Gina v City of Augusta 2nd Amended Complaint 42 Usc 3601 Filed

8/18/2019 Gina v City of Augusta 2nd Amended Complaint 42 Usc 3601 Filed

1/115

1:16-cv-00100-NT GinA v. City of Augusta et al, 2nd Amended Complaint Page 1 of 115

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

GinA CIVIL NO. 1:16-cv-00100-NTon 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

City of Augusta Maine

a municipality, a body corporate and politic and

as a government agent for the State of Maine

Judicial Branch, and

City of Augusta Police Department

a body corporate and politic and a government

agent for the City of Augusta and the State of

Maine Judicial Branch, and

City of Augusta “All_ Police” Officers

in their individual and official capacities as

government agents for the City of Augusta

and the State of Maine Judicial Branch, and

William Stokes

in his individual and official capacities as Chief

Deputy Attorney General for State of Maine, as

Mayor for City of Augusta and as a government

agent for State of Maine Judicial Branch, and

Matthew Pouliot

in his individual and official capacities as a

Representative for Maine (part of District 86,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VERIFIED

2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Violation of

42 USC § 12132,

42 USC §§ 3601, 3604(f) & 3617,

1st, and 14th Amendments, and

42 USC §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3) & 1986

Case 1:16-cv-00100-NT Document 14 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 115 PageID #: 111


2/115


including 32 Court Street), as Vice Chair of

City of Augusta Planning Board, and as a

government agent for State of Maine Judicial

Branch, and William Bridgeo

in his individual and official capacities as

Manager for City of Augusta, and as a

government agent for State of Maine

Judicial Branch, and

Matt Nazar

in his individual and official capacities as

Director of Development Services for City

of Augusta and as a government agent for

State of Maine Judicial Branch, and

Royce Watson

in his individual capacity as owner and landlord

for 239 Cony Street, and his official capacity as a

government agent for City of Augusta and the

State of Maine Judicial Branch, and

Gregory Roy

in his individual capacity as owner and landlord

for 32 Court Street, and his official capacity as a

government agent for City of Augusta and the

State of Maine Judicial Branch

Defendants1

1 GinA wants to include Ray Corporation as a Defendant and co-conspirator in this

complaint but GinA has not had enough time or energy while defending other related

lawsuits to do enough research to fully understand how to successfully sue a private

corporation for ADA/FHA/FHAA deprivations and civil rights violations so GinA asks

this court to add Ray Corporation, Matt Ray and Rob Ray as Defendants if, and only if ,

doing so will not negatively prejudice GinA’s complaint.



3/115


I. INTRODUCTION

GinA ‟s Verified 2nd Amended Complaint is being filed in this case after GinA

discovered Judge John Nivison‟s name in the docket record for AUGSC-CR-2012-

286 indicating Judge John Nivision was absent all jurisdiction to oversee any typeof preliminary review of this case or 1:16-cv-00095-NT because Judge John Nivison

presided two times over one of GinA ‟s bogus criminal cases in state court which was

fully dismissed on December 18, 2013 and December 16, 2014 by Michaela Murphy.

Judge John Nivison‟s participation in fraudulent criminal lawsuits against

GinA requires him to immediately and permanently recuse himself from having any

judicial participation in all cases for this and all related companion cases under 42

USC §§ 144, 455 & 1631 because Judge John Nivison is a witness in AUGSC-CR-

2012-286 .

GinA is authorized by 28 USC § 2284 to request a three-judge court who have

never worked with any Maine Judicial Branch judges or attorneys to preside over

this case and the companion case 1:16-cv-00095-NT .

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. permanent injunctions against the following parties, government agencies

and private corporations to provide all necessary required legal protections for all of

GinA‟s (1) confidential legal electronic computer data, (2) confidential legal and

private communications which occur by her computer and internet, and (3)

confidential legal electronic computer work product from illegal interference,

monitoring, spying, collection, control, storage, analysis and dissemination to or

from any and all official agents for:

a. U.S. Department of Justice

b. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

c. U.S. National Security Agency



4/115


d. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency

e. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Re: FBI #922311VB1

f. William Stokes in his capacity as a superior court judge,

g.

Diane Doyen, as an AG and William Stokes‟ wife Re: GinA‟s cases h. Maine Information and Analysis Center (MIAC),

i. City of Augusta Police Department,

j. Kennebec County Sheriff‟s Office,

k. Maine State Police, Re: SID #ME9003212,

l. Time Warner Cable, Re: Acct #678424010,

i. terminate all current and prevent all future illegal spying, monitoring,

control, interference, manipulation, redirecting, listing GinA‘s dynamic

IP address for GinA‘s current internet connection on the Spamhaus

Public Block List to interfere with GinA‘s official electronic government

communications with the federal courts by blocking her private SMTP

outgoing email home-based server activities which violate the 1st, 4 th

and 14 th Amendments,

ii. GinA has previously communicated with this court via email from her

private email address [email protected] on September 12, 2015

when GinA received confirmation of her PACER account, September 21,

2015 when GinA received this court‘s electronic confirmation of her

Electronic Court Filing registration, and up until October 16, 2015

when GinA received Judge Nivison‘s Report And Recommended

Decision in 1:15-cv-00382-NT.

iii.

On or between October 17-22, 2015, Time Warner Cable, either upon

their own initiative or upon direction of City of Augusta Police

Department, William Stokes, Leigh Saufley et al or one of their official

agents blocked GinA‘s electronic computer email communications being

sent to and from [email protected] , [email protected] and

[email protected] without a valid search warrant, legal probable

cause or any suspicion of criminal conduct.


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


5/115


iv. On October 7 and 8, 2015, GinA communicated with court staff Renee

Bender and Melody Whitten regarding GinA‘s missing ECF filings for

1:15-cv-00382-NT which were sent from [email protected] .

v.

On October 23, 2015 at 1:38pm, GinA attempted to file a document intothis court‘s docket via [email protected] for case 1:15-cv-00382-

NT which was never received by this court as evidenced by GinA‘s

communications with court staff Renee Bender and Melody Whitten.

vi. On or about October 29, 2015, GinA changed her ECF email address to

[email protected] and began sending and receiving official

government email to and from this court again.

vii. GinA has since created a special email address especially for ECF

filings at [email protected] which works without issues.

viii. GinA‘s private residential dynamic IP address has been blocked by

Time Warner Cable and its official government agents from sending

any official electronic email communications to the federal district court

and its agents from her home-based email server computer,

ix. GinA cannot use private email addresses at [email protected] ,

[email protected] or [email protected] because all outgoing

email from her home-based computer is listed as SPAM on the PBL,

x. GinA has audio recorded at least three instances which have occurred

during private confidential conversations on GinA‘s computer between

April 3, 2016 and the current date from an unknown 3rd party

monitoring and spying on GinA‘s private Skype internet phone calls

when GinA is discussing confidential legal strategies, legal work

product and private medical information. See one piece of evidence here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scc0rLufpCA

2. federal oversight and investigation of City of Augusta municipal activities

since January 2009,

3. federal investigation of state executive, judicial, legislative, commercial and

private agency contract activities regarding the Capital Judicial Center,


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scc0rLufpCAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scc0rLufpCAmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


6/115


4. preliminary injunctions preventing legal transfer or disposing of any assets,

5. proper writs of attachment against all Defendants‟ personal and professional

property,

6.

proper garnishments, sequestrations, replevins,7. federal forensic financial audits and supervision of Defendants‟ personal and

professional financial activities since January 2009 until entry of a final order in

these proceedings,

8. lien Defendants‟ personal and professional assets held:

a. in each of their names alone and

b. jointly

i. with any other legal or natural person,

ii. in the name of their privately owned businesses,

iii. no exceptions for any LLCs created in Defendants‟ names,

iv. by Defendants or someone acting on behalf of Defendants,

9. all proper attachments, repossessions and replevins against all personal and

professional assets which were transferred to any legal or natural person since

January 2009.

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.

I. PUBLICITY is the BEST PROTECTION for PUBLIC CORRUPTION

The intriguing particulars of this case and its companion case, 1:16-cv-00095-

NT , shows what happens when anyone violates GinA ‟s civil rights and then gravely

underestimate GinA ‟s tenacity to get her proper legal justice for all malicious acts

which deprive GinA or her family of their fair housing rights solely because GinA is

a disabled, low income female without a paying job or her own car who has a history

of being homeless because she repeatedly demands to have a safe and affordable

home in her hometown of Augusta Maine.



7/115


The court needs to keep in mind that GinA has been extremely vocal in many

public forums, locally and globally, about years of injustices committed against her.

GinA has a public reputation for discretely recording her interactions with

people under Maine‟s One-Party Law and she encourages others to do the same.Despite GinA‟s public reputation, Defendants continued their rogue, illegal

and discriminatory behaviors which GinA recorded in some type of electronic or

physical evidence and which proves Defendants crossed the legal line into criminal

violations worthy of criminal sanctions under 18 USC §§ 241 and 242 and 42 USC §

3631.

GinA poses a critical question to the court which it should consider when

reading this complaint:

How many other low income, disabled or homeless tenants have been

abused by Defendants in the same way, or worse, when Defendants knew those

low income, disabled tenants are not able to write a comprehensive lawsuit for

a federal court to get legal justice for official abuses by judges, attorneys and

government officials, or for their landlords‘ lawless behaviors amid a growing

epidemic of homelessness caused by illegal and retaliatory evictions, or for

across-the-board constitutional and federal violations of their ADA and fair

housing rights by public servants and their official legal agents, and other

types of disparate treatments?

This particular case is about GinA who entered the adult world when she was

16 years old in 1986 to create a peaceful home free from abuse and discrimination in

her hometown of Augusta Maine. Her mother named her Gina Lynn Turcotte but

Gina changed her legal name to just „GinA‟ on December 19, 2014.

GinA never found a permanent peaceful home in Augusta Maine.

Instead, GinA has suffered for the past 7 years from illegal discrimination

and chronic abuses at the hands of her elected, appointed and administrative public

servants who all live off taxpayer money and by other private people who she



8/115


trusted to provide her with safe affordable low income housing in Augusta which

Congress has promised to protect in 42 USC § 3601 et seq., inter alia.

City of Augusta and its agents have (1) refused to build or maintain safe low

income affordable housing in Augusta, (2) repeatedly destroyed low income housingunits without providing any replacements, (3) discriminated against low income

disabled tenants by refusing to spend $300,000 cash assets to fix unsafe apartment

buildings, and (4) conspired with police departments, landlords, attorneys and the

Maine Judicial Branch agents to break ordinances and state laws to terrorize low

income disabled homeless tenants in Augusta so they will move out of the city, or die

trying to survive within the city limits amidst the abuses and illegal activities of

their judges and elected leaders.

GinA has been subjected to innumerable unnecessary criminal and civil court

actions as well as other punitive public events directly related to her disability and

her difficulty with self-sufficiently maintaining a safe affordable low income home

without getting federal Section 8 or other types of local public financial help.

Now GinA cannot even get a job outside of her isolated home in Sidney Maine

because she cannot travel independently by a car because City of Augusta Police

Department, City of Augusta “All_Police” Officers, and William Stokes, in

conspiracy with Leigh Saufley, et al., 1:16-cv-00095-NT , have conspired since 2011

to prohibit GinA from exercising her right to travel by filing bogus criminal charges

against GinA for four counts of Operating After Suspension, plus several additional

criminal and civil charges including refusing to submit to arrest which all directly

resulted from GinA properly reporting her permanent disability in 2005 to State of

Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicle as she was legally required to do under MV Rules

29-250, Ch. 3, Physical, Emotional And Mental Competence To Operate A Motor

Vehicle.

GinA was homeless without a stable mailing address after reporting her

medical condition in 2005 so Maine BMV Medical Unit arbitrarily and indefinitely

suspended driver‟s license #1491178 because GinA did not receive nor comply with

a BMV standard progress disability review requirement under Rule 29-250 Ch 3.



9/115


Maine Judicial Branch joined Defendants‟ conspiracy by wrongly upholding

an illegal medical suspension of license #1491178 on January 5, 2010 which directly

prevented GinA from maintaining a job to pay expenses for a safe affordable home.

William Stokes acted in his official capacity as Deputy Attorney General ofthe Office of Attorney General Criminal Division in 2013 when he authorized his

agent AAG Donald Macomber to legally defend that medical suspension of the

driver‟s license in front of Leigh Saufley et al.

Defendant Greg Roy joined the conspiracy in 2012 when he spoke to agents of

City of Augusta and Maine Judicial Branch about selling 32 Court Street for the

new courthouse parking lot and then on January 8, 2014 when he responded to

GinA‟s email asking if she could view a 2 bedroom unit at 32 Court Street which she

sent in response to Greg Roy‟s internet post.

Although State of Maine is not named directly as a defendant because that

lawsuit can only be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States, the State has

positioned itself as a co-conspirator in this case and in GinA v. Leigh Saufley, 1:16-

cv-00095-NT , by allowing its various government agencies, government agents and

private people to act in official capacities as government agents under color of state

laws when they were discriminating against GinA by constantly violating Congress‟

policies, federal laws, and federal civil rules of procedure because she is known to be

or is considered to be a disabled, low income homeless woman who exercises her

constitutionally-protected rights when GinA has tried to obtain and maintain safe

and affordable housing, have access to public information to research safe

affordable low income housing and have access to critical government and court

services to protect her federal fair housing rights.

The facts of this case support a legal and factual finding that all Defendants

in this case have conspired at some point during these events with one, many or all

Defendants in this case and one, many or all Defendants in GinA v. Leigh Saufley,

1:16-cv-00095-NT , and other unnamed co-conspirators, to illegally eliminate GinA

and other low income disabled people from the city limits of Augusta Maine under

color of state laws through abusive unconstitutional application of zoning, housing



10/115


and building ordinances, eviction laws under 14 MRSA § 6001 – 6030-E and Maine

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 80D in conspiracy with county sheriffs and all agents

of Maine Judicial Branch by aggressively increasing enforcements of life safety

codes while allowing a plague of illegal evictions to grow statewide in clear violationof the ADA, the FHA and the FHAA by:

(1) shutting down low income apartment buildings without replacements,

(2) refusing to legally ‗condemn‘ closed ‗unfit‘ low income apartment

buildings,

(3) refusing to take financial responsibility for ‗ unfit‘ buildings,

(4) refusing to require ‗unfit‘ but not ‗condemned‘ buildings be repaired,

(5) conspiring since 2009 with County of Kennebec and State of Maine

Judicial Branch to use legal threat of eminent domain against a church,

a mental health crisis service agency, a rooming house landlord, and 3

low income homeowners to forcibly purchase and destroy religious and

commercial properties and four habitable low income residential

dwellings on 32 Court and Perham Streets to build a courthouse parking

lot,

(6)

destroying 32 Court Street and Perham Street homes which were safely

providing and could continue to safely provide housing for more than 20

low income disabled people,

(7) discriminating in favor of new elderly housing project investments,

(8)

creating ‗not for profit‘ and ‗for profit‘ corporations without a public vote

to apply for federal housing and tax credits to receive federal funding,

(9)

hoarding $300,000.00+/- cash assets since 2005 by the Augusta Housing

Service Corporation (a 501(c)(3) subsidiary created by Augusta Housing

Authority) which is required to be spent to build or repair low income

housing in Augusta Maine,

(10) refusing to hold closed public meetings to discuss low income disabled

tenants‘ issues,

(11) refusing to initiate legal action against landlords for law violations,



11/115


(12) refusing to protect low income disabled tenants against law-breaking

landlords and their attorneys.

In the background, while City of Augusta, Augusta Police Department,

“All_Police” Officers, William Stokes, William Bridgeo, and Matt Nazar wereaggressively shutting down unfit low income apartment buildings, which has

actually created a low income housing crisis in Augusta Maine, Augusta

Housing Service Corporation has been hoarding $300,000 in public cash,

William Stokes secured a $100,000 home equity loan on his $209,100 private home

in June 2014 and Matthew Pouliot bought a historic home valued at $162,900 for

only $72,000 in 2014-2015, all in Augusta which will be paid for with public taxes

which fully fund their public salaries and other publicly-supported private benefits.

GinA’s History with William Stokes and other State of Maine agents

Within the first few months of GinA ‟s employment with State of Maine BMV

in the OUI Unit starting on January 7, 2007, she recognized how most government

agents regularly target disabled low income drivers by requiring them to submit to

discriminatory conditions which includes revealing private confidential medical

information which is then used in a discriminatory and abusive way to deprive

them of their right to travel which deprives them of their ability to maintain a safe

affordable home which causes many of them to become homeless and destitute.

In April 2007 GinA took action to prevent the widespread pattern of official

abuse by formally submitting a proposal to her direct supervisor for internal policy

changes related to OUI and other serious driving offenses.

GinA‟s proposal would connect all licensed drivers with public information

about state-sponsored commuter services within Maine at minimal cost to BMV by

changing their policies to include one-page double-sided leaflets in postal mailed

envelopes to registered drivers telling them about the state-sponsored GoMaine

Commuter Connections vanpool and carpool services available to all Mainers and

telling all BMV callers about GoMaine Commuter Connections public services.



12/115


Despite GinA‟s proposal receiving a full endorsement by all department

heads, plus the Deputy Secretary of State ‟s approval, Secretary of State Matthew

Dunlap completely disregarded it.

When GinA was told her proposal had been rejected by Secretary of StateMatthew Dunlap, she started asking certain pointed questions about why Matthew

Dunlap rejected a public proposal which had been fully endorsed by his department

heads and would reduce BMV‟s overall workload and related costs.

GinA was stonewalled every time she asked questions about her proposal.

On September 26, 2007 at 6:45pm, GinA survived a violent and destructive

micro-burst tornado in Windsor Maine when a tree crashed through the bedroom

ceiling of her brand new rented mobile home while GinA was standing in its path.

This natural disaster triggered GinA‟s symptoms of post-traumatic stress

disorder requiring her to take medical leave from the OUI Unit because of the very

provocative nature of her daily work talking with active alcoholics whose driver‟s

licenses had just been suspended and how GinA‟s fragile emotional state from

surviving a near-death experience affected GinA‟s daily interactions with people.

GinA took a medical leave September 27, 2007 until April 2008.

GinA and her daughter decided to go to California to recover from the trauma

they had just experienced in Windsor.

BMV requested GinA return to her job in April 2008 but GinA was unable to

return upon their request because Maine had received record-breaking snowfall in

2007-2008 which prevented GinA from traveling through New England into Maine

in her two-wheel drive pickup truck until after the snow melted.

GinA traveled by herself with her two cats in a pickup truck from California

to Maine in 7 days arriving in Maine on June 3, 2008; GinA immediately applied to

return to her job on June 9 or 10 in the BMV OUI Unit which was rejected.

After GinA returned to Maine on June 3, 2008, she applied for dozens of jobs

as a state employee until September 2010 after she was interviewed and arbitrarily

rejected more than 24 times for a state job.

After being rejected for 18 months, GinA got their hint, so she focused on law.



13/115


GinA ‟s futile attempt to return to her job as a state employee in the OUI Unit

or any other state job forced GinA to work as a construction flagger in 2008 which

severely injured GinA‟s physical health by proliferating GinA‟s scoliosis and lower

back problems and then as a humiliating minimum wage staff at Dunkin Donutsuntil 2011 when she completely left the job market for lack of positive challenging

opportunities in her chosen occupation.

GinA is now forced to rely solely on her federal Social Security disability

insurance benefits, which she happily paid during her many full time jobs, but her

federal savings account does not allow GinA to live safely.

GinA was forced to live in substandard low income communities until she

moved into 32 Court Street on January 22, 2014 but she was then illegally evicted

by Leigh Saufley et al on September 26, 2014 so a courthouse parking lot could be

built at the expense of disabled low income homeless taxpayers.

Most low income apartment buildings in Augusta are dangerous and unfit

because City of Augusta et al have refused to maintain them and they refuse to force

the building owners to maintain them.

From 2010 until September 26, 2014, GinA has been public about the legal

injustices proliferated against her and other low income disabled tenants by City of

Augusta et al and Leigh Saufley et al which has directly caused “All_Police” Officers,

William Stokes, Matthew Pouliot, et al to chronically discriminate against GinA

because she is a low income, disabled woman who exercises her constitutionally-

protected right to have fair, safe and affordable low income housing.

City of Augusta Police Ofc. Eric DosSantos acted in his official capacity as a

police officer when he set a course of events into motion on February 10, 2011 by

making an unconstitutional traffic stop violating the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments

for “ failure to obey a traffic control device” at the corner of Townsend Road and

Marketplace Drive.

That traffic control device no longer exists.

Ofc. Eric DosSantos traffic stop has directly caused GinA to be repeatedly

deprived of her constitutionally secured rights to enjoy due process, to speak, to be



14/115


heard, inter alia, to enjoy public services without discrimination under Title II of

the ADA, fair housing rights under 42 USC 3601 et seq., public transportation

services under the FHA/FHAA/ADA and receive public information under the 1st

Amendment and FOAA/FOIA.GinA has been forced to legally defend herself since 2011 after certain City of

Augusta “All_Police” Officers filed and aggressively defended six bogus criminal and

other civil charges against GinA on February 10 and March 7, 2011 and again on

February 16, 2012 in conspiracy with Leigh Saufley et al in 1:16-cv-00095-NT which

they all knew resulted from a discriminatory medical suspension on January 5,

2010 of driver‟s license #1491178 under 29-A MRSA § 2458(2)(D) by Maine

Secretary of State Bureau of Motor Vehicles Medical Unit for GinA‟s innocent

failure to receive or respond to BMV‟s official letters related to her disability.

Defendants‟ violated Title II of the ADA by arresting GinA because of the

2010 driver‟s license medical suspension and filing and defending criminal and civil

charges against GinA even though they knew 29-A MRSA et seq. does not allow for

prosecution for GinA‟s innocent failure to receive postal mail while she is homeless .

Defendants have grossly violated the ADA, FHAA, 1st and 14th Amendments

inter alia which has prevented GinA from exercising her right to receive fair, safe

affordable low income housing in a safe Augusta neighborhood of her choice free

from threat of illegal discrimination, intimidation, coercion or harassment which

has proliferated all of GinA‟s homelessness, unemployment, poverty and disability

indicators, aside from all of GinA‟s other injuries caused by Defendants since 2009.

Defendants knowingly, intentionally and maliciously deprived GinA of rights

and privileges secured to her by 1st and 14th Amendments inter alia which directly

caused GinA to be physically homeless at least 2 times for at least 415 days

between March 1, 2012 – November 11, 2014 while Defendants were serving in

official paid public trust capacities.

Defendants violated their legal duty to disclose personal and professional

financial conflicts of interest and knowingly used or knowingly neglected to prevent

other Defendants from using nonpublic government information for their own



15/115


private financial gain to improve their own private housing and financial situations

violating their duties of public service under 5 CFR 2435.101 which allowed at least

William Stokes and Matthew Pouliot to improve their private residential and

financial situations at Maine taxpayers‟ expense while they were knowingly takingaway GinA‟s and other low income disabled tenants‟ home at 239 Cony Street, 3

Washington Street Place and 32 Court Street putting her physically onto the street

on September 26, 2014.

In addition to the disparate treatment against GinA since 2010, Defendants‟

actions have created widespread disparate impact against low income, disabled and

homeless classes of people in Maine which has directly caused an actual housing

crisis in Augusta Maine which Defendants refuse to resolve and which is evidenced

by Maine Judicial Branch‟s FY10-FY15 Annual Reports showing a 35% spike in

statewide evictions when all other areas of law have progressively declined.

GinA brings this suit against each Defendant individually and jointly in

direct conspiracy with and aided and abetted by all Defendants in Leigh Saufley et

al for all injuries GinA has sustained from February 10, 2011 to September 26, 2014

which resulted from Defendants‟ conspiracy to violate GinA‟s rights as a disabled,

low income homeless woman as secured by the 1stand 14th Amendments inter alia of

the Constitution under color of state laws in their capacities as private individuals

and government agents as related to City of Augusta “All_Police” Officers‟ and

William Stokes‟ (in his official capacity as the Criminal Deputy AG) enforcement of

penalties of the traffic stop on March 7, 2011 on Marketplace Drive because Augusta

Police Ofc. Eric DosSantos knew about GinA‘s medical suspension and summoned

her anyway and William Stokes officially authorized Donald Macomber to defend

GinA‘s 80C Petition despite acknowledging the suspension was medical in nature, all

actions taken as a result of the March 7, 2011 traffic stop, all discriminatory actions

occurring at or for 239 Cony Street, 3 Washington Street Place and 32 Court Street

Augusta which violated GinA‟s rights as a disabled low income woman to enjoy fair

housing and all official actions Defendants‟ took in their official capacities to deprive

GinA from speaking and being heard during public meetings and events.



16/115


II. 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 claims federal jurisdiction under 42 USC § 12133 for discrimination in

public services on the basis of GinA‟s disability in violation of 42 USC § 12132.

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

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Declaratory and other proper relief is authorized by 28 USC §§ 2201 & 2202

and 42 USC §§ 3613(c) & 12133.

GinA requests any and all proper internal investigations, restraining orders, writs

of mandamus, writs of attachment, and prejudgment remedies including all proper

garnishments, sequestrations, replevins, independent third party audits and

supervision of Defendants‟ personal and professional financial activities since

January 2010 and throughout these proceedings until execution of a final judgment,

and all necessary court oversight to secure a contingent lien on each and all of the

Defendants‟ personal property held in each of their names both alone and jointly

with any other person or in the name of any of their privately owned and operated

businesses, including proper attachments, repossessions and replevins against all

personal and professional assets which were recently transferred as a fraudulent

transfer to any other person or corporation including proper attachments against

Matthew Pouliot‟s private real estate agency Alliance Properties LLC, Royce

Watson‟s private real estate agency Kennebec Realty LLC, and Greg Roy‟s

professional assets including all remaining funds from $140,000.00 in public money

Greg received from the City of Augusta and Maine Judicial Branch for sale of 32

Court Street in the event GinA obtains a favorable judgment against any one or

more of the Defendants on any one or more of her counts.

GinA requests all proper relief against each individual human Defendant in

their individual capacities as authorized by 18 USC §§ 241 & 242 and 42 USC §

3631.



17/115


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.

III.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY42 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

Court Street Augusta and to enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws and

proceedings for the security of GinA‟s 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.



18/115


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 toprevent or aid in preventing the commission of the wrongful action, neglects or

refuses to prevent such act which serves to violate GinA‟s federal rights as secured

by the Constitution and laws.

IV. PARTIES

GinA

GinA is a white, never-married, single mother to her 28 yr. old daughter, and

a grandmother to GinA‟s daughter‟s 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-fiancé 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 Bachelor‟s 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.

GinA‟s disabilities require her to have special housing to accommodate her

two service animals and her need to use medicinal cannabis for management of her



19/115


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.

GinA has always paid her own full fair market rents from employment wages

when she was working or from federal Social Security disability benefits.

Royce Watson owns 239 Cony Street, Augusta.

GinA lived at 239 Cony Street, Augusta from January 9, 2010 through March

1, 2012, being evicted by Leigh Saufley et al 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.

Ray Corporation (Rob Ray and Matt Ray) owns 3 Washington Street Place.

GinA lived at 3 Washington Street Place, Augusta from January 13, 2013

through October 19, 2013, being evicted by Leigh Saufley et al after GinA reported

the building to City of Augusta and Matt Nazar as an illegal rooming house in June.

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 Leigh Saufley et al because Defendants 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.

City of Augusta



20/115


City of Augusta is a municipality and a body corporate and politic with an

address of 1 Cony Street, City of Augusta, County of Kennebec.

City of Augusta, its agents and elected officers are instrumentalities of the

United States by virtue of City of Augusta and its agents accepting federal fundingwhich requires it to enforce and follow all pertinent federal laws.

City of Augusta Police Department

City of Augusta Police Department is a government agency of the City of

Augusta with an address of 33 Union Street, City of Augusta, County of Kennebec.

City of Augusta “All_Police”

City of Augusta “All_Police” includes all individuals who have ever acted in

their official capacity as a police officer to any call or report involving GinA from

January 2010 until the present day, with specific mention of these individuals:

1. William Stokes (as Mayor/Chief Law Enforcement Officer for Augusta)

2. Jared Mills

3. Robert Gregoire

4. Christopher Shaw

5. Christopher Guay

6.

Scott Harris

7. Peter Cloutier

8. Laura Drouin

9. Eric Lloyd

William Stokes

William Stokes lives at 21 Fairview Avenue Augusta.

William Stokes acted in a quasi-executive/quasi-judicial capacity as Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division for Office of Maine Attorney General

during the course of events in this complaint until July 31, 2014.

William Stokes‟ role as a Chief Attorney General of the Criminal Division of

Office of Attorney General gives him extreme power and influence over all persons

in Maine.



21/115


William Stokes‟ wife, Diane Doyen, is employed and acted as an Attorney

General with Office of Attorney General during the entire course of events outlined

in this complaint until the present day which effectually doubles William Stokes‟

political power inside and outside all government activities.William Stokes acted as Chief Deputy Attorney General in September 2013

when he authorized his agent Tracy Thompson of the Consumer Protection Division

to formalize a criminal investigation into GinA‟s public legal advocacy activities.

William Stokes acted in an executive capacity as Mayor of City of Augusta

beginning June 16, 2011 until July 31, 2014.

William Stokes‟ role as Mayor of City of Augusta gives him extreme power

and influence over all public agencies, individuals and businesses in Augusta.

William Stokes acted in an executive capacity as Mayor of City of Augusta

while he was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity as Chief Deputy Attorney General.

William Stokes engaged in official government activities as a public servant,

at least as Mayor of City of Augusta in 2014, to buy 32 Court Street on behalf of

City of Augusta for the Maine Judicial Branch.

William Stokes accepted Gov. Paul LePage‟s nomination for a superior court

judgeship on or about May 7, 2014.

William Stokes recorded a $100,000.00 home equity loan on June 20, 2014.

William Stokes‟ private Augusta home is currently valued at $205,100.00.

William Stokes was confirmed by Maine Legislature on July 31, 2014 as a

superior court judge to sit at the Capital Judicial Center, 1 Court Street, Augusta.

Matthew Pouliot

Matthew Pouliot lives at 99 Winthrop Street, Augusta which he bought on

November 1, 2013 for $72,000 , valued at $162,900 with 3,082+/-sqft of living space.

99 Winthrop Street Augusta has a clear title, a recorded land patent, and

historical protections by the City of Augusta Historic Preservation Commission.

Matthew Pouliot owned at 14 Winthrop Court, Augusta beginning July 24,

2007 which is valued at $99,000.00 and has 2,398sqft of living space recorded in Bk

9438 Pg 195.



22/115


Matthew Pouliot works as a licensed Realtor in the Augusta Maine area.

Matthew Pouliot was elected in December 2012 as a Representative for the

126th Legislature in District 86 for part of Augusta including 32 Court Street.

Matthew Pouliot was reelected to the 127th

Legislature which he holds today.Matthew Pouliot‟s role as a Representative gives him extreme power and

influence over the City of Augusta, Maine Judicial Branch and all persons in Maine.

Matthew Pouliot served as Vice Chair of the City of Augusta Planning Board

from September 2009 until February 2013 during which time he directed talks on

the demise of 32 Court Street and a final location for the courthouse parking lot.

Matthew Pouliot‟s wife, Heather Pouliot, served on the City of Augusta

Planning Board in 2014; she is currently a City of Augusta Planning Board member

until 2018 which doubles Matthew‟s political power and influence in Augusta .

Matthew Pouliot serves as Board Director of the Augusta Housing Service

Corporation which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation created by City of Augusta

Housing Authority in 1996 for the purpose of real estate development and creation

of programs that promote social and economic growth for persons of lower income.

(See http://augustahousing.org/?q=about/ahsc )

William Bridgeo

William Bridgeo is employed as Manager of City of Augusta, 1 Cony Street,

Augusta, County of Kennebec. William Bridgeo was appointed as City Manager by

the Augusta City Council in April of 1998 to serve as the chief executive officer and

purchasing agent of City of Augusta, exercise control over all departments and

divisions, make employee appointments and removals, and keep the City Council

fully advised as to the business, financial condition and future needs of the City of

Augusta, inter alia.

Matt Nazar

Matt Nazar is employed as Director of Development Services, City of

Augusta, 1 Cony Street, Augusta, County of Kennebec.

Matt Nazar oversees Keith Luke, Robert Overton, Gary Fuller, and other

employees in the Department of Development Services.


http://augustahousing.org/?q=about/ahschttp://augustahousing.org/?q=about/ahschttp://augustahousing.org/?q=about/ahschttp://augustahousing.org/?q=about/ahsc


23/115


Matt Nazar authorized Keith Luke to hold purchase negotiations with Greg

Roy for 32 Court Street at the same time Matt Nazar authorized Robert Overton to

officially approve occupancy at 32 Court Street for Unit 1 in January 2014 , Unit 2

in February 2014 , and two efficiency units on the second floor in June 2014 .City of Augusta, William Stokes, Matthew Pouliot (as a state legislator) and

William Bridgeo oversee and are jointly officially responsible for all activities of City

of Augusta Police Department and “All_Police” officers as well as Matt Nazar as the

Director of Development Services while Matt Nazar directs, supervises, approves,

enforces and defends all official activities of Robert Overton and Keith Luke in the

Code Enforcement Bureau, Economic and Community Development, Engineering

Bureau, Facilities and Systems Bureau, and Planning Bureau for City of Augusta.

City of Augusta, William Stokes, Matthew Pouliot, William Bridgeo and Matt

Nazar are jointly officially responsible for all official actions performed by Keith

Luke, Deputy Director of Development Services, who directly communicated with

Greg Roy to present City of Augusta‟s official offer to purchase 32 Court Street on

behalf of Maine Governmental Facilities Authority and Maine Judicial Branch to

build the courthouse parking lot.

At the same time Matt Nazar authorized Robert Overton to give Greg Roy

official approval for Greg to solicit unsuspecting tenants to move into 32 Court

Street without any public warnings of the “insanely noisy” environment that would

make tenants‟ living conditions unhappy and would then be kicked onto the street.

Royce Watson

Royce Watson lives at 94 Parkwood Drive, Augusta, County of Kennebec.

Royce Watson owns and acts a landlord for 239 Cony Street Augusta.

Royce Watson owns and acts a landlord for 170 units in Augusta as of

September 22, 2014. (See http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/22/augusta-sessions-

to-offer-training-in-mental-health-first-aid/ )

Royce Watson acts in his official capacity as a Licensed Real Estate Broker

for other homeowners in Augusta, Gardiner and statewide.

Royce Watson works full time as a licensed Realtor in Maine.


http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/22/augusta-sessions-to-offer-training-in-mental-health-first-aid/http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/22/augusta-sessions-to-offer-training-in-mental-health-first-aid/http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/22/augusta-sessions-to-offer-training-in-mental-health-first-aid/http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/22/augusta-sessions-to-offer-training-in-mental-health-first-aid/http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/22/augusta-sessions-to-offer-training-in-mental-health-first-aid/http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/22/augusta-sessions-to-offer-training-in-mental-health-first-aid/


24/115


Royce Watson owns and operates Kennebec Realty LLC in Augusta Maine.

Royce Watson knowingly acted as a government agent in conspiracy with and

on behalf of City of Augusta, City of Augusta “All_Police” Officers, William Stokes,

William Bridgeo and Matt Nazar during events regarding 239 Cony Street in thiscomplaint.

Royce Watson was titled one of the worst landlords in Augusta by Code

Enforcement Officer Robert Overton during conversations Robert had with GinA.

Gregory Roy

Gregory Roy lives at 389 Costello Road, Gardiner, County of Kennebec.

Gregory Roy owned and acted as a landlord, realtor, and builder for 32 Court

Street, Augusta, County of Kennebec.

Gregory Roy owned and operated more than two rental residential buildings

in Maine in 2014. Current data is unknown.

Gregory Roy works as a licensed Realtor in Maine.

Gregory Roy was sanctioned on November 16, 2006 by a unanimous vote of

the Maine Real Estate Commission for Greg‟s deceptive advertising behaviors.

Gregory Roy knowingly acted as a government agent since at least September

2012 on behalf of City of Augusta, William Stokes, Matthew Pouliot, William

Bridgeo and Matt Nazar during events regarding 32 Court Street in this complaint.

V. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND

1st and 14th Amendments

1st Am. ― Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

for a redress of grievances.‖

14 th Am. Section 1. ― All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state

wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive



25/115


any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.‖

The 1st and 14 th Amendments combined with the 7 th Amendment guarantee a

de novo trial by jury in state superior court during eviction actions as confirmed by Pernell v. Southall Realty , 416 US 363 (1974) and other federal court precedents.

5 USC § 105 - Executive agency

For the purpose of this title, ―Executive agency‖ means an Executive

department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.

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.

(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



26/115


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 irrelevance 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 those — such as Federal,

State, or local taxes — that 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.

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



27/115


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 noticeof 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.‖

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

Executive Branch

This subpart contains a disqualification requirement that applies to

employees when seeking employment with persons whose financial interests would be

directly and predictably affected by particular matters in which the employees

participate personally and substantially. Specifically, it addresses the requirement of

18 U.S.C. 208(a) that an employee disqualify himself from participation in any

particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on the financial

interests of a person ―with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement

concerning prospective employment.‖ See § 2635.402 and § 2640.103 of this chapter.

Beyond this statutory requirement, it also addresses the issues of lack of impartiality

that require disqualification from particular matters affecting the financial interests

of a prospective employer when an employee's actions in seeking employment fall

short of actual employment negotiations.

Americans with Disabilities Act

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.‖

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.

The Americans with Disabilities Act ― prohibits discrimination on the basis of

disability in … State and local government, public accommodations, commercial



28/115


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…

…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


http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335


29/115


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

WL 1733432).] ‖ (See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/2011-29515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standard )

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988

Disparate Impact

The Supreme Court‟s 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. 13 – 1371, 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 http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6488&context=lalrev )

―…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.


https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/2011-29515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standardhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/2011-29515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standardhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/2011-29515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standardhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/2011-29515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standardhttp://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6488&context=lalrevhttp://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6488&context=lalrevhttp://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6488&context=lalrevhttp://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6488&context=lalrevhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/2011-29515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standardhttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/16/2011-29515/implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-discriminatory-effects-standard


30/115


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 ofCivil 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, Defendants-

Appellees, 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, ―I t shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or

interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of…any 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.

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



31/115


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 personswithin 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

the…United States…‖ will enjoy “the same right…as 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(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



32/115


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 preventEvery 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; …

VI. 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-00095-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.

Driver’s Licenses, Disabilities and Evictions in Maine (FY10-FY15)

1. City of Augusta, City of Augusta Police Department, City of Augusta

“All_Police” Officers, William Stokes, and Matthew Pouliot in Matthew‘s role as a

public servant in the 126 th and 127 th Maine Legislatures, aggressively enforce 29-A

MRSA § 1251. License required (1-A.) Residents required to obtain license.



33/115


34/115


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.) 8. ―350,000 Mainers [who] were prescribed a total of 80 million opioid pills in

2014 ‖ have driver‟s 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 driver‟s 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 “driver‘s 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 doctor‟s 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] LePage‘s decision to bypass theWaltham, 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.


http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20130426/news/304260392http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20130426/news/304260392http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,23http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,23http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,23http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,23http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20130426/news/304260392


35/115


‗ We must hunt down the dealers and get them off the streets,‘ LePage said in

March when he proposed beefed-up enforcement.

The proposal foundered when LePage, at the 11th hour, would not agree with

Maine‘s 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 governor‘s

deputy chief of staff …‖

( See https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/06/maine-governor-

paul-lepage-stresses-jail-not-treatment-way-win-drug-

war/CZA4AAinGdjNLqt02WtgPJ/story.html

16. ―‗ Many [Maine] people don‘t 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 thei

Documents

Gina v City of Augusta 2nd Amended Complaint 42 Usc 3601 Filed