all

proper relief be ordered against all natural men and women Defendants.
Venue is proper in the District of Maine under 28 USC 1391(b).
All Defendants are located and residing in Maine, and all events, actions and
omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Maine.
V.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

42 USC 3613(b)(1) authorizes GinA to request a court-appointed attorney


who has never interacted with any of the Defendants or their co-conspirators which
GinA requests to be appointed as stand-by counsel only to advise her about federal
laws and rules of procedure.
GinA is authorized to bring suit pursuant to 42 USC 12209(6) & 12133
against any public entity or any person acting on behalf of any public entity who
discriminates against GinA by excluding her from participation in or be denied the
benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity because GinA is
female, low income, has a permanent disability and has a history of being homeless.
GinA is authorized to initiate this action under 42 USC 3613(a) to bring a
civil action against any person who discriminates against, interferes with, coerces or
intimidates her in making fair terms, conditions, and privileges or otherwise makes
a dwelling unavailable because she is a member of four protected classes of people
based on her being known to be female, low income, disabled and homeless.
GinA is authorized to initiate this action under 42 USC 1981 to bring suit
against any person who impairs her equal rights or discriminates against her as a
disabled, low income homeless white woman under color of state laws to violate her
equal rights to make fair terms and enforce rental contracts for her constitutionally
protected property interests for 239 Cony Street, 3 Washington Street Place, and 32
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 14 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 15 of 98

PageID #: 59

Court Street Augusta and to enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of GinAs person and property.
GinA is authorized to initiate this action under 42 USC 1983 to bring suit
against any person who subjects or causes her to be subjected to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges and immunities secured to her by the Constitution and laws
under color of state law.
GinA is authorized to initiate this action under 42 USC 1985(2) and 1986
to bring suit against any person who conspires with any other person to deprive her
of federal rights under color of state law and against any person who, having
knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done and having the power to
prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the wrongful action, neglects or
refuses to prevent such act which serves to violate GinAs federal rights as secured
by the Constitution and laws.
GinA brings this suit for Defendants violation of 28 USC 1746 and certain
federal rights secured by the 1st, 7th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution under
color of state law in their judicial capacities as a judge or justice for State of Maine
Judicial Branch, in their non-judicial administrative capacities as Maine Judicial
Branch employees and in their individual capacities when they were acting in
complete absence of all judicial authority.
To the extent Defendants acted with a complete absence of all judicial
authority, GinA sues them each in their non-judicial official capacities as paid
employees for State of Maine Judicial Branch and individual capacities for their
wrongful malicious acts during performance of official paid administrative duties
which led to the legal and physical acquisition of 32 Court Street Augusta by Maine
Judicial Branch and for Defendants alleged judicial actions in cases related to 2528
West River Road Sidney which directly resulted from Defendants conspiracy in
AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56, and KEN-14-410.
GinA holds Defendants individually and jointly responsible for all injuries
resulting from their wrongful conspiracy by Defendants neglecting to prevent or
aiding and assisting the prohibitions under color of state laws of GinAs federal
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 15 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 16 of 98

PageID #: 60

rights to speak, to be heard, to present her evidence, to be present at hearings, to


lawfully redress her legal grievances in a de novo trial by a jury, to enjoy equal
protection of the laws and substantive and procedural due process, inter alia.
VI.

PARTIES

GinA
GinA is a white, never-married, single mother to her 28 yr. old daughter, and
a grandmother to GinAs daughters 5 yr. old daughter.
GinA has been financially self-sufficient since the age of 16, except between
2000-2005 when she lived with her now ex-fianc in his Readfield Maine home.
GinA is known to be a member of four classes of protected people in Maine:
(1) female, (2) low income, (3) disabled, and (4) homeless pursuant to 17-A MRSA
1151, sub-8, B, as enacted by PL 1995, c. 149, 1, effective August 23, 2006.
GinA has paid into the Social Security disability and retirement fund since
1985 which qualifies her to receive monthly Social Security disability benefits.
GinA has earned more than 80 college credits toward a Bachelors Degree in
Mental Health and Human Services at University of Maine at Augusta.
GinA has an extensive work history as a legal secretary for Maine law firms.
GinA worked at various Maine government agencies from 1994 until 2008.
GinA was last employed full time from January 2007 until April 2008 with
the State of Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicle OUI Unit.
GinA left her employment with State of Maine due to her disabilities.
GinA is known to be a woman with permanent physical and mental health
disabilities which substantially restrict her daily physical activities.
GinAs disabilities require her to have special housing to accommodate her
two service animals and her need to use medicinal cannabis for management of her
post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and severe back pain caused by scoliosis
and degenerative disc disease.
GinA is known to be a member of the low income community as evidenced by
her eligibility for and receipt of Medicare, MaineCare, SNAP and LIHEAP benefits.
GinA is eligible for but has never received Section 8 housing benefits.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 16 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 17 of 98

PageID #: 61

GinA has always paid her own full fair market rents from employment wages
when she was working or from federal Social Security disability benefits.
GinA lived at 239 Cony Street, Augusta from January 9, 2010 through March
1, 2012, being evicted by Defendants after GinA reported an active oil leak to City of
Augusta, William Stokes, William Bridgeo, and Matt Nazar.
GinA was homeless from March 1, 2012 until January 13, 2013.
GinA lived at 3 Washington Street Place, Augusta from January 13, 2013
through October 19, 2013, being evicted by Defendants after GinA reported the
building in June 2013 to City of Augusta et al as an illegal rooming house.
GinA was homeless from October 19, 2013 until January 22, 2014.
Greg Roy owned 32 Court Street, Augusta until October 29, 2014 when he
transferred legal title to Maine Governmental Facilities Authority.
GinA lived at 32 Court Street, Augusta from January 22 until September 26,
2014 being evicted by Defendants because City of Augusta et al conspired to allow
tenant occupancy for only eight months without giving proper public FOAA/FOIA
warnings or disclosures.
GinA was homeless from September 26, 2014 through November 11, 2014.
GinA is currently living in a single family log cabin at 2528 West River Road,
Town of Sidney, County of Kennebec, which GinA bought with (Estate of) Wayne
Richard Leach from David Brennan on November 11, 2014.
GinA has not engaged in any prohibited acts that would disqualify her from
exercising all of her rights under 42 USC 3604(f) and any pertinent federal laws.
Leigh Saufley
Leigh Saufley is employed by State of Maine Judicial Branch as the Chief
Justice of the Maine Supreme Court presiding over cases of the Maine Supreme
Judicial Court and Maine Law Court.
Joseph Jabar
Joseph Jabar is employed by State of Maine Judicial Branch as a Justice
presiding over cases of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and Maine Law Court.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 17 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 18 of 98

PageID #: 62

Donald Alexander
Donald Alexander is employed by State of Maine Judicial Branch as a judge
presiding over cases at Kennebec County Superior Court, 1 Court Street, City of
Augusta, County of Kennebec.
Robert Mullen
Robert Mullen is employed by State of Maine Judicial Branch as a judge
presiding over cases at Kennebec County Superior Court, 1 Court Street, City of
Augusta, County of Kennebec.
Donald Marden
Donald Marden is employed by State of Maine Judicial Branch as a judge
presiding over cases at Kennebec County Superior Court, 1 Court Street, City of
Augusta, County of Kennebec.
Michaela Murphy
Michaela Murphy is employed by State of Maine Judicial Branch as a judge
presiding over cases at Kennebec County Superior Court, 1 Court Street, City of
Augusta, County of Kennebec.
Valerie Stanfill
Valerie Stanfill is employed by State of Maine Judicial Branch as a judge who
presided over cases at Augusta District Court but who now presides over cases at
Waterville District Court, 18 Colby Street, City of Waterville, County of Kennebec.
VII.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Maine Code Judicial of Conduct


Preamble: An independent, fair, competent, and impartial judiciary is
indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon
the principle that an independent, fair, competent, and impartial judiciary,
composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that
governs our society. The judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of
justice and the rule of law. Inherent in the rules contained in this Code are the
precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 18 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 19 of 98

PageID #: 63

judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the
justice system.
Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid
both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and
personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest
possible public confidence in their independence, integrity, fairness, and competence.
CANON 1: A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and
impartiality of the judiciary; shall avoid impropriety; and should avoid the
appearance of impropriety.
CANON 2: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially,
competently, and diligently.
CANON 3: A judge shall conduct the judge's personal and extrajudicial activities
to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.
CANON 4: A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or
campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or
impartiality of the judiciary.
5 CFR 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service
(a) Public service is a public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the
United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws
and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have
complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each employee shall
respect and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set forth in this section, as well
as the implementing standards contained in this part and in supplemental agency
regulations.
(b) General principles. The following general principles apply to every
employee and may form the basis for the standards contained in this part. Where a
situation is not covered by the standards set forth in this part, employees shall apply
the principles set forth in this section in determining whether their conduct is proper.
(1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the
Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 19 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 20 of 98

PageID #: 64

(2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the
conscientious performance of duty.
(3) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic
Government information or allow the improper use of such information to
further any private interest.
(4) An employee shall not, except as permitted by subpart B of this part, solicit
or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity
seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities
regulated by the employee's agency, or whose interests may be substantially
affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties.
(5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their duties.
(6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or
promises of any kind purporting to bind the Government.
(7) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.
(8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any
private organization or individual.
(9) [omitted for inapplicability to this complaint]
(10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including
seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government
duties and responsibilities.
(11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to
appropriate authorities.
(12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens,
including all just financial obligations, especially thosesuch as Federal,
State, or local taxesthat are imposed by law.
(13) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal
opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, or handicap.
(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance
that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 20 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 21 of 98

PageID #: 65

Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these


standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a
reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.
(c) Related statutes. In addition to the standards of ethical conduct set forth in
this part, there are conflict of interest statutes that prohibit certain conduct.
Criminal conflict of interest statutes of general applicability to all employees, 18
U.S.C. 201, 203, 205, 208, and 209, are summarized in the appropriate subparts of
this part and must be taken into consideration in determining whether conduct is
proper. Citations to other generally applicable statutes relating to employee conduct
are set forth in subpart I and employees are further cautioned that there may be
additional statutory and regulatory restrictions applicable to them generally or as
employees of their specific agencies. Because an employee is considered to be on notice
of the requirements of any statute, an employee should not rely upon any description
or synopsis of a statutory restriction, but should refer to the statute itself and obtain
the advice of an agency ethics official as needed.
28 USC 144 - Bias or prejudice of judge
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a
timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has
a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such
judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear
such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or
prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the
term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure
to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It
shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in
good faith.
28 U.S. Code 453 - Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or
affirmation before performing the duties of his office: I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 21 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 22 of 98

PageID #: 66

(or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal
right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge
and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. So help me God.
28 U.S. Code 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify

himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.


(b)

He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:


(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy,
or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such
association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has
been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity
participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding
or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in
controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor
child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter
in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could
be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to
either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a
party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 22 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 23 of 98

PageID #: 67

(iv) Is to the judges knowledge likely to be a material witness in the


proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial
interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal
financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the
meaning indicated:
(1) proceeding includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of
litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) fiduciary includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee,
and guardian;
(4) financial interest means ownership of a legal or equitable interest,
however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active
participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds
securities is not a financial interest in such securities unless the judge
participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organization is not a financial interest in securities held by the
organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance
company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar
proprietary interest, is a financial interest in the organization only if
the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a financial interest in the
issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect
the value of the securities.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 23 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 24 of 98

PageID #: 68

28 USC 1631 - Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction


Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this
title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed
for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction,
the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any
other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it
was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in
or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was
actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.
28 USC 1746(2) Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation,
order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to
be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration,
verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making
the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken
before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like
force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn
declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is
subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the
following form:
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or
commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature).
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability in State and local government, public accommodations, commercial
facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. Title II of the ADA prohibits
discrimination in publicly owned housing. Privately-owned housing is covered by the
Fair Housing Act
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 24 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 25 of 98

PageID #: 69

Title II covers all activities of State and local governments regardless of the
government entity's size or receipt of Federal funding. Title II requires that State and
local governments give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from
all of their programs, services, and activities (e.g. public education, employment,
transportation, recreation, health care, social services, courts, voting, and town
meetings).
The Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, prohibits housing discrimination
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national
origin. Its coverage includes private housing, housing that receives Federal financial
assistance, and State and local government housing. It is unlawful to discriminate
in any aspect of selling or renting housing or to deny a dwelling to a renter
because of the disability of that individual, an individual associated with the
renter, or an individual who intends to live in the residence. Other covered activities
include, for example, financing, zoning practices, new construction design, and
advertising. (See http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335 )
The Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 USC 3601 - 3631
The Fair Housing Act declares it to be the policy of the United States to
provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United
States. [See 42 U.S.C. 3601.] Congress considered the realization of this policy to be
of the highest priority. [See Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211
(1972) (internal citation omitted).] The language of the Fair Housing Act prohibiting
discrimination in housing is broad and inclusive; [Id. at 209.] the purpose of its
reach is to replace segregated neighborhoods with truly integrated and balanced
living patterns. [Id. at 211.] In commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Fair
Housing Act and the 20th anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the
House of Representatives recognized that the intent of Congress in passing the Fair
Housing Act was broad and inclusive, to advance equal opportunity in housing and
achieve racial integration for the benefit of all people in the United States. [See H.
Res. 1095, 110th Cong., 2d Sess., 154 Cong. Rec. H2280-01 (April 15, 2008) (2008

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 25 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 26 of 98

PageID #: 70

WL 1733432).] (See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/201129515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standard)


42 USC 12132. Discrimination
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a
disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be
denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
Disparate Impact
The Supreme Courts 5-4 ruling, argued on January 21, 2015 and decided on
June 25, 2015 in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The
Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 131371, focused on the disparate impact
portion of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prevents housing discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled in Texas that a housing practice is discriminatory if
it has a disproportionately adverse impact on any group based on race, national
origin, color, religion, sex, familial status, or disability.
Disparate Treatment
Under the FHA, disparate treatment refers to housing practices that
intentionally treat similarly situated persons differently.[See Reinhart, 482 F.3d at
1229 (A disparate-treatment claim requires proof of differential treatment of
similarly situated persons or groups; the discrimination must be intentional.
(citations omitted)).] In other words, a practice qualifies as disparate treatment if it
applies rules to a protected set of people that are different from the rules that it
applies to others. [See Sharpvisions, Inc. v. Borough of Plum, 475 F. Supp. 2d 514,
523 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (Disparate treatment, under the FHA, may be shown by
demonstrating that a given legislative provision discriminates against the
handicapped on its face, i.e. applies different rules to the disabled than are applied
to others. (quoting Arc of N.J., Inc. v. New Jersey, 950 F. Supp. 637, 643 (D.N.J.
1996)))]. (See

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 26 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 27 of 98

PageID #: 71

http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6488&context=lalre
v)
the three-stage McDonnell Douglas/Burdine analysis applies to Fair
Housing Act cases. [See United States v. Badgett, 976 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir.
1992)] However, the prima facie case under this analysis is an evidentiary standard
it defines the quantum of proof plaintiff must present to create a rebuttable
presumption of discrimination that shifts the burden to defendant to articulate some
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its conduct. Under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, an evidentiary standard is not a proper measure of whether a
complaint fails to state a claim. See Moore v. Clarke, 821 F.2d 518, 519 (8th Cir.
1987) (the whole spirit of the Federal Rules is to discourage the pleading of
evidence). When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint ... [t]he issue
is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled
to offer evidence to support the claims. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.
Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974). Bruce Ring, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. First
Interstate Mortgage, Inc.; Federal National Mortgage Association, DefendantsAppellees, 984 F.2d 924 (8th Cir. 1993)
42 USC 3617 - Interference, coercion, or intimidation
When Congress prohibited housing discrimination based on a disability, they
also outlawed interference, coercion or intimidation with enjoyment or exercise of
any fair housing rights, providing that It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate,
threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment ofany right
granted or protected by section 3604 of this title.
Embedded within those federal fair housing rights are the federal rights to
freedom of religion, press and expression under the 1st Amendment, right to enjoy a
trial by jury under the 7th Amendment, and due process rights under 5th and 14th
Amendments which extends to all federal, state, and local governments and their
official private and public government agents during performance of official duties.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 27 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 28 of 98

PageID #: 72

42 USC 1981 Equal rights under the law


Racial Discrimination in Maine
Maine and Vermont are recorded as being the whitest states in the nation
with a combined population of approximately 1.8 million white people.
Congress originally enacted 42 USC 1981(a) Statement of equal rights to
protect people in minority groups from being discriminated against because of their
race, color, national origin, ethnicity or religion, but Congress certainly did not
intend for 1981 to exclude white people from enjoying the same rights they were
guaranteeing minorities to have, as evidenced by Congress plain language of the
code itself which expressly extends the same equal protections to All persons
within the jurisdiction of the United States , not just to minorities or non-whites.
If Congress intended to forbid white people from exercising or enjoying their
equal rights under 1981 they would have clearly expressed that exclusion in the
Code which would serve to constructively ban most inhabitants of Maine and
Vermont from enjoying equal rights protections because the U.S. Census Bureau
constantly records both Maine and Vermont to have 95% white citizens.
Certainly, 1981 cannot be used to outlaw white people from exercising their
equal civil rights because Congress explicitly guarantees all persons within
theUnited States will enjoy the same rightas is enjoyed by white citizens;
thus, application of 1981 to exclude white people would be reverse discrimination
in violation of Congress non-discrimination policy, plain language and intent.
42 USC 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,.
42 USC 1985(2) - Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State conspire to deter, by force, intimidation,
or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 28 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 29 of 98

PageID #: 73

court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully,
or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having
so attended or testified, ; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of
impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of
justice in any State , with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the
laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,
the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
42 USC 1985(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State conspire for the purpose of depriving,
either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of
the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of
preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or
securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws; in any
case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do,
or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby
another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any
right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived
may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or
deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
42 USC 1986 Action for neglect to prevent
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be
done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and
having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or
refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party
injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act,
which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages
may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such
wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the
death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal
representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 29 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 30 of 98

PageID #: 74

exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if
there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the
deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which
is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
VIII.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

GinA presents the following sampling of pertinent facts in a successive


timeline of events which will show irrefutable evidence from public city and court
records of an ongoing criminal conspiracy between Defendants in this case and all
Defendants in GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT to maliciously deprive
GinA of her federal rights to receive fair housing and government services because
she is a low income disabled woman who has a history of being homeless and vocal
about the legal injustices that have occurred against her in her effort to have a safe,
affordable and peaceful low income rental home in Augusta.
Defendants conspiracy was intended to deprive GinA and did in fact deprive
GinA of her federal rights to equal protection of the laws as a disabled low income
woman with a history of homelessness under Title II of the ADA, the FHA and
FHAA, 1st and 14th Amendments inter alia, 42 USC 3601, 3604 and 3617.
Disabilities, Operating After Suspension, Evictions in Maine, (FY10-FY15)
29-A MRSA 1251. License required (1-A.)
1.

City of Augusta, City of Augusta Police Department, City of Augusta

All_Police Officers, William Stokes, and Matthew Pouliot in Matthews role as a


public servant in the 126th and 127th Maine Legislatures, aggressively enforce 29-A
MRSA 1251. License required (1-A.) Residents required to obtain license.
Within 30 days of becoming a resident of this State, a person shall apply to obtain a
license in accordance with section 1301.
Motor Vehicle Rules 29-250, Ch. 3. Physical, Emotional and Mental
Competence to Operate a Motor Vehicle
2.

As Chief Deputy Attorney General of the Criminal Division, William Stokes

oversees and enforces 29-A MRSA 1251. License required (1-A.) and Maine
Bureau of Motor Vehicle Rules 29-250, Ch. 3. Physical, Emotional and Mental
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 30 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 31 of 98

PageID #: 75

Competence to Operate a Motor Vehicle which pertains to all Maine licensed drivers
and says in part:
1-A) The Secretary of State shall determine the physical, emotional, and
mental competence of a person to operate a motor vehicle with the advice of the
Medical Advisory Board and on the basis of the Functional Ability Profiles.
2-A) Medical conditions requiring report. Conditions for which a
person is required to submit a report to the Secretary of State include, but are
not limited to, neurological, cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal,
visual, emotional and psychiatric and substance abuse.
3.

Maines total 2015 population was 1,329,328 with 1,019,865 licensed drivers.

4.

76.7% of Mainers [or more] are [required by 29-A MRSA 1251(1-A) to be]

legally licensed to travel by car to go to work, to maintain their homes and provide
for their daily survival needs.
5.

Nearly 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, and

more than half take two, Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Center researchers
say. Antibiotics, antidepressants and painkilling opioids are most commonly
prescribed, their study found. Twenty percent of patients are on five or more
prescription medications, according to the findings, published online in the
journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
(See http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/nearly-7-in-10americans-take-prescription-drugs-mayo-clinic-olmsted-medical-center-find/)
6.

Mainers are dying at record rates from opioid overdoses. The vast majority of

Maines 272 drug overdose deaths in 2015 an all-time high were due to heroin,
fentanyl, prescription opioids or a combination.
(See http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/16/doctors-backlegislation-to-curb-opioid-prescriptions/)
7.

About 350,000 Mainers were prescribed a total of 80 million opioid pills in

2014, according to the latest figures available from the Maine DHHS. Meanwhile,
about 15,500 people received treatment for opioid abuse at a state-sponsored
program in 2015, according to Maine DHHS. (Ibid.)
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 31 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 32 of 98

8.

PageID #: 76

350,000 Mainers [who] were prescribed a total of 80 million opioid pills in

2014 have drivers licenses because 95% of Maine inhabitants are legally licensed.
9.

Therefore, 350,000 Mainers [who] were prescribed a total of 80 million opioid

pills in 2014 made up 34% of the total Maine population with a drivers license.
10.

According to Robert O'Connell, director of legal affairs, adjudications and

hearings at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the general recidivism rate for OUI
offenses in 2012 was 26 percent(See
http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20130426/news/304260392 )
11.

The latest data shows Maine BMV collected $30,595,950 in Class C license

renewal fees over the past six years totaling $5,099,325 per year taxpayer revenue
for Class C drivers licenses alone.
12.

Maine people live 43 people per sq. mile traveling across 30,843 miles to go to

work to provide for their families housing, financial and daily survival needs.
(See http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,23 )
13.

OUI arrests are made for use of alcohol, street drugs, and legally prescribed

medicine regardless if it is taken according to or in conflict with doctors orders.


14.

Legal, financial and interpersonal penalties for OUI offenses are severe and

include several thousand dollars of out-of-pocket costs per individual per event plus
several months of psychiatric counseling, forced isolation from community, job loss,
public humiliation, family estrangements, emotional injuries and homelessness.
15.

To his critics, [Maine Governor Paul] LePages decision to bypass the


Waltham, Mass., meeting [about the surge in opioid overdoses] struck them as
combative business as usual for a governor who, alone in New England, is
emphasizing law enforcement over treatment as a response to the drug crisis.
While other governors have called for hefty increases in funding for
treatment, LePage called for $2 million to hire 14 drug agents, four judges,
and four prosecutors to target a drug trade he said is ravaging the state.
We must hunt down the dealers and get them off the streets, LePage
said in March when he proposed beefed-up enforcement.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 32 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 33 of 98

PageID #: 77

The proposal foundered when LePage, at the 11th hour, would not agree
with Maines House of Representatives to scale back the package to 10 agents,
eliminate the judges and prosecutors, and keep $750,000 for treatment that
had been added in earlier negotiations, said Kathleen Newman, the governors
deputy chief of staff(See
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/06/maine-governor-paullepage-stresses-jail-not-treatment-way-win-drugwar/CZA4AAinGdjNLqt02WtgPJ/story.html
16.

Many [Maine] people dont want to take [pain] medicines, said Brent Scobie,

who oversees the program [for alternative pain management therapy at Acadia
Hospital in Bangor Maine]. They want to reduce, if not eliminate, them.
Launched in September 2012, the program served 54 patients from
across the state in its first year, Scobie said. Many of the patients saw
improvements in the severity of their pain, their ability to handle day-to-day
life in spite of it, and their level of psychological distress, he said. Attending
once a week for eight sessions, patients learn to understand the relationship
between pain and stress and how to monitor their thoughts and behaviors to
better manage symptoms.
Chronic pain patients in Maine are increasingly turning to such
approaches, due in no small part to changes in the states Medicaid program.
In response to legislation targeting the states opiate addiction problem,
MaineCare, the states version of Medicaid, in January 2013 began requiring
chronic pain patients to try alternative therapies and limiting their daily
painkiller dosing. The program also restricts patients to two weeks of opioid
painkillers during a year, unless a doctor justifies a longer treatment period.
As a result, MaineCare recorded a remarkable 30 percent drop since
2011 in the number of recipients receiving prescriptions for opiate
medications. The reduction, for drugs such as OxyContin, Vicodin and

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 33 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 34 of 98

PageID #: 78

hydrocodone, led to savings of more than $1 million last year, according to Dr.
Kevin Flanigan, MaineCares medical director.
Im very pleased that MaineCares been able to take the lead and shift
its policy toward one that embraces what the evidence and the literature shows
to be more effective treatment of pain, Flanigan said. Weve been able to do
that so far without negatively impacting those people who truly require opioids
for pain management. In short, I think our members are getting a higher level
of care today because those options are available to them.
(See http://bangordailynews.com/2014/02/27/health/mainecaresees-30-percent-drop-in-patients-on-prescription-opiates-with-new-emphasison-alternative-therapies/ )
17.

Maine Judicial Branchs 2015 Annual Report shows court revenue for FY10

FY15:

18.

a.

decreased for traffic fines by 17% from $12,245,878 to $10,108,163

b.

decreased for court fines by 19% from $14,394,383 to $11,632,039

c.

decreased for surcharges by 12% from $7,361,827 to $6,419,581

d.

decreased for fees by 18% from $10,487,417 to $8,585,842.

Maine Judicial Branchs 2015 Annual Report shows court filings decreased or

remained stable across the board in all areas for FY10-FY15 except evictions.
19.

Maine Judicial Branchs 2015 Annual Report shows a 35% spike in district

court evictions for FY10-FY15:


a.

FY10 4,717

b.

FY11 5,162

c.

FY12 5,352

d.

FY13 5,702

e.

FY14 6,076

f.

FY15 6,177

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 34 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 35 of 98

20.

PageID #: 79

All Maine evictions from FY10 through FY15 were ordered in a Rule 80D

summary process pursuant to 14 MRSA 6001 6030-E with no discovery and


presided over by a single judge in a state district court.
21.

MRCivP 80D(b) Summons. The summons in forcible entry and detainer

actions shall bear the signature or facsimile signature of the judge or the clerk,
contain the name and address of the court and the names of the parties, be directed
to the defendant, state the day when the action is returnable, which shall be not less
than 7 days from the date of service of the summons;
22.

MRCivP 80D(c) Complaint. The complaint for forcible entry and detainer

shall be filed no later than one day before the date of the hearing. which prevents a
tenant from obtaining and serving subpoenas to secure personal appearances and
sworn testimony from City of Augusta Code Enforcement Officers during any trial.
23.

MRCivP 80D(e)(1) Hearing Date. All forcible entry and detainer actions

shall be in order for trial on the return day.


24.

MRCivP 80D(f) Removal. There shall be no removal of forcible entry and

detainer actions, except as provided by statute.


25.

Maine Judicial Branchs 2011-2015 Annual Reports show no eviction trials

by jury occurred in superior court from FY10 through FY15.


26.

MRCivP Rule 80D(2) Appeal by Jury Trial De Novo.


(A) Notice of Appeal and Demand for Jury Trial. Either party may appeal to
the Superior Court by jury trial de novo on any issue so triable of right by
filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 76D. A party who seeks a jury
trial de novo shall include in the notice of appeal a written demand for
jury trial and shall file with the notice an affidavit or affidavits meeting
the requirements of Rule 56(e) and setting forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to which there is a right to trial
by jury. Failure to make demand for jury trial with accompanying
affidavit or affidavits constitutes a waiver of the right to jury trial, and the
appeal shall be on questions of law only, as provided in paragraph (1) of
this subdivision.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 35 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 36 of 98

27.

PageID #: 80

14 MRSA 6008. Appeal


1. Right to appeal. Either party may appeal on questions of law from a
judgment to the Superior Court as in other civil actions. Either party may
appeal on any issue triable by right by a jury to a trial de novo in the Superior
Court as provided in this section. The time for filing an appeal of the
judgment of the District Court expires upon the issuance of the writ of
possession pursuant to section 6005 or 30 days from the time the judgment is
entered, whichever occurs first.
2. Appeal by defendant; record; stay. When the defendant appeals, the
defendant shall pay to the plaintiff or, if there is a dispute about the rent, to
the District Court, any unpaid portion of the current month's rent or the rent
arrearage, whichever is less. The District Court shall promptly transmit the
record and any such payments to the Superior Court without waiting for the
preparation of a transcript of recorded testimony. The Superior Court may
stay the issuance of a writ of possession pending disposition of the appeal.
A. The

Superior

Court

shall

condition

the

granting

and

continuation of the stay on the defendant's payment of rent for the


premises as required by this subsection at the time of appeal and on
payment of any rent that has accrued since the filing of the appeal to the
plaintiff or, if there is a dispute about the rent, into an escrow account to
be administered by the clerk of the Superior Court. Upon application of
either party, the Superior Court may authorize payments from the escrow
account for appropriate expenses related to the premises. The appeal
decision or an agreement of the parties must provide for the disposition of
the escrowed rent.
B. The

Superior

Court

may

condition

the

granting

and

continuation of the stay, in appropriate cases, on the defendant's


agreement to refrain from causing any nuisance or damage.
3. Vacation of stay; security; remedial order.

Upon finding a

violation of the conditions for granting the stay, the Superior Court shall
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 36 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 37 of 98

PageID #: 81

vacate the stay and may issue a writ of possession. The Superior Court may
require the plaintiff to provide security as may be necessary to protect the
defendant's interest while the appeal is pending. If the defendant prevails, the
Superior Court may issue a remedial order as necessary to make the defendant
whole, including damages.
4. Claim of title. In disputes involving a claim of title, the District Court
may provide for discovery on an expedited schedule.
5. Security. For the purposes of this section, "security" may include a
bond, an escrow account, a lien, a mortgage, an order to make payments under
a lease or contract as they become due or any other financial protection as is
reasonably necessary to protect the interests of a party. The District Court and
the Superior Court may make any necessary orders with respect to the
provision of security, revise the orders when required by the interests of justice,
sanction a party for failure to comply with a security requirement and waive
or modify the requirement of security for good cause shown and recited in an
order.
6. Affidavit required. A notice of appeal filed by the defendant must be
accompanied by an affidavit stating the defendant has complied with the
requirements of subsection 2 regarding the payment of rent.
28.

14 MRSA 6008(2) requires


When the [tenant] appeals, the [tenant] shall pay to the
[landlord] or, if there is a dispute about the rent, to the District Court, any
unpaid portion of the current month's rent or the rent arrearage,
whichever is less

29.

Rep. Matthew Pouliot, R-Augusta, said In some of these cases, its evident

that theres a major problem in the buildings, but tenants dont have many
resources, so they move in anyway, Pouliot said.
Just because someone is poor doesnt mean they have to live in
substandard housing, he said
However, the problem of bad housing, he said, is getting dire in the city.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 37 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 38 of 98

PageID #: 82

People call Augusta disgusta, and a lot of it has to do with the


buildings they see when they drive around town, he said. And they are
disgusting in many cases.
(See http://www.centralmaine.com/2013/10/07/augusta-lawmakerwants-maine-renters-to-get-three-days-notice-before-having-to-move/ )
GinAs History with Defendants since 2007
Employment and Low Income Housing
30.

GinA was a lifetime tenant in Augusta Maines low income community since

she was 16 years old until September 26, 2014.


31.

GinA worked her last full time job in the elite Maine BMV, OUI Unit from

January 7, 2007 until April 2008 when she left her job because of her disability.
32.

In 2007 Maine BMV, OUI Unit was operated by 8 employees who served all

persons charged with OUI and other serious driving offenses on Maine roads.
33.

GinAs official responsibilities included, but were not limited to:


a.

receiving, reading and confirming every OUI police report had all
required legal cues for arrest in Maine,

b.

communicating with all police officers to correct deficient police reports,

c.

properly suspending drivers licenses for OUI, habitual offenses and


other serious driving offenses,

d.

communicating directly with clerks of all courts in the United States,


all drivers, community programs and government agencies,

34.

e.

confirming all reinstatement requirements were met,

f.

ensuring accuracy of each driver record before restoring licenses, and

g.

other necessary duties.

GinAs six month employment probation performance evaluation in July 2007

with BMV OUI Unit shows GinA received 3 letters of praise from her customers and
directors for exemplary interpersonal communication and customer service skills
and her high aptitude with learning complex laws, rules, and civil procedures.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 38 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 39 of 98

PageID #: 83

Disabilities, OUIs and Drivers Licenses


35.

In April 2007, GinA submitted a formal proposal to her supervisor, Laurie

Carrier, suggesting BMV can reduce OUI recidivism and other violation rates by
changing its internal policies in the following ways:
a.

distribute public information fliers about commuter and transportation


services to all registered licensees in Maine in every piece of BMV postal
mail,

b.

expand the GoMaine Commuter Connections carpool and vanpool


services to provide safe, reliable transportation to people who are
serving OUI and other type of license suspensions, and

c.
36.

offer a work-restricted license to all suspended licensees.

Laurie Carrier endorsed GinAs proposal and submitted it to Senior Section

Manager Linda Grant who sent it through the proper chain of command with full
endorsement by all department heads.
37.

Deputy Secretary of State delivered GinAs proposal to Secretary of State

Matthew Dunlaps office in June 2007.


38.

Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap completely disregarded GinAs proposal.

39.

Matthew Dunlap disregarded GinAs proposal to offer public information to

all licensees about state-funded public transportation services which aggravates an


actual barrier for disabled, low income and homeless people across Maine who need
to benefit from and participate in all government transportation services so they
can get to work as protected by Title II, ADA and Fair Housing Amendments Act.
40.

GOMAINE Commuter Connections is a statewide, state-funded and state

operated commuter program sponsored by the Maine Turnpike Authority and


Maine Department of Transportation. (See http://www.gomaine.org/about/ )
HIPAA, GinAs Disabilities and Drivers License #1491178
41.

In September 2005, under dictates of Motor Vehicle Rules 29-250 Ch. 3 which

violate HIPAA privacy protections, GinA reported that she was prescribed
pharmaceuticals by her doctor for her disability.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 39 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 40 of 98

42.

PageID #: 84

BMV classified GinAs disability according to the "Functional Ability Profiles"

as Level 3a, Active Impairment, Minimal. requiring a standard progress report at


4-year intervals, with the first scheduled for September 2009.
43.

In August 2006, GinA eliminated all prescribed pharmaceutical and over-the-

counter medicines from her life using only medical cannabis to relieve her pain.
44.

BMV records show the Medical Unit required GinA to surrender to a medical

evaluation in November 2009 due to medications she had been prescribed in 2005.
45.

There is no factual dispute GinA did not receive BMVs requests for a medical

evaluation because GinA was homeless and did not have a mailing address.
Violation Free Credits on Driver Record #1491178
46.

Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles issued GinA violation free credits for years

2008, 2009 and 2010 (issued on March 8, 2011).


(See AUGDC-CR-2011-512, AUGDC-CR-2011-513, AUGSC-CR-2012-286, AUGSCCR-2012-667, inter alia).
47.

BMVs November and December 2009 requests for medical evaluation

addressed to GinA were both returned to BMV by USPS as undeliverable.


Medical Suspension 29-A MRSA 2458(2)(D), January 5, 2010
48.

On January 5, 2010 Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicle Medical Unit suspended

drivers license #1491178 without any good or legal cause for GinAs inability to
comply with the medical evaluation which was directly related to GinAs disability.
49.

On January 5, 2010, BMV suspended driver license #1491178 without a

hearing under 29-A MRSA 2458(2)(D) Is incompetent to drive a motor vehicle.


50.

On or about January 9, 2010, GinA moved into 239 Cony Street Unit 2.

51.

GinA had no problems with Royce Watson or the tenants for over a year.

Ticket #2576761, Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device


February 10, 2011, Marketplace Drive and Townsend Road
52.

GinA did not know license #1491178 had been suspended for a medical

reason on January 5, 2010 until Augusta Police Ofc. Eric DosSantos told her on
February 10, 2011 during the traffic stop at Townsend Road and Marketplace Dr.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 40 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 41 of 98

53.

PageID #: 85

On February 10, 2011, Augusta Police Ofc. Eric DosSantos stopped GinA for

failure to obey traffic control device on Townsend Rd and Marketplace Drive and
issued a ticket for a minor traffic violation. (See Violations Bureau Tckt # 21576761,
AUGDC-CR-2011-512 and AUGDC-CR-2011-513)
54.

GinA told Augusta Ofc. Eric DosSantos he had no probable cause of criminal

conduct to make a traffic stop but he continued to infringe the 4th Amendment by
issuing a violation summons and complaint for failure to obey traffic control device.
AUGDC-CR-2011-512 and AUGDC-CR-2011-513, Operating After Suspension
55.

Almost exactly one month later on March 7, 2011, Augusta Police Ofc. Eric

DosSantos stopped GinA at the exact same place on Marketplace Drive at the exact
same time as the February 10, 2011 traffic stop because he knew license #1491178
was suspended by the BMV Medical Unit for an unknown medical reason and he
knew GinA worked at Dunkin Donuts inside WalMart around that time of day.
56.

On March 7, 2011, City of Augusta Police Ofc. Eric DosSantos stopped GinA

as a direct result of his February 10th stop because he knew license #1491178 was
suspended for medical reasons and asked GinA if she had any medical issues that
would cause the BMV Medical Unit to suspend license #1491178. (See AUGDC-CR2011-512 and AUGDC-CR-2011-513)
57.

GinA denied having any knowledge of a license suspension and denied having

any medical issues which would cause the Medical Unit to suspend the license.
58.

Augusta Ofc. Eric DosSantos asked GinA directly with GinA declining

knowing about any medical issues that would cause BMV Medical Unit to suspend
the driver license #1491178 in 2010.
59.

Ofc. Eric DosSantos issued two uniform summonses for Operating After

Suspension even though he knew the suspension was a medical suspension and
not considerable as a prior offense for operating after suspension charges. (See AP13-17 and KEN-13-517)
60.

Augusta Ofc. Eric DosSantos knowingly stripped GinA of her ability to travel

in her own car to her job at Dunkin Donuts inside WalMart.


61.

GinAs inability to transport herself caused GinA to have to quit her job.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 41 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 42 of 98

PageID #: 86

62.

GinA has not worked in the local community since she quit Dunkin Donuts.

63.

GinAs inability to get a job inhibits GinAs ability to maintain a safe home.

64.

GinAs inability to transport herself in her own car so she can maintain a job

and a safe home caused her to be chronically homeless from 2012 through 2014.
65.

GinAs inability to transport herself in her own car interferes with GinAs

ability to eat, interact with friends and family, receive public services, and access
the courts to redress her legal grievances with her government and private persons.
66.

On March 8, 2011, BMV License Services printed LS-LT-08 for driver license

#1491178 stating,
1.

Your privilege(s) to operate/apply for a motor vehicle operators license in


the State of Maine has been restored as of March 8, 2011 03:36:00 PM.

2.

The suspension(s) listed below have been deleted from your record:
January 5, 2010, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MEDICAL
EVALUATION REQUEST.

67.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; April 17, 2011 - August

13, 2011 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
68.

August 13, 2011, KJ article Big step to new county courthouse says,
In October 2009, MSJC CJ Leigh Saufley projected a $55 million new
building to include consolidated superior and district courts and
officesHowever, its taken longer than expected to secure the property

69.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; August 13, 2011 -

November 2, 2011 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
70.

On November 2, 2011, Civil Deputy Sheriff Harry McKenney served GinA

with a Summons and Complaint for forcible entry and detainer for 239 Cony Street.
71.

During GinAs conversation she recorded Harry McKenney say most

landlords lie on their eviction papers by claiming service was attempted three
times in good faith when the landlord and Harry McKenney know it has not.
72.

Harry McKenney expressly said a well-known Augusta landlord regularly

falsifies his eviction notices.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 42 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 43 of 98

73.

PageID #: 87

GinA showed Harry McKenney the legal defects in Royce Watsons Notice to

Quit but Harry McKenney served the illegal summons and complaint anyway.
74.

On November 18, 2011, GinA filed a 10-page sworn affidavit with City of

Augusta Police Department to correct Ofc. Christopher Guays false police report
filed in October 2011.
75.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; January 18, 2012 -

February 16, 2012 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
AUGSC-CR-2012-286
76.

On February 16, 2012, City of Augusta Ofc. Christopher Guay made an

unconstitutional traffic stop on GinAs private automobile without any probable


cause. (See AUGSC-CR-2012-286 and 1:16-cv-00100-NT)
77.

On February 21, 2012 at 2:45pm, GinA received an official written apology

from Major Jared Mills on behalf of City of Augusta Police Department about Ofc.
Peter Cloutiers illegal forceful invasion of GinAs home on January 18, 2012:
Gina,
On January 18th 2012, Officers Cloutier and Drouin met with you in
response to a complaint they received from your neighbor. During the course of
their investigation Officer Cloutier began to question you in reference to the
odor of marijuana he believed he smelled coming from your apartment. You
filed a complaint with the Chief of Police in regards Officer Cloutier's
behavior during this incident. Sergeant Shaw investigated the incident and
determined that Officer Cloutier did in fact act inappropriate in regards to his
demeanor, and the way in which he questioned you. Due to the fact that
Officer Cloutier's behavior was unprofessional, sanctions have been taken
against him and his behavior has been corrected. I want to apologize on behalf
of Officer Cloutier and the Augusta Police Department for this unfortunate
situation you had to endure. Thank you for bringing this incident to our
attention, and please contact me if you have any issues with the Augusta
Police Department in the future. If you have any questions or if you would like

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 43 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 44 of 98

PageID #: 88

to discuss this situation in person or by telephone please let me know and I


will make myself available upon your request.
Major Jared Mills
Augusta Police Department
78.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; February 23, 2012 for

related facts and evidence from the companion case]


79.

On February 28, 2012, GinA was served by sheriff with an illegal Writ of

Possession issued by Augusta District Court for 239 Cony Street.


80.

GinA took the writ of possession to the Kennebec Journal and asked Betty

Adams to help remedy the active oil leak that was poisoning the neighborhood and
to help prevent GinAs illegal eviction.
81.

Betty Adams and the Kennebec Journal declined to help GinA in any way.
(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEtKKWbxlQ4 )

82.

Royce Watson and David VanBaars, Esq. spent six months evicting GinA in

conspiracy with Defendants with a writ of possession expiring on March 1, 2012.


83.

Royce Watson replaced the oil tank at 239 Cony Street on March 29, 2012.

84.

GinA was homeless from March 1, 2012 until January 13, 2013 when she

moved into 3 Washington Street Place, Augusta.


85.

July 9, 2012, KJ article Courthouse expansion has Tuesday hearing


The [Planning] boards approval would give the proposed [courthouse]
project green light to proceed pending a zoning change which is up for public
hearing by City Council at its July 19 meeting.The zone was changed
several years ago to business professional to accommodate a courthouse
expansion.

86.

August 20, 2012, KJ article Augusta courthouse work promises traffic

disruptions
A judge, the project manager and the court construction overseer
roughed out a construction schedule and its effect at a meeting last week for
judges, lawyers, clerks and others who work in the county-owned courthouse
at Winthrop and State Streets.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 44 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 45 of 98

PageID #: 89

vibration and noise from construction will affect both operational


and administrative functionsthe delivery of justice will clearly be impacted
during those high-noise periods ~ Superior Court C.J. Thomas Humphrey
87.

September 26, 2012, KJ article Courthouse construction noise drives trial

from Augusta to quieter Farmington


[Judge Michaela] Murphy had to repeat herself several times
88.

On January 13, 2013, GinA moved into 3 Washington Street Place with a

belief GinA was renting a single room in a legal, safe and decent rooming house.
89.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; January 18, 2013 for

related facts and evidence from the companion case]


90.

January 26, 2013, KJ article, Court construction projects neighbors endure

noise, shaking with good humor,


The front porch of the apartment building at 32 Court St. offers a great
view of the construction site of a new courthouse bordered by Winthrop,
Perham and Court Streets. The tenants in the seven-unit building, and other
nearby households, get to hear and feel the construction, as well. They rock to
the rhythm of 276 piles being pounded into bedrockThey hear the beep, beep,
beep of the trucksWork begins at 7a.m. and ends at 5p.m
I dont have to set my alarm clock any more in the morning, said Rep.
Matt Pouliot, R-Augusta, who lives on Winthrop Court, within sight of the
project. Pouliot is on the citys Planning Board and saw the project proposal in
its initial stages.
the constant racket has gotten to Shannon Perkins, who has lived in
an apartment at 32 Court St. for about a year. Its insanely noisy, she said,
which is a particular problem during her childrens nap time.
Scott Theriaulttook a more philosophical approachWe all pretty
much know theres nothing we can do about it
Gregory Roy, owner of 32 Court St, and a Realtor affiliated with the
Maine Real Estate Network, said the fallout from the courthouse construction
has done some damage to the occupants psyche. I believe it may have
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 45 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 46 of 98

PageID #: 90

resulted in some unhappy tenants Its easy enough to find new tenants; its
just making the living conditions unhappy
Some $62 million in bonds were authorized to pay for the Augusta
courthouse Its coming in under budget, and on target to be under budget,
[Philip] Johnston said.
91.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; February 1- June 19,

2013 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
92.

On June 20, 2013, Ray Corp. filed an eviction complaint against GinA. (See

AUGDC-SA-2013-332)
93.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; June 25, 2013 July 21,

2013 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
94.

On July 21, 2013, Augusta District Court held an eviction bench trial in Ray

Corp. v. Gina Turcotte, AUGDC-SA-13-332 issuing a judgment of forcible entry and


detainer claiming, Court finds Plaintiff overcame presumption of retaliation under
14 MRSA 6001(3).
95.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; July 22, 2013 - October

14, 2013 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
96.

On October 16, 2013, Augusta District Court (Valerie Stanfill) ordered a writ

of possession against GinA for 3 Washington Street Place, Unit 1, Augusta.


97.

On October 18, 2013, 2:28pm, Robert Overton sent an email to City of

Augusta Police Major Jared Mills,


In the last few weeks, weve been working to get the tenants out of 3
Washington Street Place. As of today the only occupant of the building is Gina
Turcotte. We didnt push too hard to get her out due to the fact that she is
about to be evicted.
98.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; October 30, 2013 -

December 31, 2013 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
99.

On January 03, 2014, 5:36pm, GinA sent an email to Major Jared Mills, Sgt.

Chris Shaw, et al:


Dear Sgt. Shaw and Major Mills:
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 46 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 47 of 98

PageID #: 91

Now that I have properly disposed of the frivolous retaliatory OAS and
other criminal charges from February 16, 2012 with a full dismissal, I can
now turn my attention back to the aggressive, unprofessional and
unconstitutional incident with Ofc. Peter Cloutier from January 18, 2012.
I strongly believe these two incidents are directly correlated, with the
OAS arrest and subsequent court action being retaliation for my recording
and reporting Ofc. Cloutier's unprofessional conduct and publicizing it for the
world to see on YouTube (which currently has more than 1800 views).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9pS5cEUorI
After I had an hour-long investigative meeting with Sgt. Shaw on
January 25, 2012, Major Mills sent me an email on February 21, 2012, at
2:45pm which is restated below:
Gina,
On January 18th 2012, Officers Cloutier and Drouin met with you in
response to a complaint they received from your neighbor. During the course of
their investigation Officer Cloutier began to question you in reference to the
odor of marijuana he believed he smelled coming from your apartment. You
filed a complaint with the Chief of Police in regards Officer Cloutier's
behavior during this incident. Sergeant Shaw investigated the incident and
determined that Officer Cloutier did in fact act inappropriate in regards to his
demeanor, and the way in which he questioned you. Due to the fact that
Officer Cloutier's behavior was unprofessional, sanctions have been taken
against him and his behavior has been corrected. I want to apologize on behalf
of Officer Cloutier and the Augusta Police Department for this unfortunate
situation you had to endure. Thank you for bringing this incident to our
attention, and please contact me if you have any issues with the Augusta
Police Department in the future. If you have any questions or if you would like
to discuss this situation in person or by telephone please let me know and I
will make myself available upon your request.
Major Jared Mills
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 47 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 48 of 98

PageID #: 92

Augusta Police Department


***
Major Mills indicated "sanctions have been taken against [Ofc. Peter
Clouter] and his behavior has been corrected" but I was never informed of
those specific sanctions or corrective actions. Additionally, nobody at the
Augusta Police Department has ever offered me any kind of remedial
compensation for "this unfortunate situation [I] had to endure"...
I strongly believe this situation with Ofc. Cloutier was not only very
unfortunate, but it was also the cause which compelled Ofc. Christopher Guay
to stop me a month later on February 16, 2012 without probable cause and
only because he was familiar with my car and he knew I recorded Ofc.
Cloutier's illegal behavior. I believe Ofc. Guay and other officers had seen the
USDOT signs on my car during their regular patrols along Cony Street
because my car was always parked very close to the road.
I lived at 239 Cony Street from January 25, 2010 until March 1, 2012.
Additionally, as a direct result of that frivolous and unconstitutional
traffic stop by Ofc. Guay on Feb. 16, 2012, I was physically assaulted by Sgt.
Shaw, Ofc. Guay and Ofc. Harris in their unlawful and unreasonably forceful
seizure of my car and my body, then imprisoning me for several hours, not to
mention the many injuries resulting from those actions which have persisted
ever since.
These are not just "unfortunate situations" which can be ignored; it
would be unwise to think these events have not impacted my life in very
significant ways for which the Augusta Police Dept. is directly responsible...
All criminal charges from Feb. 16, 2012 were dismissed on December
18, 2013 by A.D.A. Joelle Pratt and Judge Murphy. I am now going to
challenge all civil traffic infractions from that date as well.
I strongly believe the aggressive criminal prosecution and the Augusta
Police Department's willful destruction of and refusal to provide video and

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 48 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 49 of 98

PageID #: 93

audio evidence of the arrest all resulted directly from my interactions with
Ofc. Peter Cloutier in January 2012.
I believe the other Augusta police officers are extremely unhappy I
recorded Ofc. Cloutier acting unlawfully and I am now being aggressively
targeted as a violent "sovereign citizen" (a misnomer).
I have personally read the Maine Criminal Justice Academy's 2011
mandatory training manual regarding "sovereign citizens" and I know all
police officers are taught to believe and presume all "sovereign citizens" are
violent, gun-toting, deadly people suspected of carrying at least 1 gun and 1
sharp weapon at all times... also, the MCJA training manual indicates
"sovereign citizens" are considered to be "domestic terrorists" worthy of
heightened aggression and police action.
This type of stereotypical profiling violates my natural right to equal
protection, is unconstitutional, discriminatory, highly prejudicial and directly
causes all officers to act with unreasonable aggression against peaceful people,
as I believe happened to me on February 16, 2012 and thereafter.
I strongly believe the formal education provided by MCJA and the
internal policies of the Augusta Police Department regarding "sovereign
citizens" have caused, and are continuing to cause an elevated risk of
unreasonably aggressive and unconstitutional behaviors by police officers
which is causing an elevated risk of physical, emotional and other types of
injury to peaceful people who are stopped or questioned without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause of committing a 'crime'.
I am extremely offended that I am being targeted by my public servants
who have sworn an oath to protect me simply because I assert my natural
rights as protected by the Maine Constitution and 17 MRSA 2931.
Unfortunately, it is now almost exactly 2 years after I was arrested by
your officers and I cannot even begin to express how severely my life has been
disrupted and injured by these unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional actions.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 49 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 50 of 98

PageID #: 94

My life has been seriously injured, my rights have been grossly violated,
my liberty consistently threatened, and being physically and constructively
imprisoned by not being able to transport myself or leave my home without
"supervision" (by a chauffeur) since early 2012. I was forced to sell my car
because of the effect these charges had on my ability to use or financially
maintain my car. I was forced by subsequent circumstances to live in the
armpit of Augusta's ghetto on Washington Street Place (so I could afford my
rent and walk to the store), my family relationships have been directly injured
as a result of these actions and my emotional, mental and physical health has
also seriously deteriorated as a direct result of not being able to transport
myself or take care of myself the way I did before these frivolous charges were
lodged against me.
I have already expressed in writing to the State, via email on December
17, 2013, that I consider these actions to rise to the level of malicious
prosecution and am prepared to seek my proper redemption through the only
avenue available - the court system.
But I am coming to you first.
I know the police department, as well as each police officer, are required
to maintain a bond or an insurance policy intended to resolve these exact
unfortunate situations.
I also know that "discretionary immunity" and "qualified immunity"
does not apply when "(1) constitutional rights were violated, and (2) those
rights were so clearly established that reasonable [officers] would have known
that their specific actions transgressed those rights." Creamer v. Sceviour, 652
A.2d 110, 113 (Me. 1995)
I believe the incident from January 18, 2012 with Ofc. Peter Cloutier,
admonished by Major Mills' apology, evidently proves my "constitutional
rights were violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established that
reasonable [officers] would have known that their specific actions transgressed
those rights."
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 50 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 51 of 98

PageID #: 95

Also, combining Major Mills' decision about the January 18, 2012
incident with the full dismissal of all criminal charges for the February 2012
OAS arrest, I believe there is solid evidence to prove the existence of a direct
correlation between both incidents from January and February 2012.
This is a very serious situation which must be resolved immediately,
appropriately and fairly. I am a reasonable woman willing to negotiate a
reasonable settlement, but the Augusta Police Department must first decide if
they are going to accept responsibility for the unfortunate actions of their
officers.
I did notice that Ofc. Peter Cloutier's name is no longer listed on your
website as a Patrol Officer:
http://www.augustamaine.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={3D85517B
-4BA1-47B0-80C8-491D45625A4C}&DE={F0682F3D-E592-4EBD-A0BBF47EB42F3287}
Does this obvious omission signify Ofc. Peter Cloutier has been
terminated from your employment and relieved of his police authority?
Please respond in writing within 7 business days with a request for a
meeting or an offer of settlement.
Thank you for your priority attention to this matter.
In Peace,
GinA Turcotte
100.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; January 3, 2014 -

February 20, 2014 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
101.

On February 20, 2014, GinAs letter to the editor was published by the

Kennebec Journal, Former YMCA site better for new parking garage,
Responding to your article published on Feb. 9 titled, Houses behind
jail eyed for Augusta courthouse parking, I must offer my input since
apparently none of our city councilors is thinking about the most vital issue
our city faces lack of safe, low-income residential housing!

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 51 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 52 of 98

PageID #: 96

How can our public officials even entertain the idea of demolishing
more residential homes to make a parking lot without comparatively replacing
those dwelling units? There is a perfect location for that parking lot or another
parking garage on the old YMCA building site at the corner of Winthrop and
State streets. That parking garage could be connected to the old or new
courthouses by a catwalk or an underground tunnel, both of which already
exist in our local government structures.
This property is already cleared and ready for construction and would
save huge amounts of money for this projects bottom line. There are no
buildings to purchase, no people to relocate, no structures to raze and no
cleaning to perform. All the city needs to do is purchase the property or
exercise eminent domain over that property for the greater good of the public,
if necessary, which it is likely to do on Court Street/Perham Street if push
comes to shove.
The article also does not mention that those four buildings are capable
of housing at least 20 people or where future tenants of 32 Court St. will live.
We all need to stop thinking about making more business and start
thinking about making more peace, which is not going to happen by
destroying four residential homes without replacing them with comparable
new buildings that will house the same number of people.
How is any of this OK with Augusta residents?
Gina Turcotte, Augusta, Founder and president, Maine Tenants Justice
League (See
http://www.centralmaine.com/2014/02/20/former_ymca_site_better_for_ne
w_parking_garage_/ )
102.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; March 1, 2014 - May 15,

2014 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
103.

On May 15, 2014, GinA had a conversation with Matthew Pouliot in his

official capacity as her state Representative of the Maine Legislature on Facebook,


9:27pm
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 52 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 53 of 98

PageID #: 97

GinAthena Turcotte
we need to talk about the courthouse project and the perham/court street plan
i jsut went head to head with mayor stokes
i live at 32 court street
i'm not moving
my landlord is not selling
we will be the last tenants standing
9:28pm
Matthew Pouliot
I'm afraid there is not many options for parking
9:28pm
GinAthena Turcotte
what about the ymca lot?
no mention of that whatsoever
its DOUBLE the size of this lot!!!
and its already cleared !!!
.96 acres !!
these 4 properties are ONLY .4 ACRES!!
and we will lose 20 UNITS!
the bldg next door is a 5 bedroom house!
this bldg is a 6 unit bldg
19-21 perham st is at least 3 or 4 units
and danny ayotte's is a single family that needs a lot of work
so where do i go ??
the city has no plan for me or the other 5 tenants in this bldg
we need to talk
the owner and i have sent our official objections to the city
and MTJL sent their official objection also
last week

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 53 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 54 of 98

PageID #: 98

the owner and i are working closely and collaboratively. he also joined MTJL
as a board director representing landlords and real estate agents and
homeowners
did you know the city has been planning to take these 4 bldgs since 2009 and
NEVER SAID A WORD until 2012 !!
or 2011 at the earliest to the residnets on the street
i've surveyed people on this street
the city has made a total of 4 contacts with the next door neighbor starting
3yrs ago
but they've been planning this since 2009 according to the KJ
why did they wait until NOW ????
whats going on????
and why did Mayor Stokes just get nominated to be a superior court judge in
the very courthouse they are going to destroy my bldg to make a parking lot for
????
did he sell my block for the judgeship???
i sure think so !
i'm HOT
I'M LIVID!!
i'm going PUBLIC
VERY VERY VERY PUBLIC
my landlord is hot
he is stubborn and will not back down
we have already spoken at length
he and i will be standing here when the other 3 homes are demolished
it WILL go to court
9:35pm
Matthew Pouliot
I am certain the.building.project has.nothing to do with the judgeship
9:35pm
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 54 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 55 of 98

PageID #: 99

GinAthena Turcotte
i wouldnt be so sure, but i appreciate your caution
9:36pm
Matthew Pouliot
I just think it's too far into the project to change it. I dont.think Lon Walters
wants to sell the YMCA lot.for.parking
9:37pm
GinAthena Turcotte
its not a matter of want anymore... the city IS going to take this block by
eminent domain if we dont do something... why cant they take the YMCA lot
by eminent domain instead? it will be cheaper!
9:37pm
Matthew Pouliot
It's a terrible situation but takings occur every day
9:37pm
GinAthena Turcotte
no people to relocate, no bldg to destory, no cleanup to perform... its all ready
to buildg
its NOT OK
I WILL NOT ALLOW IT
IT WILL GO TO COURT
I will file as a tenant
or a 3rd party intervenor
i will fight the state and the city to the end
and i'm good at what i do
they are taking my home away form me
without a backup plan!! as MY CITY COUNCILORS/??
9:38pm
Matthew Pouliot

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 55 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 56 of 98

PageID #: 100

I'm sorry you have to go through this, but I feel like you purposely seek out
these situations
9:38pm
GinAthena Turcotte
i did not know this was an issue when i moved in here
i had no clue
do not blame me for landlng in this situation
that is OFFENSIVE !!!!
i did NOT choose this !!
I HAD NO CLUE UNTIL THE 2ND MONTH
the city NEVER CONTACTED THE LANDLORD until APRIL !!!!
9:39pm
Matthew Pouliot
You could move, no? There are a ton of vacant units in Augusta
9:39pm
GinAthena Turcotte
NO!
i want to stay with this landlrod
given my prior experiences
as you just clarified
my landlrod and i are friends
he is now a board director of MTJL... this is not just about displacement of a
tenant
this is a government issue that needs a public resolution
9:41pm
Matthew Pouliot
Takings are terrible but happen for the public good.
Again, sorry you have to deal with this
9:42pm
GinAthena Turcotte
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 56 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 57 of 98

PageID #: 101

if you are a city representative for augusta, i am officially requesting that you
schedule an appt to come here to talk with me and this bldg owner... this is
NOT OK... this is not going to happen without a court battle... i guarantee it
i'm already researching eminent domain precedent
i'm good at what i do
this will cost the city $$$$$$$$$$$$
i promise you that
they are NOT acting in the public's best interest
i just testiifed to that fact on the record tonight
on the live broadcast
i am not going to be silent any longer
i will be very very public
if yu care about us as your constituents, then you will make a point to listen to
greg roy about what has happened to his bldg
this is NOT ABOUT ME
this is about THE PEOPLE
the angels put me in this bldg... i did not choose this fight and would prefer to
deal with my other issues instead.
but i dont have much of a choice now
and i am asking you as my city rep. to take time to speak with my landlord
and the person who will be detrimentally affected by this unnecessary taking
its abusive and a breach of the city's fiduciary duty
i respect you, Matt, and am coming to you with that respect intact ...
but, if you dont listen to greg and what the city has done to him to take this
property, i will wonder what your agenda is ...
do not make this about me... it has nothing to do with me... this is about Greg
and how the city has been secretly planning to take his property since 2009 at
least without a word to him !!
and they know this is a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS they are taking away from
him !!
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 57 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 58 of 98

PageID #: 102

and they only offered him $85,000 !!


such an insult
like i said, I'M HOT
but i'm in control of myself and have my focus well refined
i will be taking this public in every venue i have available to me
as soon as it stops live streaming i will be cutting a copy and uploading it to
youtube so the public can see what i just did
for them
so, with that said, please call Greg Roy, the owner of 32 Court Street, or come
by to see him anytime during the day... if there is a burgandy pickup truck or
burgandy car in front of the building, he is here working
his phone humber is 207-215-8548
he knows im making contact with you and approves
i'm signing off FB now and going to do some work for a Scarborough tenant ...
please think about what i've said and give me a thoughtful response in due
time... thank you for your time and consideration.
10:34pm
Matthew Pouliot
Ok, I'll talk to Greg
104.

On May 20, 2014, GinA sent an email to Matthew Pouliot regarding Official

Complaint against State of Maine,


Rep. Matthew Pouliot, (Augusta),
This message is being sent as an OFFICIAL COMPLAINT about the
State of Maines and City of Augustas secret negotiations since 2009 (or
earlier) to destroy 4 occupied private homes and a private for-profit business of
17 years on Perham/Court Streets to build a parking lot for the new
courthouse in Augusta.
Rep. Matthew Pouliot, since you have removed and blocked me from
your Facebook wall, I am sending this message to your official public email

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 58 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 59 of 98

PageID #: 103

address as a Maine legislator demanding you launch an official investigation


into this injurious, deceptive and commercial public activity.
The State MUST PROVE this eminent domain taking IS NOT for
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES nor Primarily for the enhancement of tax
revenue under 1 MRSA 816(1)(B) which is the very nature of ALL COURT
BUSINESS!!
I WILL be filing an official claim in Superior Court as a tenant and 3rd
party intervener under Maine Tort Claims Act for the GRAVE INJURY
caused to myself by the State of Maine, the City of Augusta, the Maine
Governmental Facilities Authority and ALL ITS REPRESENTATIVES !!
Rep. Matthew Pouliot, you are a STATE REPRESENTATIVE for
myself and Greg Roy and all other inhabitants on this block.
You have a FIDUCIARY DUTY to PROTECT OUR INTERESTS at the
state level.
I am requiring you to launch an official investigation into this
fraudulent activity and that you make your investigation and its results
public.
Be advised that ALL COMMUNICATIONS between myself and ALL
PUBLIC OFFICERS will be made publicly available on the internet so
everyone knows what their representatives are doing with their money and
credit.
I require that you respond within 24 hours since I have already
previously communicated with you about this official matter.
Greg Roy, the owner of 32 Court Street, Augusta, is also waiting for
your official contact.
In Peace,
GinA Turcotte
32 Court Street, Apt. 1
Augusta
[phone number redacted]
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 59 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 60 of 98

105.

PageID #: 104

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; May 22, 2014 June 20,

2014 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
106.

On July 10, 2014 Greg Roy gave GinA a 30-day no-fault Notice to Quit.

107.

On July 10, 2014 Lindsey Liepman of WMTW-TV news reported live in front

of 32 Court Street regarding the demolition of the Perham Street properties which
were delayed by City of Augustas Historic Preservation Commission.
(See http://www.wmtw.com/news/augusta-home-demolitions-delayed/26890186#!bc7RPn)

108.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; July 11, 2014 - August

11, 2014 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
109.

On August 11, 2014, Greg Roy initiated fraudulent eviction proceedings for a

30-day notice to quit without any allegations of rent arrearages in AUGDC-SA-14453, Greg Roy v. Gina Turcotte.
110.

On August 20, 2014, GinA filed a complaint in GinA v. Greg Roy, KEN-CV-

14-176, for Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Inducement, Fraudulent Concealment,


Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress demanding a constitutional trial by jury in superior court.
111.

GinA filed KEN-CV-14-176 in August 2014 with Kennebec County Superior

Court because she had a reasonable expectation she would enjoy constitutional due
process and equal protection of the law in her pursuit of a final judgment in state
superior court.
112.

On August 20, 2014, Valerie Stanfill of Augusta District Court entered

judgment for Greg Roy in AUGDC-SA-14-453 under color of state law giving
possession of Unit 1, 32 Court Street, Augusta to Greg so he could sell 32 Court
Street to Maine Judicial Branch for construction of the Capital Judicial Center
parking lots.
113.

Robert Mullen dismissed all of GinAs appeals under AP-14-56 for a de novo

jury trial under color of state law so Greg Roy could immediately sell 32 Court
Street to the Maine Judicial Branch for the Capital Judicial Center parking lots.
114.

On August 20, 2014, at the time GinA filed KEN-CV-14-176 in Kennebec

County Superior Court, she did not fully understand the gravity of the conspiracy
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 60 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 61 of 98

PageID #: 105

between Defendants, their agents and Greg Roy regarding the sale and demolition
of 32 Court Street to build the Capital Judicial Center parking lot.
115.

Despite having a suspicion of an underlying conspiracy between Defendants

and Greg Roy, GinA has diligently, lawfully and properly pursued final judgment in
KEN-CV-14-176 in Maine state courts in her attempt to enjoy due process and equal
protection of the laws as guaranteed by the constitution.
116.

On August 20, 2014, GinA was forced to participate in a fraudulent eviction

hearing for AUGDC-SA-14-453 presided over by Valerie Stanfill. (See 1:16-cv00100-NT)


117.

[See GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 1:16-cv-00100-NT; August 23, 2014 -

September 15, 2014 for related facts and evidence from the companion case]
118.

On September 16, 2014, 1:18pm, GinA sent an email to Rob Overton,


I just filed another notice of appeal in District Court on questions of law
claiming all at will leases and two sections of the eviction law are
unconstitutional which effectively strip me of my rights to enjoy and possess
my property and which prevent me from asserting any legal defenses against
eviction.
Ive also asked for a stay on the writ of possession which has not yet
issued.
My notice of appeal was filed properly within the 30 days after
judgment (August 20) and before the writ of possession issued so I should be
allowed to appeal on questions of law, but that decision will be up to the same
judges who are going to park their cars in my bedroom when this building is
torn down for the courthouse parking lot so Im not going to hold my breath
expecting the judges to rule in my favor.
The judges, the City and the State want this block for their precious
courthouse parking lot and thats all there is to it and they will get it one
way or another
But Im not going down without making them earn their victory in
public view

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 61 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 62 of 98

PageID #: 106

By the way, I will be testifying at the public council meeting this week to
protest their proposed historic district which I suspect will not include the
Perham/Court Street block its going to be a very interesting public meeting

Ill let you know what District Court says about staying the writ of
possession on my appeal that I filed today
think good thoughts!
Gina
119.

On September 24, 2014, 8:42am, GinA sent an email to Rob Overton,


The sheriff tried to serve a writ of possession on my [sic] yesterday but I
didnt answer the door. I have to be careful not to answer the door for him
today because it will start the 48 hours tolling and I dont have a place to go
yet Are you coming over today?

120.

On September 24, 2014, 9:19am, email from Rob Overton to GinA,


Yes, I will be there later this morning. Around 11 to 1130 if that works
for you?

121.

Robert Overton immediately called Kennebec County Sheriffs Office to tell

them GinA was at home so they could serve her with the writ of possession.
122.

On September 24, 2014, Valerie Stanfill issued a Writ of Possession for Unit

1, 32 Court Street under color of state law so Greg Roy could immediately sell 32
Court Street to the Maine Judicial Branch for the Capital Judicial Center parking
lots.
123.

On September 24, 2014 around 11:15am, GinA was served with a writ of

possession while GinA was outside talking to Robert Overton.


124.

Defendants had reason to know issuance of the September 24th Writ of

Possession would cause GinA to suffer homelessness, physical and financial


damages because GinA clearly told them so.
125.

Defendants removed GinA from 32 Court Street on September 26, 2014 under

color of state law by wrongful enforcement of an invalid and illegal writ of


possession.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 62 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 63 of 98

126.

PageID #: 107

On September 26, 2014, GinA moved out of 32 Court Street but she was not

able to remove all of her possessions and was forced to leave some of her possessions
at the property.
127.

On October 29, 2014, Greg Roy transferred legal title of 32 Court Street to

Maine Governmental Facilities Authority which is recorded in Kennebec County


Registry of Deeds, Book 11836 Page 116.
128.

Leigh Saufley and Joseph Jabar dismissed GinAs appeals under KEN-14-410

under color of state law because the wrongful issuance of the writ of possession
nullified the necessity for GinAs law court appeal.
129.

GinA was homeless from September 26 until November 11, 2014.

130.

While GinA was homeless, she was threatened with false arrest by City of

Augusta Police, with gun violence and bodily injury by Mike Vermette of Winslow,
and she lost over $1000 cash to theft by strangers who rented her a place to sleep.
131.

Defendants acted in non-judicial capacities during AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-

14-56, KEN-14-410 or KEN-CV-14-176 during the performance of all pertinent


actions leading up to and providing the opportunity for their employer to record
legal title to 32 Court Street on October 29, 2014.
132.

Defendants failed to issue any judgments under color of state law in GinAs

favor in AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14-410 or KEN-CV-14-176 because


those favorable judgments would have absolutely delayed the grand opening of
Capital Judicial Center and its parking lot in March 2015.
133.

Defendants dismissed GinAs appeals under color of state law in AUGDC-SA-

14-453, AP-14-56 and KEN-14-410 so their employer State of Maine Judicial Branch
could quickly benefit from the outcome of their orders.
134.

Defendants obtained nonpublic information about the ultimate death of 32

Court Street from non-judicial proceedings during their secret activities with Greg
Roy, Administrative Office of the Courts Maine Judicial Branch, City of Augusta,
Maine Governmental Facilities Authority, and private and public agents who
worked in conjunction with the Capital Judicial Center and parking lot construction
project.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 63 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 64 of 98

135.

PageID #: 108

Defendants engaged in non-judicial actions disguised as judicial authority

under color of state law to forcibly evict GinA from 32 Court Street so the Maine
Judicial Branch could use the property for public business.
136.

Defendants failed to transfer AUGDC-SA-14-453 and KEN-CV-14-176 sua

sponte to federal court for lack of jurisdiction because they knew, or had reason to
know, that a constitutional trial and proper federal proceeding would effectively
delay the grand opening of the Capital Judicial Center.
137.

Defendants failed to transfer AUGDC-SA-14-453 and KEN-CV-14-176 sua

sponte to federal district court because Defendants knew, or had reason to know,
those federal proceedings would have cost the Maine Judicial Branch and its agents
significant time, resources and money while waiting for GinA to exercise her
constitutionally secured federal rights to enjoy due process and a trial by jury in all
causes of action which affect GinAs federal property and civil rights, inter alia.
138.

Defendants failed to recuse themselves under color of state law despite

publicly targeting 32 Court Street for construction of a Capital Judicial Center.


139.

Defendants used extrajudicial information about 32 Court Street in AUGDC-

SA-14-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14-410 and KEN-CV-14-176 which they acquired


through their paid non-judicial activities.
140.

Valerie Stanfill denied having any knowledge about a sign posted on the

Augusta District Court clerks office wall on August 20, 2014 which said, NEW
COURTHOUSE, JANUARY 2015.
141.

Defendants used extrajudicial information about 32 Court Street during

adjudication under color of state law of AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14-410


and KEN-CV-14-176 which they received as early as 2009.
142.

Defendants presided over AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56 and KEN-14-410

under color of state law despite knowing they were absent all jurisdiction because
Defendants knowingly used knowledge they obtained from non-judicial activities
that assisted the Maine Judicial Branch to directly and ultimately benefit from
those non-judicial acts to give Greg Roy legal possession of 32 Court Street so Greg

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 64 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 65 of 98

PageID #: 109

could immediately sell the land to State of Maine Judicial Branch for the purposes
stated herein.
143.

Defendants presided over AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56 and KEN-14-410

under color of state law by relying on nonpublic information about 32 Court Street
they acquired from secret non-judicial events in making their final judgments for the
herein-referenced cases for the benefit of their employer.
144.

Defendants presided over AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56 and KEN-14-410

under color of state law because they knew their paid duty to the State of Maine
Judicial Branch required their unyielding commitment to on-budget construction
and timely March 2015 grand opening of the Capital Judicial Center and parking
lot.
145.

Defendants presided over AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56 and KEN-14-410

under color of state law despite engaging in paid duties for their Maine Judicial
Branch employer to construct the Capital Judicial Center and its parking lots which
fatally biased their ability to be fair and impartial involving GinAs property, due
process rights and legal and financial interests at 32 Court Street.
146.

Defendants failed to take the only judicial action available to them in

AUGDC-SA-14-453 AP-14-56 and KEN-14-410 by failing to transfer the cases sua


sponte to United States District Court for the District of Maine pursuant to 28 USC
144, 455 and 1631.
147.

Defendants committed gross judicial prejudice against GinA by repeatedly

telling GinA under color of state law that she is required to follow all rules of
procedure and will not be given any special treatment by the court because she is an
unrepresented litigant but Defendants commit the opposite prejudice by ordering
Greg Roys and his attorneys laughable legal papers despite those pleadings clearly
having critical legal deficiencies such as missing certificates of service, law
memoranda, affidavits, and answers.
148.

On July 10, 2015 at 6:55am GinA commented on a July 9, 2015 KJ article

titled With Augusta apartment building gone, Kennebec courthouse gains public
parking lot,
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 65 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 66 of 98

PageID #: 110

such a slap in my face ... but i promise i'm not done yet ... [sic]
149.

On July 10, 2015 at 1:58pm Michael St.Andrews commented on the same KJ

article above,
So let me get this straight, we razed 3 apartment buildings for a new
parking lot (say goodbye to developed property tax income), when the old Ymca
property was already there and available. Where was the thinking on
this????? [sic] (See https://www.centralmaine.com/2015/07/09/withaugusta-apartment-building-gone-kennebec-courthouse-gains-public-parkinglot/comments/ )
150.

Michaela Murphy showed Matthew Morgan favorable treatment under color

of state law by accepting his last-minute appearance in KEN-CV-14-176 on August


7, 2015 despite Greg Roy knowingly and intentionally proceeding without legal
counsel until Greg Roy was facing a default judgment on August 18, 2015.
151.

Michaela Murphys wrongful actions under color of state law allowed

Matthew Morgan to enter his legal appearance in KEN-CV-14-176.


152.

Michaela Murphys wrongful favoritism toward Matthew Morgan under color

of state law allowed him to file vexatious and lawless motions which have further
delayed and exacerbated proceedings for KEN-CV-14-176.
153.

Michaela Murphy granted Matthew Morgans inept motions under color of

state law in KEN-CV-14-176 despite his motions lacking any law memoranda,
affidavits or supporting references to the record.
154.

Defendants refuse to issue favorable judgments under color of state law on

GinAs many precise motions.


155.

Michaela Murphy refused to issue any orders under color of state law against

Greg Roy in KEN-CV-14-176 from January 2015 through January 18, 2016 without
expressing any statutory or procedural bases at all.
156.

Michaela Murphy refused to schedule hearings in KEN-CV-14-176 under

color of state law from August 2014 through August 2015 despite GinAs constant
demands for hearings, oral arguments and court action.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 66 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 67 of 98

157.

PageID #: 111

Defendants never reject GinAs meticulous pleadings, except affidavits which

lack a notary seal in violation of 28 USC 1746.


158.

In February 2015 Micheala Murphy rejected GinAs Unnotarized Affidavits

signed Pursuant to 28 USC 1746 under color of state law which was filed
expressly due to GinAs disability which prevents GinA from having easy access to a
notary public due to her physical isolation and lack of transportation.
159.

On November 23, 2015, Defendants Michaela Murphy, Valerie Stanfill and

their clerical agents conspired to interfere with WATDC-SA-15-271 and KEN-CV14-176, under color of state law by intentionally and maliciously scheduling two
lengthy hearings only three hours apart on December 9, 2015 which were being
held in different courts in different towns at least 20 miles apart.
160.

On December 9, 2015, between 8:00 10:00AM, Valerie Stanfill and Michaela

Murphy conspired to prevent GinA from personally appearing or from being heard
at 11:30am on December 9th in Kennebec County Superior Court at a previously
scheduled motion hearing for KEN-CV-14-176 by forcing GinA to participate in a
fraudulent eviction bench trial for WATDC-SA-15-271.
161.

On December 9, 2015 at 8:30AM in WATDC-SA-15-271, David Brennan v.

Gina Turcotte, Valerie Stanfill entered a wrongful judgment of eviction under color
of state law against GinA for possession of 2528 West River Road, Sidney despite
receiving sworn testimony from David Brennan that he and GinA did not have a
rental contract at any time.
162.

Valerie Stanfill ordered an eviction judgment in WATDC-SA-15-271 under

color of state law for David Brennan on December 9th despite David admitting
during his sworn testimony that GinA did not agree to rent the property at 2528
West River Road, Sidney at any time or for any price.
163.

Valerie Stanfill ordered an eviction judgment in WATDC-SA-15-271 under

color of state law for David Brennan despite David Brennan admitting during his
sworn testimony that GinA and her housemate (Estate of) Wayne Richard Leach
took possession of 2528 West River Road, Sidney on November 11, 2014 for the sole

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 67 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 68 of 98

PageID #: 112

purpose of buying it. (See KEN-CV-15-58, KEN-CV-15-59, KEN-RE-15-68 and KEN2015-0534 for supporting evidence)
164.

Valerie Stanfill refused under color of state law to give GinA proper time to

proffer evidence and witnesses for the bench trial in WATDC-SA-15-271 in support
of GinAs claim to title of 2528 West River Road Sidney.
165.

Valerie Stanfill, Michaela Murphy and Robert Mullen refuse under color of

state law to take any action in WATDC-SA-15-271 on GinAs Notice of Appeal for a
jury trial de novo in superior court and GinAs Motion for Stay of Writ of Possession
both of which GinA filed on December 11, 2015.
166.

Michaela Murphy, Robert Mullen and Valerie Stanfill have conspired under

color of state law to prohibit GinA from having a favorable final judgment in KENCV-14-176, WATDC-SA-15-271 and KEN-CV-15-58.
167.

Michaela Murphys and Valerie Stanfills wrongful conspiracy under color of

state law prevented GinA from exercising her federal rights under the 1st
Amendment to assemble with some of Maines best lawyers during the presentation
of their public oral arguments on December 9, 2015 at 11:30AM.
168.

Michaela Murphys and Valerie Stanfills wrongful conspiracy under color of

state law on December 9th allowed Greg Roys attorney to give ex parte oral
arguments in KEN-CV-14-176 opposing all of GinAs pending motions.
169.

On December 9, between 12:00 4:00PM in KEN-CV-14-176, Michaela

Murphy issued a Procedural Order under color of state law denying all future oral
arguments from GinA before the court entered final judgment.
170.

Michaela Murphy denied GinAs demand to receive oral arguments in KEN-

CV-14-176 under color of state law.


171.

Michaela Murphy violated GinAs right to appear in court at all times in

KEN-CV-14-176 since August 20, 2014 under color of state law.


172.

Michaela Murphy entered orders under color of state law in KEN-CV-14-176

based on ex parte communiqu.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 68 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 69 of 98

173.

PageID #: 113

Michaela Murphy denied GinAs Motion to Docket Unnotarized Affidavits

under color of state law on January 18, 2016 claiming GinAs motion was moot as a
result of other orders of that day.
174.

Michaela Murphy granted Greg Roys inept motions in KEN-CV-14-176 under

color of state law on January 18 which were only able to be filed by his attorney
because Michaela Murphy hindered all proceedings ab initio which directly gave
Greg Roy the opportunity to hire an attorney in August 2015.
175.

On January 26, 2016, GinA filed a lawsuit in AUGSC-CV-2016-16 against

AVNAGRID (Central Maine Power Co.) for GinAs damaged computers and other
injuries she sustained on November 5 and thereafter.
176.

On January 26, 2016, GinA filed an application to proceed without fees under

Rule 91.
177.

Defendants refused to take action on GinAs Rule 91 application in AUGSC-

CV-16-16.
178.

On March 28, 2016, GinA sent a letter to Michele Lumbert, Clerk of

Kennebec County Superior Court in KEN-CV-15-58 stating in part,


I shockingly received your improper Notice of Incomplete Filing
M.R.Civ.P. 5(f) which states, Please include $200 filing fee for Affidavit and
Request for Default Judgment, despite this record showing an April 3, 2015
COURT ORDER pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 91 GRANTING my application to
proceed without payment of filing fees and waiving the full filing fee,
mediation fee, and requiring me to pay only $50 toward the jury fee.
Judge Robert Mullen completed a mandatory preliminary review of
my entire complaint pursuant to MRCivP 91 to verify my action is not
frivolous and has been brought in good faith resulting in his order
granting my application to proceed in forma pauperis fully waiving all
court fees and costs because I affirmed I am without sufficient funds to pay
certain fees.
As you should already know, MRCivP 91(d) requires, An application
for waiver of a motion filing fee shall be filed with the motion unless an
application for waiver of payment of fees or costs has previously been
granted to the moving party. The motion shall thereupon be accepted for
filing and entered upon the docket, so your rejection of my Affidavit and
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 69 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 70 of 98

PageID #: 114

Request for Default Judgment because of a missing filing fee clearly violates
MRCivP Rule 91 and Judge Robert Mullens Order.
I truly hope this is an innocent mistake.
179.

On March 28, 2016, GinA sent a letter to Michele Lumbert, Clerk of

Kennebec County Superior Court in KEN-RE-15-68 stating in part,


On November 25, 2015, Judge Robert Mullen completed a mandatory
preliminary review of my entire complaint pursuant to MRCivP 91 to
verify my action is not frivolous and has been brought in good faith
resulting in his ORDER granting my application to proceed in forma
pauperis fully waiving all court fees and costs because I am without
sufficient funds to pay certain fees.
As you should already know, MRCivP 91(d) requires, An application
for waiver of a motion filing fee shall be filed with the motion unless an
application for waiver of payment of fees or costs has previously been
granted to the moving party. The motion shall thereupon be accepted for
filing and entered upon the docket, so your rejection of my Affidavit and
Request for Default Judgment because of a missing filing fee clearly violates
MRCivP Rule 91 and Judge Robert Mullens Order.
I hope this is an innocent mistake.
This record clearly shows David Brennan has completely failed to
defend this action or appear in any way after being properly served with
an original complaint and copy of the summons at 8:30am on December 9,
2015 which was witnessed by court staff, Tavis Hasenfus, and other witnesses
and he has failed in all ways to answer, respond or object to the
completion of service of process.
I filed the original completed summons with this court immediately
thereafter but David Brennan has not filed his answer nor responded in any
way to my complaint, and both Tavis Hasenfus and Rob Hoy have denied any
legal duty to defend this case, nor has any other attorney entered any
appearance into this record.
On March 22, 2016, despite the record showing David Brennans
absolute default and a COURT ORDER dated November 25, 2015
GRANTING my application to proceed without payment of all filing and
other court fees pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 91, you unlawfully rejected my
Affidavit and Request for Default Judgment in violation of MRCivP 91(d)
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 70 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 71 of 98

PageID #: 115

and in contempt of Judge Robert Mullens November 25th Court


ORDER by sending me a Notice of Incomplete Filing M.R.Civ.P. 5(f) which
states, Please include $200 filing fee for Affidavit and Request for Default
Judgment.
There is no question David Brennan failed to personally appear or
defend this action in any way, and because no attorney has entered
appearance into this record, you MUST enter a default under MRCivP 55 for
all claims against David Brennan without my paying any filing fees.
180.

On March 30, 2016, Justice Donald Alexander from the Supreme Court

denied GinAs application to proceed without payment of fees under Rule 91


claiming GinAs complaint against AVANGRID was frivolous and not brought in
good faith.
181.

On April 12, 2016, Kennebec County Superior Court issued Notice of Hearing

scheduled for April 28, 2016 at 10am for:


a. AUGSC-CV-2016-16 for Motion for Sanctions (against GinA)
182.

On April 14, 2016, Kennebec County Superior Court issued Notices of

Hearing scheduled for April 28, 2016 at 10:30am, 11am, and 11:30am, respectively,
for the following cases:
a. AUGSC-CV-15-58 (Affidavit and Request for Default)
b. AP-16-04 (appeal from WATDC-SA-15-271) (hearing for what??)
c. AUGSC-CV-2014-176 (Motion to Strike)
IX.
1.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendants have repeatedly and chronically refused to exercise their proper

jurisdiction in GinAs state court cases when they had jurisdiction.


2.

Defendants have repeatedly acted with a complete absence of all jurisdiction

in AUGDC-SA-14-453 and its related cases.


3.

Defendants clearly have deeply rooted negative prejudices against GinA

because she is: (1) disabled, (2) low income, (3) has a history of being homeless, ajd
(4) exercises her right to speak and to be heard, plus other discriminatory reasons.
4.

Defendants used nonpublic information during adjudications under color of

state law for AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14-410 or KEN-CV-14-176 which


1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 71 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 72 of 98

PageID #: 116

they obtained through non-judicial acts for Maine Judicial Branch about
procurement and demolition of 32 Court Street to build a courthouse parking lot.
5.

Defendants do not have 11th Amendment judicial immunity for non-judicial

actions to procure real estate for court parking, relocation of judicial offices, or for
planning, design, construction or financial management activities for any
administrative court projects for extra public parking.
6.

Defendants refuse under color of state law to properly apply statutes, laws

and court rules to GinAs cases.


7.

Defendants actions prohibit GinA from having a legal remedy in the Maine

court system.
8.

Defendants wrongful actions under color of state law directly caused GinAs

injuries as stated herein and were set into motion by Defendants and their
employer State of Maine Judicial Branch.
9.

Defendants have transmuted every lawsuit that GinA is a party to in state

court from a legal dispute between GinA and the opposing party into a
constitutional clash between GinA and Defendants.
10.

Defendants have delayed, hindered, interfered with and prohibited GinAs

federal rights under color of state law in violation of the 1st, 7th and 14th
Amendments to have access to the courts, to be treated fairly, to enjoy due process
and equal protection of the laws, to speak, to be heard, to present her testimonial
witness and material evidence to a jury of her peers, to receive prompt orders on
pleadings, and to redress her legal grievances in a state court of constitutional law.
11.

Defendants have intimidated, harassed and coerced GinA under color of state

law for exercising her federal rights under the 1st, 7th and 14th Amendments to
redress her legal grievances.
12.

Defendants denied GinAs rights to due process, to speak, to be heard, inter

alia under color of state law.


13.

Defendants wrongful actions under color of state law allowed 32 Court Street

to be razed and paved by March 1, 2015.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 72 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 73 of 98

14.

PageID #: 117

Defendants wrongful actions under color of state law allowed the Capital

Judicial Center to open on schedule at (32) 1 Court Street, Augusta on March 2,


2015 at a $66M cost to Maine taxpayers.
15.

Defendants wrongful actions under color of state law have permanently

barred GinA from demanding equitable relief in multiple causes of action against
Greg Roy for their rental contract at Unit 1, 32 Court Street, Augusta.
16.

Today, GinA lives alone at 2528 West River Road, Sidney without a paying

job, a car or a drivers license with support from a community caseworker and
GinAs immediate neighbors while trying to exercise her federal fair housing rights
to have a safe and affordable low income dwelling which Congress promised to
protect against all unlawful discrimination, intimidation, coercion, harassment or
interference in 42 USC 3601 and 3617.
17.

The evidence in this complaint and its companion complaint 1:16-cv-00100-

NT show Defendants and their co-conspirators thinking was not about serving low
income disabled homeless tenants or about fulfilling their legal dut y as state judges who
all

have a legal duty under 42 USC 3601 inter alia.


The evidence proves Defendants individual and joint thinking was only

about creating more court business at low income disabled homeless Maine
taxpayers expense and to bolster their own personal, professional, financial and
political positions as individuals, public servants and licensed real estate brokers.
Mainers are now required to pay expenses for the concrete monstrosity at 1
(32) Court Street, Augusta while trying to recover from the permanent destruction
of four historic residential buildings which have injured and will continue to injure
every low income disabled homeless tenant in Maine at least by not having access to
four safe habitable low income dwellings on Perham and 32 Court Streets.
Instead, Mainers now have to pay a $60M bond for a new courthouse which
will not generate any new jobs at the direct expense of low income disabled people.
Defendants did not individually partake in each and every event in this
complaint but they each individually conspired with at least one or many other
Defendants for the purpose of depriving GinA of her fair housing rights because she
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 73 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 74 of 98

PageID #: 118

is a disabled, low income woman with a history of being homeless and who legally
defends herself and helps other tenants learn how to legally defend themselves.
GinAs 415 days of forced homelessness from March 1, 2012 until November
11, 2014 were due to Defendants' malicious interference with GinAs housing rights.
When Greg Roy filed the eviction case in state district court, the state district
court should have transferred the eviction case sua sponte to a federal district court.
Aside from Greg Roys illegal eviction, on behalf of City of Augusta et al, the
federal district court would have been required to conduct a fact finding on the
legality of GinAs eviction and City of Augusta and Maine Judicial Branch using
threat of eminent domain to force a sale of occupied low income homes on Perham
and 32 Court Street for construction of a new courthouse and its parking lots
without replacing any lost dwelling units.
GinA holds Defendants individually responsible for their distinct actions as
well as jointly responsible for aiding and abetting, or neglecting to prevent any or
all other Defendants from intimidating, coercing, harassing, threatening, arresting,
assaulting and imprisoning GinA from February 10, 2011 until September 26, 2014.
Defendants actions were intended to deprive GinA and which in fact deprived
GinA of her fair housing rights as a disabled low income woman who has a history
of homelessness and speaking publicly against legal injustices about housing rights.
Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12132
Medical Suspension under 29-A MRSA 2458(2)(D), January 5, 2010
a.

The protections afforded under Title II of the ADA are of meaningful

access to government benefits and programs requiring public entities to take


reasonable steps to ensure people with disabilities are able to participate in
and enjoy public proceedings, government services and activities.
b.

Proving a prima facie case under Title II of the ADA means GinA must

establish that she is: (1) a qualified individual with a disability; (2) she was
excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entitys
services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against; and

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 74 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 75 of 98

PageID #: 119

(3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of her


disability.
c.

The courts have said public entities certainly have the right to consider

whether a person with a disability poses a direct threat to the health and
safety of others. However, the Department of Justice regulations insist that
any such direct threat finding must be based on reasonable medical judgment
relying on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective
evidence, not on medical presumptions made in 2005 for actions taken in
2010.
d.

GinA safely traveled on Maine and federal roads starting in 1988 in

her own automobile. GinA received violation free credits for that safe
behavior for years 2008, 2009 and 2010 so it was reasonable to presume GinA
did not pose a threat to the public nor was she in any way incompetent to
drive a motor vehicle (as evidenced by violation free credits) simply because
of some medication she was known to have taken in 2005 which was the sole
basis of BMVs license suspension on January 5, 2010.
e.

BMVs January 5, 2010 medical suspension directly caused William

Stokes to officially defend the medical suspension and its criminal results in
his official capacity as Deputy Criminal AG which set a course of legal events
into motion which directly deprived GinA of her fair housing rights and her
rights under the ADA as a disabled, low income homeless woman when she
tried to access government and court services to find and maintain a safe
affordable low income home.
f.

Title II ADA regulations prohibit a public entity from administering a

licensing program in a manner subjecting qualified individuals with


disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability. In addition to citing to
the Code of Federal Regulations outlining this principle, courts refer to
Department of Justices Title II technical assistance manual which prohibits
a public entity from establishing any requirements for programs or activities

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 75 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 76 of 98

PageID #: 120

of licensees resulting in the discrimination against those qualified individuals


with disabilities.
g.

Although the ADA contains a provision that discrimination occurring

as a result of licensing requirements is not discrimination under the ADA,


any action which interferes with GinAs fair housing rights, such as revoking
the drivers license which took away GinAs ability to get a job to pay for
housing, preventing her from traveling to and from her housing, going to the
grocery store, visiting family, accessing government and court services, and
many similar examples, which are all clear violations of the FHA and FHAA
because a medical suspension of the drivers license was a direct result of
GinAs known disability which was not known to pose any type of danger or
public threat and which directly and significantly interfered with and
prohibited GinA from exercising her fair housing rights under the FHAA.
h.

There are two defenses the Defendants may use if they try to overcome

any sovereign immunity defense. First, under United States v. Georgia 546
U.S. 151 (2006), sovereign immunity is waived where the facts rise to the
level of a constitutional violation. Second, if the facts do not rise to the level
of a constitutional violation, the courts must then adhere to the principles
laid out in Tennessee v. Lane 541 U.S. 509 (2004) which gets into the issue of
any equal protection classes which GinA may fall into and whether BMVs
licensing scheme is a proportional response to the alleged harm BMV claims
they were attempting to redress by the medical suspension for
incompetence.
i.

Maine BMV, City of Augusta, City of Augusta Police Department, City

of Augusta All_Police Officers, and William Stokes as Deputy Criminal AG


conspired to criminally prosecute GinA for a medical suspension of drivers
license #1491178 which was solely based on her disability.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 76 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 77 of 98

PageID #: 121

Congressional Fair Housing Policy, 42 USC 3601


It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with
any person in the exercise or enjoyment ofany right granted or protected by
section 3604 of this title.
Disparate Impact
Augusta Maines Low Income Housing Crisis of 2015
Maine Judicial Branch, in conspiracy with Leigh Saufley, Joseph Jabar,
Donald Alexander, Donald Marden, Robert Mullen, Michaela Murphy, Valerie
Stanfill, City of Augusta, Augusta Housing Authority, Augusta Housing Service
Corporation, William Stokes, Matthew Pouliot, William Bridgeo, Matthew Pouliot,
their official public agents, commissions and bureaus have conspired to build the
Capital Judicial Center which resulted in City of Augusta:
(A)

Failed to pass proper local ordinances to fix unfit low income housing,

(B)

Failed to enforce existing local ordinances to fix unfit low income

housing,
(C)

Failed to condemn unfit low income housing,

(D)

Failed to repair unfit low income rental buildings,

(E)

Refused to spend any money to build new or repair existing unfit low

income housing,
(F)

Discriminated in favor of elderly housing by renovating three public

buildings for elderly housing projects,


(G)

Destroyed four low income buildings for court business,

(H)

Changed zoning ordinances to allow expansion of a courthouse in a low

income residential neighborhood,


(I)

Created Augusta Housing Service Corporation and other non-profit and

for-profit corporations without the peoples public vote and approval,


(J)

Created non-profit and for-profit corporations for the sole purpose of

receiving federal funding to create elderly housing projects,

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 77 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 78 of 98

(K)

PageID #: 122

Allowed Augusta Housing Service Corporation to neglect its public duty

under its charter and IRS 501(c)(3) exemption to build and repair low income
housing units while it has $300,000 cash assets,
(L)

Refused to hold closed public meetings for tenants,

(M)

Refused to file legal actions against law-breaking landlords on behalf of

and in protection of tenants,


(N)

Refused to appear on behalf of tenants without a court-issued subpoena

for all eviction actions,


(O)

Caused or allowed GinA and other low income disabled tenants to

become homeless at least 3 or more times,


(P)

This list is not exclusive of many different types of disparate impact

Defendants have inflicted upon the low income disabled and homeless classes
of people in Maine.
Eminent Domain prohibited
The State MUST PROVE this eminent domain taking IS NOT for
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES nor Primarily for the enhancement of tax revenue
under 1 MRSA 816(1)(B) which is the very nature of ALL COURT BUSINESS!!
(See May 20,2014 email between GinA and Matthew Pouliot) and
(See Maine Judicial Branch FY10-FY15 Annual Reports announcing all
court money is deposited into the State of Maine General Fund making up 2% of
total taxpayer general funds)
Destruction of Perham and 32 Court Streets residences
The only purpose Defendants had to destroy Perham and 32 Court
Street low income homes was to build the Capital Judicial Center and its
parking lots; otherwise, GinA would likely still be living in Unit 1 at 32 Court
Street and Perham Street homeowners would still be alive and living in their
homes.12

Interesting side note: Jim Osier passed away on March 23, 2015 after being forced out of his
Perham Street home in late 2014. (See September 27, 2013, 10:28am email between Jim Osier and
1

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 78 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 79 of 98

PageID #: 123

Capital Judicial Center, 1 Court Street, Augusta, 2009 2015

The old YMCA lot on the corner of Winthrop and State Streets is vacant
and cleared and is double the total size of the entire Perham Street and 32
Court Street block.

At least GinA and Michael St. Andrews made public suggestions to the
City of Augusta for more court parking at the old YMCA vacant lot which
would not have displaced any homeowners or businesses and would have
allowed more residents to use the public parking garage or parking lot
during evenings, weekends and holidays.

Another viable option was to build onto the existing parking garage at the
bottom of Winthrop Street which is not utilized at any time to its fullest
capacity during the workweek and which could provide safe undercover
parking spots for court business and which could have been connected to
the courthouse by an underground tunnel or above-ground catwalk which
already exist in government building structures and state-owned
properties.

Disparate Treatment
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 USC 3604(f)
GinA has provided this court with overwhelming public evidence in her
Factual Background and companion case 1:16-cv-00100-NT which certainly shows
all individual Defendants in this case are males and the corporations are overseen
by males who discriminated against GinA at least for one or many reasons. Without
deciphering each individual event in its micro context to determine if GinA was
being discriminated against because she was a female, disabled, low income or
homeless, it is undeniable that GinA was subjected to repeated events of illegal
discrimination which all began as a result of GinA reporting her disability to BMV
in 2005 and all actions all Defendants have taken in defense of that initial

Keith Luke) (See http://obituaries.centralmaine.com/obituaries/mainetodaycentralmaine/obituary.aspx?n=james-w-osier&pid=174486650


2 City of Augustas online assessment database no longer shows Perham Street in the street index.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 79 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 80 of 98

PageID #: 124

discrimination, and other events of discrimination which occurred in defense of


themselves and their conspiracy to cover it all up.
239 Cony Street, Unit 2
Traffic Violation, Ticket #2576761, February 10, 2011
In or around 2006 the City of Augusta, William Bridgeo and their agents
approved the installation of a No Left Turn sign at the corner of Townsend Road
and Marketplace Drive to control left-turning traffic during the expansion of the
Marketplace at Augusta shopping center which began in 2005.
Until the City of Augusta installed that traffic control device, everyone was
allowed to make a left turn onto Townsend Road from Marketplace Drive.
Augusta Ofc. Eric DosSantos was ascending the hill on Townsend Road from
Civic Center Drive and alleged to have seen GinA make a left turn onto Townsend
Road from Marketplace Drive even though Ofc. Eric DosSantos has never provided
any dashcam video to prove his allegations.
GinA told Ofc. Eric DosSantos he had no probable cause or suspicion of any
kind of criminal conduct which would allow him to stop GinAs car but Ofc. Eric
DosSantos ignored his oath to the constitution and gave GinA a violation summons
#2576761 for failure to obey traffic control device and sent GinA on her way.
Evidence of disparate treatment against GinA by Leigh Saufley et al in
conspiracy with City of Augusta et al abundantly exists in the companion case and
other lower state court cases as referenced in 1:16-cv-00100-NT.
Supporting evidence in reference to all criminal prosecutions and legal
actions resulting from City of Augusta et als actions exist in the companion case
and other lower state court cases as referenced in 1:16-cv-00100-NT.
AUGDC-CR-2011-512 and AUGDC-CR-2011-513
Since 2011 Defendants and GinA have been engaged in a very combative
legal skirmish resulting from GinA skillfully defending herself from bogus malicious
criminal charges starting with AUGSC-CR-2011-512 and AUGSC-CR-2011-513,
evolving into six subsequent counts in AUGSC-CR-2012-286 and AUGSC-CR-2012-

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 80 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 81 of 98

PageID #: 125

667 which GinA got dismissed in December 2013, with the final seventh count being
dismissed on December 18, 2014 by Michaela Murphy.
Defendants found in favor of GinAs opposing parties for AP-13-17 and KEN13-514 resulting from the courts and the opposing parties multiple gross violations
of rules of procedure.
In particular, Defendants considered a benign administrative medical event
which was directly related to her known disability as a prior criminal offense to
provide a legal basis to file bogus criminal charges in AUGSC-CR-2011-512 and
AUGSC-CR-2011-513 which set this entire legal skirmish into motion.
During criminal proceedings for AUGSC-CR-2012-286 and AUGSC-CR-2012667 which resulted from a coerced nolo contendre plea in AUGSC-CR-2011512/513, Michaela Murphy and her agents denied GinAs multiple demands for
exculpatory evidence and refused to hear or grant any of GinAs multiple motions to
dismiss while forcing GinA to prepare for an unconstitutional trial by jury even
though GinA was not allowed to have most of the exculpatory evidence or witnesses
she demanded to present in her defense.
In December 2013 Michaela Murphy conspired with the Assistant District
Attorney in AUGSC-CR-2012-286 to coerce GinA to agree to a fraudulent deferred
disposition contract by knowingly suppressing exculpatory evidence of the arresting
officers death who filed four of the seven charges.
Michaela Murphy and Leigh Saufley conspired under color of state laws to
deprive GinA of a full dismissal of all criminal charges for AUGSC-CR-2012-286 or
AUGSC-CR-2012-667 resulting directly from Leigh Saufley and Micheala Murphy
violating rules of civil procedure, evidence and appellate procedure under color of
state laws to enforce an invalid deferred disposition contract which Michaela
Murphy knowingly coerced GinA into signing in December 2013 as a result of
Michaela Murphy ignoring GinAs pending appeal at the time Michaela Murphy
coerced GinAs deferred disposition.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 81 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 82 of 98

PageID #: 126

Leigh Saufley officially ruled that Michaela Murphy was absent all
jurisdiction when Michaela Murphy accepted GinAs deferred disposition in
December 2013 because GinA had an appeal pending.
Leigh Saufley suspended civil and appellate rules of procedure for the
purpose of legalizing Michaela Murphys corrupt behavior at the time Michaela
Murphy knowingly coerced GinA to sign the fraudulent deferred disposition
contract while GinAs appeal was pending before Leigh Saufley.
On March 7, 2011 GinA had just left her job at Dunkin Donuts in WalMart
at Marketplace Shopping Center traveling in her legally registered and insured
automobile without engaging in any behaviors which would give any police officer
probable cause to make a traffic stop on GinAs private car.
Despite GinAs lawful behavior, and despite Ofc. Eric DosSantos knowledge
that license #1491178 was suspended by BMV Medical Unit for medical reasons and
#1491178 driver record showed violation free credits for 2008 and 2009, Eric
DosSantos again violated his oath to the constitution and effected an illegal traffic
stop on GinAs car without any probable cause or suspicion of any kind of criminal
conduct.
Eric DosSantos illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory actions were all
based on his foreknowledge that GinA had a disability for which BMV Medical Unit
had suspended license #1491178 for medical reasons.
Despite Eric DosSantos knowledge of the benign medical suspension, he
issued uniform summonses for two counts of operating after suspension and other
civil violations which had the effect of directly discriminating against GinA as a
direct result of her disability and directly because GinA had properly reported her
disability and its medications to BMV Medical Unit in 2005 under MVRules 29-250
Ch. 3 which rule is unconstitutional on its face, biased against people with
disabilities, a direct violation of Title II of the ADA, and an indirect violation of the
FHA and FHAA because Mainers must be able to travel independently by car in
order to obtain and maintain safe and affordable housing because there is not

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 82 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 83 of 98

PageID #: 127

enough state-sponsored or private funded commuter services to serve Mainers who


live in isolated communities on the outskirts of major areas.
Additionally, State of Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap exacerbated
the problem by rejecting GinAs fully-endorsed proposal in 2007 to offer public
information about the state-sponsored and state-funded GoMaine Commuter
Connections to all licensed drivers so they would have a way to transport
themselves if they ever found themselves in a situation similar to GinAs or similar
situations of the customers GinA and her co-workers served in the OUI Unit.
AUGSC-CR-2012-286
On February 16, 2012, GinA was forcibly physically removed from her car
and arrested by City of Augusta Police Department Sgt. Christopher Shaw, Augusta
Police Ofc. Christopher Guay and Augusta Police Ofc. Scott Harris for operating
after suspension and other criminal and civil charges no more than one month after
GinAs private home was invaded by Augusta Police Ofc. Peter Cloutier on January
18, 2012 which GinA recorded and released to the public and had a meeting with
Sgt. Christopher Shaw about no more than two weeks prior to the February 16th
arrest.
GinA informed City of Augusta Police et al that she considered the February
16th traffic stop to be retaliation for GinA recording Ofc. Peter Cloutiers illegal
invasion of GinAs private home and it was Augusta Police Departments and
Augusta All_Police Officers way of intimidating GinA for exercising her rights to
have safe, affordable and peaceful housing.
AUGSC-CV-2013-226, KEN-14-52
Defendants biases also resulted from GinAs tenacious lawful attempt to
recover her stolen service animal from Humane Society Waterville Area in AUGSCCV-2013-226 and KEN-14-52, inter alia.
Particularly in AUGSC-CV-2013-226 and KEN-14-52, Michaela Murphy,
Leigh Saufley, and Joseph Jabar refused to properly apply the legal standard of
review for MRCivP 12(b)(6) motions by refusing to accept all facts plead in GinAs
complaint as true but accepting Humane Society Waterville Areas lawless defenses
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 83 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 84 of 98

PageID #: 128

and nonetheless finding in favor of the Humane Society Waterville Area despite
GinA properly filing and defending her complaint.
Defendants set legal precedent with AUGSC-CV-2013-226 and KEN-14-52 by
declaring Humane Society Waterville Area is not a public agency subject to the
Maine FOAA in conflict with recent precedents from other state and federal courts
adjudicating the same legal issues in favor of the FOAA.
During judicial proceedings for cases referenced above, GinA experienced a
myriad of times when the District Attorney or the opposing parties attorneys
obviously enjoyed benefits of judicial biases and favorable treatment by Defendants
and others which was condoned by their judicial colleagues principally because
GinA is a disabled unrepresented litigant who is not a member of the BAR.
3 Washington Street Place, Unit 1
GinA was forced to live in the armpit of Augustas ghetto in a room that GinA
believed was a legal rooming house at 3 Washington Street Place because she had to
sell her a car because she didnt have the ability to travel in her car without facing
constant threat of illegal arrest and imprisonment by City of Augusta Police and
their other law enforcement and judicial agents for reporting her disability to BMV
in 2005.
GinA was then forced to find a safe affordable low income dwelling in the
inner city of Augusta which she could afford on less than $835 cash per month social
security disability benefits without having the ability to get a part time job because
she didnt have access to regular intercity or inner-city public transportation during
the week or on the weekends because it doesnt exist in the Augusta area.
Instead, GinA spent most of her time learning how to write this lawsuit.
AG Criminal Investigation September 2013, MTJL
Attempted Entrapment by William Stokes and Tracy Thompson
After GinA endured years of official abuses and discrimination at the hands
of her government servants and private abuse by greedy ruthless lawless landlords,
GinA decided the public needed to be educated and they needed GinAs assistance to
educate themselves about their rights and responsibilities as tenants and landlords.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 84 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 85 of 98

PageID #: 129

GinAs legal background which grew partly from her experiences defending
herself against ruthless landlords for the past 30 years and partly from being
trained by some of Maines best attorneys and judges in Maine gives her the skills
necessary to walk the fine line between providing public education and giving legal
advice which GinA knows she is not legally qualified to do under Maine BAR Rules.
Even if GinA was a licensed practicing attorney, GinA knows only a litigant
or witness can enter evidence and facts into the record so a lawyers activities would
be limited to discussing the law and procedure of any lawsuit which GinA already
knew from prior years of working with state government, courts, lawyers, landlords
and other legal people.
GinA always encourages people to learn the law and rules of procedure so
they do not feel they must rely on attorneys for laws everyone should be educated to
learn.
William Stokes and his official state agent Tracy Thompson disregarded their
knowledge that GinA is not a licensed attorney when they initiated formal criminal
investigations into GinAs public legal advocacy activities with her nonprofit civic
league, MAINE TENANTS JUSTICE LEAGUE which she incorporated in July
2013.
William Stokes acted in his official capacity as Criminal Deputy Attorney
General when he authorized his agent Tracy Thompson to entrap GinA to give
Tracy Thompson legal advice about a tenants rights when a landlord is required to
eradicate bed bugs from a rental unit. However, an hour later, GinA responded to
Tracys entrapment attempt with a lawful response directing Tracy or her in-house
attorneys to read the law which terminated all formal criminal investigations into
GinAs public legal advocacy activities, as far as GinA knows.
William Stokes authorized the illegal attempt to entrap GinA simply because
GinA was exercising her rights under the 1st Amendment and 42 USC 3601 and
3617 to educate the public about their rights and responsibilities when engaging in
landlord/tenant contract relationships.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 85 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 86 of 98

PageID #: 130

MAINE TENANTS JUSTICE LEAGUE, which is operated by just GinA at


this time, has served over 150 tenants and other types of callers since June 1, 2013,
prevented more than 6 illegal evictions, delayed countless other illegal evictions,
spoken with tenants who have been abused by Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Code
Enforcement, Attorney General, Maine State Housing Authority, City of Augusta,
and other co-conspirators who violate tenants fair housing rights, created a positive
statewide relationship with tenants and social service agencies in Maine which
provide services for low income disabled homeless people.
MAINE TENANTS JUSTICE LEAGUE recently received a call from a tenant
who had been referred by his community caseworker. GinA suggested he call the
Office of Attorney General Consumer Protection Division and file an official report
against the landlord for deceptive and unfair trade practices and violations of the
ADA and Fair Housing Act.
32 Court Street, Unit 1
Maine Judicial Branch, Leigh Saufley et al, City of Augusta and their agents
conspired to aggressively target 32 Court and Perham Streets for demolition
because they knew the homeowners were all low income people who did not have
the financial ability, education, occupational background or spiritual tenacity to
challenge Maine Judicial Branchs illegal taking of their low income private homes
for construction of a courthouse parking lot when City of Augusta and its agents
knew the old YMCA lot was double the size of the Perham/32 Court Street block,
was vacant, cleared, and would not displace any homeowners or tenants.
City of Augusta and its agents allowed GinA to occupy 32 Court Street as a
low income disabled tenant even though they knew they were targeting 32 Court
Street to be razed for the courthouse parking lot which they never told GinA.
After City of Augusta and its agents allowed GinA to move into a rare legal
rooming house low income apartment building which they were planning to take
away from her within nine months through force of an illegal eviction, they then
discriminated against GinA by subjecting her to constant torture of loud persistent

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 86 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 87 of 98

PageID #: 131

early morning noises emanating from the construction site before and after 7am
and refusing to shut down 32 Court Street for violations to life safety codes.
In addition to discriminating against GinA after allowing her to move into an
unfit dwelling, Robert Overton facilitated the service of the illegal writ of possession
by calling Kennebec County Sheriffs office to tell them GinA would be home during
Robert Overtons inspection of the flea infestation on September 24, 2014.
Less than twenty-four hours later adding insult to injury, Robert Overton
called GinA in his official capacity as Code Enforcement Officer to get the phone
number of the male tenant in Unit 2 so he would not fall through the cracks
because he [was] not there even though Robert Overton had never taken any type of
protective action on GinAs behalf the entire 5 years she has worked with him.
Robert Overton told GinA that Robert Overton was very comfortable about
why he did everything he did as a Code Enforcement Officer for City of Augusta and
Matt Nazar so GinA reasonably presumes Robert Overton was acting under official
direction of the City of Augusta and its official agents when he constantly
discriminated against GinA because she was a woman who was known to have a
history of homelessness who was disabled low income and in desperate need of a
safe and affordable rental housing in the inner areas of Augusta.
Robert Overton took advantage in his official capacity as a Code Enforcement
Officer of personal private conversations he had with GinA over the past five years
about his work for the City of Augusta and about the various illegal activities of the
local landlords which the City of Augusta continues to conspire to perpetuate.
As the KJ described, Robert Overton was hired by City of Augusta to lead
the crackdown.
The true question is: what type of crackdown is the Maine Judicial
Branch, Defendants, Robert Overton and the City of Augusta leading?
The evidence proves the Maine Judicial Branchs and City of Augustas legal
crackdown is discriminatory against low income disabled and homeless tenants who
have no other resources for safe and affordable housing in Maine.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 87 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 88 of 98

PageID #: 132

Interference, Intimidation, Coercion, 42 USC 3617


It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any
person in the exercise or enjoyment ofany right granted or protected by section
3604 of this title.
This complaint depicts some of the most significant deprivations and acts of
interference, intimidation, coercion, and discrimination achieved against GinA since
2011 and which directly deprived her of her fair housing rights by preventing her
from traveling in her own car to and from a paying job, to and from her home in a
neighborhood of her choice outside of the city limits of Augusta which was the direct
and proximate cause for GinAs homelessness from 2012 2014 until she moved out
of Augusta on September 26 and into Sidney on November 11, 2014.
However, deprivations against GinAs fair housing rights as a disabled low
income woman did not stop when she left the legal boundaries of Augusta because
Leigh Saufley et al continued to enforce the original conspiracy in GinA v. David
Brennan, KEN-CV-15-58 and David Brennan v. GinA, WATDC-SA-15-271, inter
alia, as described in more detail in the companion case 1:16-cv-00100-NT.
COUNT I, 42 USC 12132
1.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

2.

Defendants repeatedly and knowingly violated Title II of the ADA when they

intentionally and maliciously evicted GinA and other low income disabled tenants
from low income buildings knowing those buildings were unfit, unsafe and illegal to
be occupied in conspiracy with City of Augusta et al to force the disabled low income
and homeless population to move out of the inner city of Augusta Maine.
3.

Defendants repeatedly subjected GinA to discrimination during all eviction

cases during performance of their official duties as public servants because of her
disability.
4.

Defendants repeatedly subjected to discrimination during all court actions for

GinA v. Humane Society Waterville Area when GinA attempted to recover her stolen
service animal.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 88 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 89 of 98

5.

PageID #: 133

Defendants refused to provide GinA with reasonable accommodations for her

disability during AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56 and KEN-14-410.


COUNT II, 42 USC 3601
6.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

7.

Defendants wrongfully violated the policy of the United States to provide,

within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States. by
repeatedly denying GinA and other low income disabled and homeless tenants their
fair housing rights to live in safe affordable low income housing without the threat
of interference, coercion or intimidation by private people and public servants for
exercising their fair housing rights under 42 USC 3601 et seq.
COUNT III, 42 USC 3604(f)
8.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

9.

Defendants wrongfully discriminated in the terms, conditions, or privileges of

low income rental units and otherwise made low income rental units unavailable to
GinA and other low income disabled and homeless tenants and denied GinA the
right to enjoy long-term rental contracts for her low income dwellings because of
GinAs disability and because she is a member of the homeless community which
makes her and people who are similarly situated most vulnerable to greedy ruthless
predator landlords like Royce Watson, Ray Corporation and Greg Roy.
COUNT IV, 42 USC 3617
10.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

11.

The public evidence listed in this complaint amply prove Defendants have

repeatedly coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with GinAs exercise and


enjoyment of, or on account of GinA having exercised or enjoyed, any right granted
or protected by section 3604 of Title 42 USC.
COUNT V, 28 USC 1746
18.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

19.

During proceedings for AUGDC-SA-14-453 and KEN-CV-14-176 Michaela

Murphy and Valerie Stanfill refused to docket GinAs unnotarized affidavits under
color of state laws which GinA signed under penalties of perjury pursuant to 28
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 89 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 90 of 98

PageID #: 134

USC 1746 which allows, Wherever, under any law of the United States , any
matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by
the sworn affidavit, in writing of the person making the same such matter may,
with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the
unsworn declaration, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as
true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: (2) If
executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I
declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).
20.

Valerie Stanfill and Michaela Murphy denying GinAs Unnotarized Affidavits

under color of state laws directly prevented GinA from speaking to the court, from
being heard, from giving testimony or evidence, from enjoying equal protection of
laws and reasonable accommodations for her known disabilities, inter alia.
21.

On January 18, 2016, Michaela Murphy denied GinAs Motion to Docket

Unnotarized Affidavits pursuant to 28 USC 1746 under color of state law saying
GinAs affidavit was moot as a result of other wrongful orders Michaela Murphy
issued under color of state laws on that same day.
22.

Leigh Saufley, Joseph Jabar and Robert Mullen have aided and assisted or

neglected to prevent Michaela Murphys and Valerie Stanfills violation of 28 USC


1746 under color of state laws during the adjudication of AUGDC-SA-14-453 and
KEN-CV-14-176.
23.

Defendants violated GinAs rights under color of state laws as secured by the

1st Amendment by rejecting GinAs unnotarized affidavits under color of state laws
although the affidavits substantially complied with federal requirements under 28
USC 1746.
COUNT VI, 1st Amendment
24.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

25.

The public evidence listed in this complaint amply proves Defendants have

repeatedly deprived GinA of her right to speak, to be heard and to assemble as aptly
evidenced in the many public records restated verbatim in the Factual Background.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 90 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 91 of 98

PageID #: 135

COUNT VII, 7th Amendment


12.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

13.

The public evidence listed in this complaint amply proves Defendants have

repeatedly deprived GinA of her right to enjoy a trial by jury in any of her eviction
cases in state district or appeals in state superior court as aptly evidenced in the
many public records restated verbatim in the Factual Background.
COUNT VIII, 14th Amendment
14.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

15.

The public evidence listed in this complaint amply proves Defendants have

repeatedly deprived GinA of her right to enjoy due process as evidenced in the many
public records stated verbatim in her Factual Background.
COUNT IX, 42 USC 1981
26.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

27.

Defendants discriminated against GinA because she is a disabled, low income

woman who has a history of homelessness when Defendants refused to enter proper
orders or take proper actions in GinAs criminal and civil cases since February 2011.
COUNT X, 42 USC 1983
28.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

29.

Defendants subjected or caused GinA to be subjected to deprivation of her

rights, privileges and immunities secured by the federal constitution and laws
under color of state law, rules of civil procedure and court custom during
adjudications of each and every lawsuit referenced herein and itemized at the
beginning and throughout this complaint.
30.

GinA affirms declaratory relief is not available in Maine state courts because

Leigh Saufley has control over promulgation, compliance, interpretation and


enforcement of all Maine state rules, laws, ordinances, and customs.
31.

GinA affirms declaratory relief is not available in Maine state courts because

Leigh Saufley has judicial power to override all judicial rulings made by all named
and unnamed Defendants.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 91 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 92 of 98

PageID #: 136

COUNT XI, 42 USC 1985(2)


32.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

33.

Defendants conspired to deter GinA by force, intimidation and threat of force

(by a default eviction judgment/writ of possession) under color of state laws from
testifying and attending court hearings in AP-14-56, KEN-CV-14-176, KEN-14-410,
and WATDC-SA-15-271 to freely, fully and truthfully give testimony in her defense
and pursuit of her legal and equitable remedies.
34.

Valerie Stanfill and Michaela Murphy conspired on November 23, 2015 by

force, intimidation and threat of force (by a default eviction judgment/writ of


possession) under color of state laws to schedule GinA to appear in two different
cities on the same day within 3 hours of each other and at least 20 miles apart while
being forced to participate in a lengthy and fraudulent eviction bench trial at
8:30am without being allowed to properly serve any subpoenas for any material
evidence or witnesses in her defense.
35.

Valerie Stanfill and Michaela Murphy conspired to coerce GinA by force,

intimidation and threat of force (by a default eviction judgment/writ of possession)


under color of state laws on December 9, 2015 to participate in a duplicitous
eviction trial at 8:30AM in WATDC-SA-15-271 for the purpose of preventing GinA
from attending her previously scheduled motion hearing in Augusta for KEN-CV14-176 at 11:30AM.
36.

Defendants Michaela Murphy and Valerie Stanfill conspired under color of

state laws to obstruct the due course of justice on December 9 in both WATDC-SA15-271 and KEN-CV-14-176 for the purpose of prohibiting GinA from assembling
with and learning expert legal strategies from highly-esteemed licensed lawyers at
11:30AM in Kennebec County Superior Court.
37.

Defendants Michaela Murphy and Valerie Stanfill conspired under color of

state laws to obstruct the due course of justice on December 9 in KEN-CV-14-176 for
the purpose of prohibiting GinA from giving oral arguments about facts surrounding
Defendants conspiracy with Greg Roy which built the merits for KEN-CV-14-176
and for which the Defendants know they have no affirmative or legal defense.
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 92 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 93 of 98

38.

PageID #: 137

Defendants Michaela Murphy and Valerie Stanfill conspired under color of

state laws to obstruct the due course of justice by failing to transfer AUGDC-SA-14453 and KEN-CV-14-176 to federal district court for having a significant conflict of
interest causing their want for jurisdiction.
39.

Defendants conspired with each other for the sole purpose of impeding,

hindering, obstructing and defeating in every manner thinkable the due course of
justice in all herein referenced cases for the purpose of injuring GinAs liberty,
person and property in retaliation for her attempt to lawfully enforce her federal
rights to redress her legal grievances as secured by the constitution.
COUNT XII, 42 USC 1985 (3)
40.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

41.

Defendants conspired to deter GinA by force, intimidation and threat of force

under color of state laws from testifying and attending public meetings and
proceedings.
COUNT XIII, 42 USC 1986
42.

GinA re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

43.

Defendants had knowledge that the wrongs they conspired to do herein and

having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of such unlawful
acts or neglected or refused to prevent those wrongful acts despite Defendants
ability to prevent such wrongful acts did in fact cause severe, permanent and
irreparable injuries to GinAs person, property, reputation, health, safety and
welfare.
44.

Defendants knew their wrongful conspiracy to perform in an alleged judicial

capacity under color of state laws prohibited GinA from exercising her federal rights
in state courts during adjudication of the herein stated cases related to 32 Court
Street Augusta and 2528 West River Road Sidney to have access to the courts, to
speak, to be heard, to not speak, to present material evidence and witness
testimony, to not be forced to attend fraudulent trials, to have hearings scheduled
promptly, to attend hearings, to enjoy due process and equal protection of the laws,
to present her grievances to a jury of her peers in a constitutional trial in superior
1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 93 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 94 of 98

PageID #: 138

court, to receive reasonable accommodations for her known physical disabilities, to


not be held to a higher legal standard than licensed BAR attorneys, and to not be
scapegoated as an unrepresented disabled litigant who knows how to successfully
legally defend herself.
GinAs DAMAGES
1.

GinA was unwillingly homeless for at least 415 days between March 1, 2012
and November 11, 2014 directly due to Defendants criminal conspiracies,

2.

GinA suffers daily emotional torture watching her 28 year old daughter
struggle to find safe affordable low income housing in a safe neighborhood in
Augusta for GinAs 5 year old granddaughter.

3.

GinA suffers emotional torture knowing her daughter and granddaughter are
suffering at the hands of GinAs abusive mother because GinAs daughter has
to live with GinAs mother while GinAs daughter tries to find a safe
affordable low income home in a peaceful Augusta neighborhood for GinAs
granddaughter.

4.

GinA worries greatly about where GinA will live if she ever needs to find
rental housing in Augusta at any time in the future.

5.

GinA suffers daily emotional torture because she is financially and physically
unable to help her daughter and granddaughter because GinA cannot travel
by herself to get a paying job so she doesnt have many ways to help her
family.

6.

GinAs inability to help her daughter and granddaughter has been the direct
and proximate cause for the significant deterioration and breakdown in
GinAs relationship with her daughter because GinAs daughter does not
understand the criminal and legal injustices committed against GinA for the
past 7 years.

7.

GinA has been alienated from her entire family as a direct result of GinA
being charged with multiple criminal and civil charges, her inability to get a
job, maintain stable housing, have a relationship with her daughter,

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 94 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 95 of 98

PageID #: 139

granddaughter and other family members the way she is supposed to have
and wants to have,
8.

GinA lost thousands of dollars to theft and out-of-pocket direct expenses


while she was homeless, including costs for housing, transportation and
storage,

9.

GinA was threatened with bodily injury by a firearm and false arrest by
Augusta Police while she was homeless between September 26 and November
11, 2014.

10.

GinA has become hyper vigilant of any type of attacks that may be lodged
against her which has caused her to always be on alert for any subtle signs of
danger which causes her severe sleep deprivation and other persistent
physical, emotional and mental injuries,

11.

GinAs physical health has deteriorated to such a severe state that she is now
considered legally malnourished due to her in inability to transport herself
to the grocery store, because of her housing instabilities and financial
destitution,

12.

GinA has lost most of her teeth since 2011 because of total malnourishment,

13.

GinAs loss of most of her teeth exacerbates her total malnourishment,

14.

GinAs loss of most of her teeth directly damages GinAs public reputation,
personal relationships, and her total self-esteem, physical health and
wellness,

15.

GinAs malnourishment and tooth loss has directly caused GinA to experience
a very dangerous weight loss of more than 30 pounds since 2012,

16.

GinAs inability to travel independently has served to imprison GinA within


her various homes since March 7, 2011 as a direct result of Augusta Police
Department, William Stokes and their judicial agents maliciously
prosecuting GinA for having a medical disability and making a proper report
of it to BMV,

17.

GinAs inability to travel to the outskirts of Augusta and other parts of Maine
in her own private car without a chauffeur was the direct and proximate

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 95 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 96 of 98

PageID #: 140

cause for GinA having to live in the armpit of the ghetto at 3 Washington
Street Place which served to re-traumatize GinA by having to experience
Tyler Robinsons daily domestic violence against GinA and his live-in
girlfriend for which GinA had no landlord or police protection,
18.

GinA lost possession and ownership of her beloved service animal to Humane
Society Waterville Area (Smokey, her well-trained emotional therapy cat)
after GinA was kicked out of 239 Cony Street and had to stay a hotel in
Waterville that evicted GinA after 3 days under threat of false arrest for
refusal to pet fees,

19.

GinA had to sell her beloved Toyota Celica in 2013 so she had money to pay
rent since she was falsely arrested each time she attempted to use her
property,

20.

GinA has spent the past 5 years doing nothing but learning how to defend
herself under the law and how to write this lawsuit which has deprived GinA
of the basic enjoyments and simple pleasures of life in Maine,

21.

GinA has suffered in innumerable ways physically, mentally, emotionally,


spiritually, interpersonally, financially, publicly, privately, locally and
globally all at the hands of GinAs official public servants who have shown
their utter incompetent to hold any office of public trust.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
As a result of the herein described constitutional and federal violations

committed in complete absence of Defendants 11th Amendment immunities, GinA


demands the following relief:
1.

Declaratory relief that all Defendants acted and conspired to act in a


complete absence of all jurisdiction in all cases related to 32 Court Street.

2.

Permanent injunctive relief removing all Defendants from the bench and
from all judicial capacities for the State of Maine and any other state.

3.

Permanent injunctive relief forever barring all Defendants from holding any
government or public office of public trust at taxpayer expense in any state.

4.

All proper criminal penalties as authorized by 18 USC 241 & 242.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 96 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 97 of 98

PageID #: 141

5.

All proper penalties as authorized by 42 USC 3613(c) & 12133.

6.

Declaratory and injunctive relief forever barring all state and federal judges
and their judicial employees from maliciously issuing wrongful orders against
GinA.

7.

Declare and order any and all proper reasonable monetary, equitable and
injunctive relief for Defendants acting in complete absence of all judicial
authority in AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14-410 and KEN-CV-14-176.

8.

Enter all orders as required by law in the lower state case KEN-CV-14-176.

9.

Enter all orders as required by law in the lower state cases KEN-CV-15-58,
KEN-CV-15-59, WATDC-SA-14-271 and KEN-RE-15-68.

10.

Order permanent injunctive relief against all state and federal court judges
to cease and desist scapegoating GinA as a disabled unrepresented litigant.

11.

Order permanent injunctive relief against all state and federal court judges
by ordering them to fairly apply all pertinent federal and state rules, laws,
statutes, policies and court customs according to laws not repugnant to the
constitution in all of GinAs active state court cases and her future litigation.

12.

Order all other proper declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief including
necessary writs of mandamus for pending state cases which may require this
courts oversight.

13.

Proper compensatory damages for Defendants actions performed in complete


absence of all judicial authority in AUGDC-SA-14-453, AP-14-56, KEN-14410 and KEN-CV-14-176 and for any actions taken in complete absence of all
judicial authority in KEN-CV-15-58 and WATDC-SA-15-271.

14.

Punitive damages for Defendants pattern of intentional malicious behavior


as related to 32 Court Street Augusta and 2528 West River Road Sidney in
complete absence of all judicial authority covertly disguised as actions under
color of state laws in violation of the constitution and federal laws.

15.

Actual costs to bring suit.

16.

All other monetary, declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief this Court
finds appropriate.

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 97 of 98

Case 1:16-cv-00095-NT Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 98 of 98

17.

PageID #: 142

A complete internal investigation of all cases in which GinA has been a party
to determine how many times Defendants have previously engaged in any
malicious or prejudicial actions under color of state law while acting in a
judicial capacity in GinAs closed cases.
Due to the public significance of the events cited in this complaint and GinAs

need to proceed without legal representation, GinA requests any necessary leave to
correct any technical or procedural errors or omissions which may cause this court
to dismiss any part of the complaint, in part or whole, sua sponte.
Sworn and subscribed to under pains and penalties of perjury on this 20th day
of April, 2016.
_______/s/ GinA___________________________
GinA
2528 West River Road
Sidney, Maine 04330
(207) 209-1767
gina.ecf@gmail.com
VERIFICATION
I, GinA, verify that I have read this Verified Complaint and swear the facts
stated herein are true based on my own knowledge, experiences, information, and
belief.
Executed under pains and penalties of perjury on this day in the town of
Sidney, county of Kennebec, state of Maine.
DATE: April 20, 2016

_______/s/ GinA___________________________
GinA

1:16-cv-00095-NT

GinA v. Leigh Saufley et al, Amended Complaint

Page 98 of 98

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen