BOYLE vs. BARNSTABLE POLICE

PARTIES

1) John E. Boyle Lives at 8 d Seabrook Rd. Hyannis, MA 02601 (508) 648-7000

2) The Town of Barnstable is located at 357 Main street Hyannis, MA 02601

3) Town Manager John Klimm 357 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 (508) 862-4000

4) Chief John Finnegan (retired)

5) Chief Paul McDonald

6) Detective Sergeant John Murphy

7) Sergeant Arthur Caido

8) Sergeant Richard Morse

4 to 8 Are to be reached at 1200 Phinneys Lane P.O. Box B Hyannis, MA 02601 (508) 775-0387

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

District of Massachusetts

Eastern Division

John E. Boyle, Pro Se Litigant Federal District Court Docket No.

Plaintiff 09CV11435-WGY

V.

Barnstable Police Department

Town of Barnstable

John Klimm, Town Manager

Chief John Finnegan (retired)

Chief Paul McDonald

Detective Sgt. John F. Murphy

Sgt. Arthur Caido

Sgt. Richard Morse

Defendants

COMPLAINT, VERIFIED,

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

FACTS

1) John Boyle is a resident of Hyannis, MA living there for over 32 years. He was a former elected town official, serving six years on the Barnstable Town Council. He holds an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice and a Bacceuralete of Science in Political Science. He is currently residing at 8d Seabrook Road, Hyannis MA 02601

2) Boyle was the founder, owner and CEO of King’s Coach, Inc., formerly a limousine company offering sedans, vans and limousines, licensed in the Town of Barnstable in April of 2000. At the peak, King’s Coach had 35 drivers and eight office staff plus twenty vehicles with annual revenues in 2004 of $980,000.00 and 2005 of $880,000.00. Further he owned and operated SHUTTLE KING, a shared ride shuttle service operating in 40 city and towns of the commonwealth of Massachusetts licensed under the Department of Telecommunications and Energy.

3) Boyle founded and operated in 1995 American Refuse and Recycling Inc., a trash collection service serving the mid -Cape. American Refuse was the third largest trash hauling firm on Cape Cod, behind only BFI and Waste Management upon selling to Waste Management on 1999.

4) Boyle purchased Five Star Enterprises Inc., of Falmouth MA, a rubbish and demolition and construction collection service, from the Barnstable Superior Court appointed receiver on August 18 2005, renaming it TRASHGUY. Boyle operated “Five Star” for the receiver from June 9 2005 so as to keep the value. Boyle won the right to purchase by sealed bid.

5) It should be noted that Five Star’s owner, Melvin Reine, was a notorious figure in Falmouth MA, having served jail time for arson and being suspect in the disappearance of three individuals, though never charged. Currently he is committed to a state run mental health facility suffering from dementia in 2001.

6) Further, Reine’s wife Shirley was found murdered on May 9 2005 for which no one has ever been charged. This event rekindled the notoriety of Melvin Reine, Five Stars owner and tweaked the interest of the Cape Cod Times newspaper as well as other media. This event also put into motion the availability to bid on Five Star.

7) Close to purchasing Five Star, Boyle was approached by a reporter from Cape Cod Times, Amanda Lehmert. Lehmert asked Boyle to be a source for her ongoing series of the Reines.

8) After thought and contemplation, Boyle agreed, but with conditions. Boyle met with Lemhert and Editor Ann Brennan and agreed to be a source if his name was kept from the paper and if they kept the Five Stars purchase price from the paper. They agreed.

9) Boyle, it should be noted, was never a suspect or person of interest in the murder of Shirley Reine. In fact, Boyle assisted the State Police investigators with computer issues at his home office and readily discussed issues of their concern when asked.

10) Multiple media outlets contacted Boyle for input in what had seemed to become a real crime/drama/human interest story. Boyle did not seek this theatre or publicity, and was inadvertently thrust into it.

11) Boyle was in a unique position in that he was able to see and hear things that the local press wasn’t publishing. He offered these scenarios, verified, when questioned about issues surrounding Shirley Reine. These scenarios ran counter to prevailing thought in law enforcement and published accounts in the local paper. This happened around the time of exoneration of suspects in the murder of Christa Worthington a Truro fashion writer. Suspects Arnold and Jacket were vilified in local and national press via the misdirected focus of local law enforcement.

12) After purchasing Five Star, Boyle attempted to move King’s Coach to Falmouth to consolidate his business operations. After applying Boyle was notified around December of 2005 by Falmouth Town Manager Whitenour that King’s Coach could not obtain a license in Falmouth due to prejudice of then Falmouth Police Chief David Cusolito, and was advised by Town Manager Whitenour to withdraw application. Reluctantly, Boyle withdrew the application.

13) Due to the ongoing bad publicity of Five Star and eventual financial considerations, Boyle placed King’s Coach and Five Star up for sale.

14) Boyle contacted the Licensing Division of Barnstable who agreed to allow Boyle an extension on renewing his limousine license because of a potential sale.

15) Boyle continued his normal course of affairs while having no less than three meetings with the director of Barnstable Licensing, Tom Geiler, where Boyle discussed the extension and was told things were OK “But you should get it done at some point”.

16) The winter of 2005/2006 was a financially difficult one for King’s Coach and Trash Guy.

17) The Cape Cod times continued publishing its ongoing series of the “Reines”, and Boyle asked Lehmert to cease mentioning Five Star as it hurt business. Lehmert agreed.

18) Cape Cod is a seasonal economy, and Boyle looked forward to increased King’s Coach sales come the summer of 2006.

19) Boyle sold Five Star on or about May 1, 06.

20) On May 9, 2006, the one year anniversary of Shirley Reine’s murder, Cape Cod Times published an anniversary feature of the Reines. For the first time, the amount Boyle purchased Five Star was made public in violation of the agreement between Boyle and Cape Cod Times.

21) Around June 1st 2006, Boyle returned to a King’s Coach operation that was much different then when he left it to operate Five Star.

22) On May 22 2006, Carmel Fisher called King’s Coach and reserved transportation from Boston to Hyannis for August 16 2006. Her credit card was charged the 22nd of May.

23) On July 11 2006, Richard Fisher (no relation) called King’s Coach to reserve transportation from Centerville to Logan Airport for 7/14/2006. Mr. Fisher’s card was charged on the 16th of July.

24) About July 2 2006, without notice, warning or probable cause the Barnstable Police Department stopped a King’s Coach Vehicle and proceeded to put passengers on the street, towing and impounding the vehicle. Subsequently upon investigation, it was determined that a MA Turnpike Authority vehicle transponder had malfunctioned causing Fast Lane too erroneously cancel the vehicle’s registration without notice.

25) On July 21 2006, the Cape Cod Times wrote a scathing front page article about Boyle’s limousine company and Boyle himself. Said article was inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented and untrue. The article was also malicious and libelous and contended among other things that Boyle operated without a limousine license for over six months. This article is the subject of a $12.5 million dollar law suit brought by Boyle.

26) As Town Councilor Boyle had approved the hiring of Barnstable Chief of Police John Finnegan in 1999. Boyle called Finnegan numerous times over multiple days asking him for a meeting around July 23 2006 to discuss the conduct set forth at paragraph 24 and allegations set forth in paragraph 25.

27) Finally, after about the fifth day of multiple calls by Boyle trying to secure a meeting, Finnegan called and said he “can’t meet with me…” Boyle did not understand.

28) Simultaneously Boyle made numerous attempts to contact the Town Manager and Director of Licensing to discuss the Police Department and Licensing issues but no one would return phone calls.

29) Upon information and belief Klimm, Finnegan and others met or communicated to conspire against Boyle and King’s Coach. These are people Boyle often approached on a first name basis.

30) The inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented and untrue article by the Cape Cod Times mentions King’s Coach, Inc. failed to provide pre paid services among other matters. The Defendants conspired against Boyle from this article when they should have known that it was inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented and untrue.

31) Due to conduct of the Police Department & Town officials King’s Coach suspended operations on July 26, 2006. The Town of Barnstable forced King’s Coach and Boyle to not be able to service reservations.

32) King’s Coach had many reservations that were not fulfilled. Almost all of those reservations credit cards were charged at the time of making the reservation.

33) Because of decreased cash flow, King’s Coach couldn’t make payments to vendors and employees. The bulk of the fleet was repossessed, leaving King’s Coach unable to operate.

34) On August 29th 2006 the Barnstable Police filed criminal complaint’s and summonsed John Boyle to court for the following:

DOCKET NO. 0625 CR 003197 BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT

1. 266/30/A LARCENY OVER $250On August 16, 2006 did steal the property of CARMEL FISHER, such property having a value of more than $250, in violation of G.L. c.266,30(1).(PENALTY: state prison not more than five years; or jail not more than 2 years and not more then 25,000.00)

2. 40/21/B MUNICIPAL BY-LAW OR ORDINANCE VIOLATIONOn AUGUST 16, 2006 did OPERATE A BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE, in violation of a municipal ordinance or by-law of TOWN OF BARNSTABLE adopted pursuant to G.L. c. 40, 21. (PENALTY: not more than $300.)

DOCKET NO. 0625 CR 003196 BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT

1. 266/30/C LARCENY UNDER $250On July 17, 2006 did steal the property of Richard Fisher such property having a value of $250 or less, in violation of G. L. c.266, 30(1) (PENALTY: jail not more than 1 year; or not more than $300.)

2. 40/21/B MUNICIPAL BY LAW OR ORDINANCE VIOLATIONOn JULY 17, 2006 did OPERATING A BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE, in violation of a municipal ordinance or by-law of TOWN OF BARNSTABLE adopted pursuant to G.L. c. 40, 21. (PENALTY :not more than $300.)

35) The defendants conspired to bypass an evidentiary magistrates hearing and proceed right to arraignment. Even though two of the charges are civil code violations and one is a misdemeanor, the last being a felony.

36) On September 8, 2006 the Cape Cod Times wrote a second article which too was inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented, untrue, malicious and libelous and stated among other facts that Plaintiff Boyle was charged with larceny among other crimes

37) On September 13, 2006 Defendant Caido of the Barnstable Police Department is reported to have said in a MA Department of Industrial Accidents investigator’s report that “…he didn’t want us to drop anything on this John Boyle because everybody in the department knows all about him and his going ons”.

38) Around this time, a letter emerged showing the Barnstable License Authority granted King’s Coach a limousine license extension through June 20, 2006. Unfortunately, the letter was sent to an address that Boyle hadn’t occupied for over four years. Boyle never received the letter. Boyle never received notice.

39) Boyle will introduce approximately 30 plus criminal and administrative charges brought against him by defendants and others. Boyle was found not guilty in every instance. In fact a Judge asked the prosecutor as to “Why is this man here? He has committed no crime…” Boyle was not convicted of a single crime.

40) Harassment, petty prosecutions and failure to protect Boyle and his family have ruled the day. From Boyles personal vehicle, all four tires lug nuts being loosened, to all of King’s Coach’s vehicles license plates being stolen, to a car smashing through his fence, his office being burglarized, threatening phone calls, and much more the Barnstable Police, refused to assist, and, further, outright avoided protecting Boyle and his family while simultaneously seeking to convict him of crimes he never committed among other infractions.

COUNTS

COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983: RETALIATION FOR PETITIONING

41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 40 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

42. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.

43. Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial of Boyle’s rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law, to wit, by retaliating against him because he was subject of false, inaccurate, untrue and libelous media exposure. And because he spoke contrary to the prosecutors then prevailing thought of an ongoing murder investigation. Defendants conspired for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny Boyle equal protection of laws.

44. As a result of the retaliation by the Defendants for Boyle exercising his First Amendment right, Boyle has been deprived of his right to equal protection of the laws, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 by all the Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT 2: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §§1983 AND 1985:

45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 44 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

46.As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious conspiracy of all Defendants, Boyle was deprived of his right to equal protection of the laws, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the conspiracy against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT 3: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §1983: REFUSING OR NEGLECTING TO PREVENT


48. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant’s Caido and Morse of the Barnstable Police Department and John Finnegan as Chief in the Barnstable Police Department was acting under the direction and control of the Barnstable Town Manager John Klimm and the Defendant Town of Barnstable.

49. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, the Barnstable Police Department and the Town of Barnstable knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis the Defendant’s in their duties, to refrain from:

(a) unlawfully and maliciously harassing a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities,

(b) unlawfully and maliciously prosecuting a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities,

(c) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and

(d) Otherwise depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities.

50. The Defendant Town of Barnstable had knowledge, or should have had knowledge -- had it diligently exercised its duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis -- that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. The Defendant Town of Barnstable had power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of said wrongs, could have done so by reasonable diligence, and knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence failed or refused to do so.

51. The Defendant Town of Barnstable, directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct of Defendant’s heretofore described.

52. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligent and intentional acts of Defendant’s. Plaintiff suffered physical injury, loss of income, and severe mental anguish in connection with the deprivation of his constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. §1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all the Defendants for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 and further demands judgment against the Defendant’s for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.

COUNT 4: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION


54. Defendants instituted criminal process against the plaintiff with malice: Defendants played an active part in the criminal process denying due process.

55. Caido and Morse played an active part in the initiation and proceedings of the criminal Complaints; and signed the criminal Complaints against Boyle.

56. The charges were not based upon probable cause, that is, the state of the facts in the mind of the prosecutor would not lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that Boyle was guilty.

57. Defendants had a duty to ascertain whether there was reasonable and probable cause

for a prosecution. To wit, to learn whether Boyle had purposely deprived subject individuals of their monies or whether it was carried out in the normal course of business. Further reservations were made prior to notice of licensing matter as well as charging of credit cards.

58. Defendants Morse, Caido and Finnegan breached their duty.

59. Defendants had a duty to ascertain the truth of the information they had been supplied and failed that duty.

60. Cape Cod Times recklessly published false categorical statements as fact upon which the Defendants relied, accusing the Plaintiff of violating the most basic and trusted tenets of commerce and those statements resulted in defendants charging Boyle with multiple crimes.

61. The criminal proceeding terminated in favor of Boyle when the court dismissed all charges after a hearing to Dismiss.

62. Defendants Town of Barnstable, Klimm, Finnegan, Mc Donald, Murphy, Caido and Morse are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior or partnership by estoppels.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Boyle demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 5: MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS


64. Defendants maliciously used a "legal process `to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not the legitimate purpose of the particular process employed.'"

65. Defendants knew that the complaint initiated was groundless and made misrepresentations to the court to gain a collateral advantage in further investigative process.

66.Defendants knew that the complaint initiated was groundless and made misrepresentations for revenge upon Boyle for (a) Speaking publicly against an investigation(b) Being the subject of Libelous media coverage, (c) Addressing Police officers in the same manner and effect in which they opted to address Plaintiff.

67. Defendants knew or should have known that the complaints were groundless but still sought to use the process for an ulterior purpose, including, but not limited to, launching multiple investigations, on many levels to target the individual by use of confidential informants and electronic means designed to entrap Boyle.

68. Defendants used the legal process with the ulterior purpose, to wit, for personal political vendettas and published name recognition.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 6: CONSPIRACY


70.All the Defendants (a) had an object to be accomplished; (b)had an agreement on the object or course of action; (c) performed one or more unlawful overt acts; and (d) caused Boyle damages that were a direct result of those acts.

71. In furtherance of their object, defendants did two or more overt acts against the plaintiff. Those unlawful overt acts include, but are not limited to, the following:

A) Defendants knew or should have known that Cape Cod Times had intentionally misrepresented facts.

B) In concert with Cape Cod Times who set the tone trough sensational journalism defendants prosecuted on the grounds that Boyle did steal the property of another although they knew or should have known Boyle could not have stolen monies as he simply was conducting himself in a normal course of business. The defendants agreed that the object or course of action was to charge and prosecute him maliciously with crimes.

72. Plaintiff suffered harm and damages that are a direct result of those acts.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs,

expenses, and interest in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 7: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

73. Boyle repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

74. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Boyle by maliciously prosecuting Boyle, or by abusing the lawful process by unlawful purpose, or by violating Boyle’s constitutional rights, or by conspiring against Boyle.

75. Defendants knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of their conduct.

76. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

77. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of Boyle’s distress.

78. Boyle is a reasonable man.

79. The emotional distress sustained by Boyle was severe and of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure. 80. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiff was, is, and with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to the intentional commission.

81. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Boyle has suffered and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment, and humiliation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, including interest, jointly and severally against all Defendants in an amount deemed by this Court to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT 8: LIBEL, SLANDER, DEFAMATION

Boyle repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs

1 through 81 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

82. Both the first and the second Cape Cod Times articles, or either of them, was of and concerning the Plaintiff, and were inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented, untrue, malicious and libelous and stated facts that Defendants knew or should have known that Cape Cod Times had intentionally misrepresented facts.

83. Defendants used the media Cape Cod Times with the ulterior purpose, to wit, for personal political vendettas and public condemnation of Boyle.

84. Said articles, individually and collectively, have prejudiced Plaintiff Boyle in his profession and business and or impute upon him an unfitness to conduct business.

85. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted irreparable harm on Boyle by maliciously prosecuting Boyle, or by abusing the lawful process by unlawful purpose, or by violating Boyle’s constitutional rights, or by conspiring against Boyle by publication of falsehoods that Defendants should have known to be false.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, including interest, jointly and severally against all Defendants in an amount deemed by this Court to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, JOHN E BOYLE By himself,

_____________________ 28 August 2009 8 Seabrook Road Hyannis, Ma 02601 508-648-7000

PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that I am the Plaintiff herein, and have read the foregoing pleading filed on my behalf, and the facts stated therein are true.

28 August 2009 _________________________ John Boyle.

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of August 2009.

______________________

Notary Public

Documents

BOYLE vs. BARNSTABLE POLICE