This isn't corruption......Oh Yeah~ Define corruption; Be specific and your opine is just that , your opinion.

Caller.com Corpus Christi News and Information

Garcia fined for campaign finance violations

By Dan Kelley
Originally published 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008
Updated 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly
• Print with Comments

More Local News

• Residents need not worry about alarms
• Grant to fund research on cells
• Gender matters to some, but not all, female voters

SHARE THIS STORY

State Representative Juan Garcia has been fined $1,800 by the Texas Ethics Commission for campaign finance violations, including a failure to disclose $12,500 in campaign contributions.

The commission also found that Garcia failed to disclose information about out-of-state donors and violated rules that require candidates to list the occupation and employer for donors who give more than $500.

Garcia said the violations were technical difficulties that happened in the final days of a tough campaign.

“In the heat of an intense campaign, I know mistakes were made,” Garcia said. “My campaign from the beginning has been about transparency.”

The fine stems from a complaint filed nine months ago by former Nueces County Republican Party chairman Joel Yowell. It is the fourth complaint local Republicans have filed against Garcia and the only one to result in a fine.

“I’ve been confident all along they would make some sort of finding,” Yowell said. “I felt like he really violated some rules.”

Nueces County Republicans uncovered the unreported campaign contributions when examining the campaign finance reports from the Good Government Political Action Committee, a group run by trial lawyer Mikal Watts.

Mike Bertuzzi, current chairman of the county GOP, said the amounts reported by Garcia and those reported by the PAC didn’t add up.

“Mr. Garcia and his cronies apparently felt they were above the law and didn’t want Texans to know that his election was bought and paid for by liberal trial lawyers,” Bertuzzi said.

Garcia said there was no attempt to hide anything.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 4:53 p.m.

Wow.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 5 p.m.

Just when I thought he was doing a good job - Now this. Reminds me of the Gene Seamans ethics problem - Oh, but that was Gene's wife. Just goes to show you can't trust a politician.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 5:24 p.m.

WOW IS RIGHT. He didn't want us to know that he was bought and payed for by the biggest phony of them all:

MAURICIO CELIS!. Who will probably become our next convicted drug runner for the Mexican Cartel.

Juan Garcia, just give the money back. It sure would make you look more like an honest man.....which by the way was how you tore down your opponent Gene Seaman.

The letters on the front page of the Caller Times couldn't have been any bigger. GENE SEAMAN HAS TWO HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS!!! You would have thought the guy had committed murder or something.

I hope the Caller Times has big bold Black Letters in tomorrow's paper! Oh wait, they only do that to Republicans.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 5:52 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6 p.m.

The Garcia website says, “Let's pass strong campaign finance laws to limit the ability of special corporate interests to subvert our democratic process,” yet he is willing to subvert the process by not reporting Mikhail Gorbachev Watts, Inc.’s contributions. By the way Juan, the Texas Bill of Rights states, “The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government.” We do not live in a democracy, it is a representative democracy. Also there you will find that, “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.” This means it was not established for a bunch of ambulance chasing plaintiff lawyers.

“Garcia said the violations were technical difficulties that happened in the final days of a tough campaign.” Yet, the order he signed says that, “This order and agreed resolution describes violations that the commission has determined are neither technical nor de minimis.” So he says they are technical problems but has signed a consent agreement with the Ethics Commission that admits that they were not technical. By the way, for all you victims of a government education de minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, that is to say that the law is not interested in trivial matters. This ain’t trivial.

Quick, call the surgeon; he is talking out of both sides of his mouth again! A little cheeky, wouldn’t you agree?

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:01 p.m.

Seaman claimed two homestead exemptions (illegally) while being a realtor and then blamed it on his wife.

Seaman illegally funneled campaign money through his wife so they could buy a lakeside condo in Austin.

Seaman is allegedly banned from certain areas in the Athletic club for improper behavior.

Seaman shilled for the insurance lobby helping keep home insurance rates high.

Republicans now pick someone who actually lobbied for increases in windstorm coverage after they have made cash hand over fist. Todd Hunter is Gene Seaman in a different suit.

I am happy with Rep. Juan Garcia's performance in Austin and the Coastal Bend and unlike Seaman, owned up to mistakes made unintentionally.

After three failed attempts denied by the state, it is time to move on Yowell.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:05 p.m.

The Republicans are no better, vote independent .

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:09 p.m.

To post #4. You use the word "nazi" in your comments. First capitalize the word and then look at the definition. You will find that Hillary and Obama both have a political philosophy that is called fascist. Now your homework assignment is to tell the teacher what the last great fascist political party called themselves. You learned that in school, I’m sure.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:11 p.m.

In the overall scheme of things - $12,500 seems like a pretty insignificant amount.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:12 p.m.

By the way - I believe Juan Garcia was one of the first to re-gift Celis' donation to a local charity. Might want to look that one up folks.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:13 p.m.

To post #7. We are on a roll here. What are "mistakes made unintentionally?" Are there intentional mistakes?

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:24 p.m.

Post 9, the answer to your question is "Republicans".
Hugs and kisses, Post 4.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 8:36 p.m.

post 11, the only thing Juan Garcia re-gifted was the 2000.00 givin to him for this years re-election campaign.

He hasn't given a red cent back of the thousands he received from Mauricio Celis and from Mikal Watt's Pac fund,....(which is another word for illegal campaign donations) from Celis again. Money made from the drug market. Money made on the backs of the drug cartels.

Smelly Smelly. Trial Lawyers and fake Trial Lawyers/fake cops. Juan should be so proud that he party'd with these boys on the campaign trail.

I can even see the image of Juan and Mauricio's photo op. You know there's a pic of them hugging out there somewhere. Maybe just maybe it will end up on the front page of the CC Caller Times this year.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 8:36 p.m.

someone call the waaaaaambulance...how long has it been since Garcia beat Seaman? Quit crying like little babies. Get over it. Get a life. Get a real candidate.

Republicans....you lost. Try again.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 9:41 p.m.

Democrats......you cheated, try again. Everything you accuse the Repubs of doing, Demos turn around and do it even worse.

Since when do 2 wrongs make a right? Oh that's right, when your a DEMOCRAT! yeeee hAW!

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 9:59 p.m.

Congratulations Joel. Keep up the good fight my friend.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 12:47 a.m.

Rules are rules, and if you can't play by them you ought not participate in the process. The problem is, the rules only apply to the honest man and woman, and the crooks are getting away with murder

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 12:51 a.m.

Post 19, wake up. Your hero confessed to violating the most basic rule of campaign finance. Failure to report a $12,500 contribution is flagrant and you are blind.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 7:27 a.m.

He did not give back the Celis donation and that was widely reported. What does that say for him? I don't trust the lot of them!

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 8:09 a.m.

Post 7 - "Seaman claimed/Seaman illegally/Seaman is/Seaman shilled..."

Seaman also lost, remember? He no longer holds public office, remember? This is about Juan Garcia, remember? Are you trying to change the subject?

The problem here is that Garcia has been found GUILTY of the same things Seaman was ACCUSED of!

Politicians and political operatives are ACCUSED all the time by their opposition but GARCIA HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY THE STATE OF TEXAS AND FINED!

Sorry but it's no longer just POLITICS once he's CONVICTED of doing the same things he ACCUSED his republican opponent of doing!

I wonder what other boogers are hiding in the woodpile out back???

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 8:38 a.m.

DIRTY POLITICS!take advantage & abuse our freedom of speech.
Can we hear something meaningful, good for our community, our country, our people? C'mon, ADULTS! Act your age, what's happening to INTEGRITY & RESPECT! This bickering, greed, jealousy, selfishness, narcisstic people thinking they're better than others! Nobody's better than others! It's what YOU make of YOURSELF-that's who & what you are. Give us SOMEBODY that can be trusted, that has created HIS image of WORTHY...is there someone out there.....hm,hm..Ltmethnk.....stilstnking....

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 10:47 a.m.

Dont politicians have some kind of "treasure-secretary" that's suppose to keep up with (financial things, paperwork, donations and who's who donating and expecting favors in return)?

Maybe the "treasure-secretary" of both the Seaman and Garcia camps need to be tarred and feathered?

Vote Independent for a non-criminal America.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 2:15 p.m.

Juan Garcia's CAMPAIGN made a mistake. He is fined. He will pay. And he admitted the mistake.

He is a decent, upright, patriotic American. He has already performed magnificently for this state, and he will continue to have my confidence.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 8:22 p.m.

He has come forward and hasn't denied any of this.
This shouldn't be turned into a scandal.

I'm sure that the contributors were private individuals supporting Garcia's cause and not bussinessmen/women that were lobbying for his vote.

He has done an excellent job in the House and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Bertuzzi didn't do this research for the sake of Corpus Christians and Rockportians, he did it for the sake of his party.

This isn't corruption.

© 2007 Scripps Texas Newspapers, L.P. A Scripps Howard newspaper. All Rights Reserved. Site users are subject to our User Agreement. Read our privacy policy. Questions? Comments? Contact us.

August 8, 2003


Going…Going…Going Online This Fall
High demand spurs College’s Death Investigation Program to offer Internet courses worldwide

When Del Mar College began offering its Death Investigation Program two years ago, 33 students began taking one of the first three courses developed. Over 100 other local students had to put their name on a waiting list to enroll in the classes.

But a partnership that emerged nearly four years ago with the U.S. Congress, the Kitsap County Coroner’s Office in Washington State, the Nueces County Medical Examiners Office and local computer software company INDX, Inc. is now putting death investigation at the forefront on the Internet. This fall, Del Mar will begin offering its courses online to reach more students across the country–even around the world.

“Our program has grown exponentially during the past two years,” says John Graham, instructor of criminal justice. “And we expect even more growth when our online degree program is promoted internationally through the NOMIS Project.” Online courses the College will offer include Death Investigation I, Death Investigation II and the Legal and Social Aspects of Death and Dying.

The Network of Medicolegal Investigative Systems, known as NOMIS, is a computer program developed and owned by INDX, Inc. The company offered to modify NOMIS for the government to assist in the investigation of tracking incidences of death, including those caused by weapons of mass destruction and bioterrorism. The program will facilitate the collection, analysis and retrieval of data in several areas, including identification of missing/unidentified deceased persons; mass fatality victim identification; investigator training and certification; electronic death registration; evidence control and disposition; Emergency Room casualty tracking; military combat aid station tracking; contagious diseases and epidemics; AMBER Alert communications; serial homicides; among several others.

NOMIS will offer a comprehensive solution to the needs of medicolegal and law enforcement jurisdictions and provide a common national infrastructure that serves multiple agencies at all levels of government. National security, national defense, criminal justice, public health and disaster mitigation, response and recovery will all benefit from the application.

The partnership is sponsoring the deployment of the NOMIS Basic Death Investigation Web Service application this month with an anticipated in-depth testing date set for Aug. 8. The Web site, located at www.nomisproject.com, will also link to Del Mar’s Death Investigation Program.

Of the partnership, Graham says, “This marriage was made in heaven, not only for Del Mar College but for the entire nation.” He reiterates that under the agreement, NOMIS will provide worldwide instant access to the College’s Death Investigation Program while Del Mar will have perpetual access to data stored onsite for research purposes or educational needs. “This is a great deal for us.”
Graham says that in 2001, U.S. Congressman Solomon Ortiz successfully funneled a line item appropriation through the Department of Justice as part of the 2002 national budget to fund INDX, Inc.’s expansion of the NOMIS application’s abilities.

According to Graham, NOMIS was created using “what experts called an impossible amount of funding, only $300,000, to complete what normally takes millions of dollars.” Del Mar College and INDX, Inc. worked together and are now close to completing the second version of the application.

“Del Mar College has achieved a minor miracle with the funding received in the line item appropriation,” he notes. “We created a new degree, a national data collection program and retained the right to access data from that program. We could not afford to purchase this kind of powerful tool or build it without the dedication of College faculty with the Legal Professions and Computer Science Departments and Information Technology personnel, who all had a hand in making this a reality.”

Additionally, Del Mar Criminal Justice students tested the Alpha version of NOMIS using a simulated attack on the Port of Corpus Christi. Many fatalities were incorporated into the exercise so that students could pretend to be first responders to a central emergency command post.

“With no training, they were able to master the program and begin downloading data within five minutes,” Graham says. “This type of usability is of paramount importance. If this system had been available on 9-11, the process of recovery and identification may have been enhanced.”

Graham says that requests for entry into the Death Investigation Program continuously come from individuals across the nation. “Demand is high, but now that the program will be promoted on the NOMIS Project homepage, the Legal Professions Division is gearing up for an additional influx of requests,” he says.

“We’re literally calling medical examiners and investigators all over the country to recruit adjunct instructors to teach this fall’s online courses,” Graham adds. “I’ve even spoken to a forensic pathologist in Great Britain.”

“Del Mar College is the only institution of higher education that offers a degree program in Death Investigation,” notes Graham. “Combined with the national deployment of NOMIS, the number of requests for this degree are probably going to be beyond our immediate ability to respond. What a wonderful problem to have.”


###


Sidebar Story:


Death Investigation Student Currently Working in Field
Director of Morgue Services with Nueces County Medical Examiners Office close to finishing program

She only lacks taking five classes to complete Del Mar College’s Death Investigation Program. But as Alex Medina puts it, “The field is not for everyone.”

“You don’t know what work is going to be like from one day to the next,” says Medina, a criminal justice and death investigations major and the director of morgue services at the Nueces County Medical Examiners Office. “You deal with death every day, and you see people you have known, friends or someone you went to school with. You just don’t know who you’ll see until you pull the cover back.”
The Corpus Christi native enrolled in Death Investigations courses when the College’s Department of Legal Professions began offering the program in fall 2001. Medina says her extensive experience in healthcare, including clinical, administrative and emergency services have been beneficial as she’s worked through the program.

“I enrolled in the Death Investigation Program during its infancy,” she notes. “But the program is expanding and is great for students here in Corpus Christi.” She notes that the high employment demand in the field means graduates have opportunities to find positions all over the country.

Prior to returning to Corpus Christi three years ago, Medina joined the U.S. Navy and began serving as a corpsman and EMT (emergency medical technician) in 1987. The 34-year-old is a nationally registered EMT, a certified medical assistant and a licensed ambulance driver.

But, Medina’s fascination with forensics and work with several pathology groups over the years spurned her interest to enroll in the Death Investigation Program when she decided to go back to college. “I started taking 22 to 26 credit hours when I enrolled,” she says. “I also wanted to get my foot in the door and made myself known to Ric Ortiz, who’s the chief investigator in the county’s Medical Examiners Office and was one of the first adjunct instructors to teach courses in the new program.”

“During class tours of the facility, I made a point of meeting the forensic staff and kind of pushed my way in here,” she muses. “When a position became available, I applied for it and went through the same process as the other candidates. But my education and work experience was key to my getting the position.”

Medina says death investigations is very demanding--physically and psychologically. “People are fascinated as to why I chose this field, but I believe I am where I’m suppose to be at this time in my life. I find the work intriguing. It’s like solving a puzzle.”

She adds, “This field requires special people who can find the answers as to why or how someone died.”


-DMC-me

Return to CRO News Releases
nanotechnologicu.blogspot.com

Hey Gabe Rivas, Let's see how the ABC gang want your Law School?!?!

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

SUPERIOR COURT---PROVIDENCE, SC.

THOMAS P. SEYMOUR [Pro Se],
Plaintiff

----- v. -----

CITY OF PROVIDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT; SERGEANT RHONDA KESSLER; OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS WHO RESPONDED TO PLAINTIFF'S HOME ON OR ABOUT JUNE 28 AND NOVEMBER 28, 2002, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants

C.A. No. PC/2003-0261

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

---

1. This is a Civil Rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other appropriate relief brought by Plaintiff, Thomas P. Seymour, a United States citizen, appearing pro se. Mr. Seymour brings this complaint for violations of his individual and associational rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1986; 29 U.S.C. 794 (Rehabilitation Act of 1973), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq (Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988, FHAA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182, 12203 (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA); Article I, sections 2, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution; Sections 9-1-28.1, 11-44-26, 11-59-2 (stalking/threatening), 34-18-1 et seq (Landlord-Tenant Act); 34-37-1 et seq (R.I. Fair Housing Practices Act), 42-87-1 et seq (R.I. Civil Rights of People with Disabilities Act) and 42-112-1 et seq (R.I. Civil Rights Act of 1990, RICRA) of R.I. General Laws.

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to sections 8-2-13, 8-2-14, 8-2-15, 9-30-1 et seq, 42-87-4(a) and 42-112-2 of R.I. General Laws, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. See Ward v. City of Pawtucket Police Dept., 639 A.2d 1379, 1381-2 (R.I. 1994) and Dempsey v. McQueeney, 387 F.Supp. 333 (D.R.I. 1975).

3. Cathedral Square Apartments (CSA) in Providence, is a Federally-subsidized apartment complex for low-income elderly and/or people with disabilities. It is owned and managed by Property Advisory Group, Inc. (PAG), Gregg W. Jenner and others.

4. Mr. Seymour is a qualified individual with disabilities, as defined by section 42-87-1 of R.I. General Laws. Mr. Seymour has orthopedic/mobility impairments, Crohn's disease, panic disorder and depression. He has been a tenant at CSA since April 1991. PAG and Gregg W. Jenner attempted a retaliatory eviction against Mr. Seymour in relation to this case, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617; 42 U.S.C. 12203, 34-18-46, 34-37-4(a) and 34-37-5.1 of R.I. General Laws. Their retaliatory eviction action was dismissed by this Court [Indeglia, J.] in September 2002 [PD/02-4743]. See Kingstown Mobile Home Park v. Strashnick, 774 A.2d 847 (R.I. 2001).

5. Another CSA resident, Saffwat (a.k.a. "Jimmy") Hanna ("Hanna")[D.O.B. 8/26/63], an Egyptian-born drug addict with a history of violent/psychotic behavior, assaulted and battered Mr. Seymour on 4/16/02 and 11/28/02, in violation of section 11-5-10.2 of R.I. General Laws, and stalked/threatened Mr. Seymour on a number of occasions on or about 11/28/02 to the present, in violation of section 11-59-2 of R.I. General Laws. On [Thanksgiving Day] 11/28/02, Hanna complained to Defendants about the presence in the building of Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest, with whom Hanna allegedly had an altercation on or about 4/16/02 [P2/02-1808-A; PC/02-2038; PC/02-2051].

6. The [City of] Providence Police Department (PPD), and its officers and supervisors are responsible for protecting the physical safety of persons and property in Providence, including CSA. PPD also maintains a mini "sub-station" at Building 5, CSA.

7. Officers of the PPD failed to prevent the conspiracy enforcement of a discriminatory eviction/trespass action and false imprisonment against Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest. She is a 56-year old woman with emotional, cognitive and physical disabilities, with whom Mr. Seymour maintains a familial/caregiver ("mother-son") type of relationship as a result of his friendship/companionship with her late daughter, who passed away April 9, 2002. Defendants physically and forcibly removed and falsely arrested a woman with disabilities from Mr. Seymour's home, without a warrant or probable cause, and absent exigent circumstances, thereby violating Mr. Seymour's rights of privacy and security in his home, and of persons located therein, under the Fourth Amendment [through the Fourteenth Amendment] to the United States Constitution [violating 42 U.S.C. 1983], and Article I, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution. See State v. O'Dell, 576 A.2d 425 (R.I. 1990)[citing Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)][Third-party rights under Fourth Amendment]; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596-7 (1980)[Warrantless entries under Fourth Amendment]; Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 67-70 (1992)[Fourth Amendment's protections triggered by search or entry incident to eviction or repossession] and State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d 377, 383-4 (R.I. 2001)[Tenant has the right to exclude landlord and police from his premises].

8. PPD's removal and false arrest of Plaintiff's lawful invitee/guest violated Plaintiff's rights of associational privacy under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983], and Article I, section 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958)[Freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations] and Edmonds v. Oxford House, 514 U.S. 725, 732-3, and fn.1 (1995)[citing Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499-500 (1977)][Familial association].

9. This was a repeat of a similar incident on or about 6/28/02 in which certain officers failed to prevent Mr. Jenner, PAG, Hanna, and others from conspiring to violate Mr. Seymour's constitutional and civil rights, by barging into his home, threatening him with arrest and interfering with a lawful invitee/guest located therein. Defendants engaged in a malicious prosecution based on guilt by association, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983], and Article I, sections 2, 10 and 14 of the Rhode Island Constitution. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 269-73 (1994)[citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)]; Senra v. Cunningham, 9 F.3d 168, 173 (1st Cir, 1993) and Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971).

10. PPD's enforcement of a no-contact order against Mr. Seymour's invitee/guest was illegally enforced against Mr. Seymour, was overbroad, and was inconsistent with section 11-44-26(b) of R.I. General Laws, as Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest was a former CSA tenant and had a legitimate purpose for being on the CSA property, where Mr. Seymour is a lawful tenant. See State v. Conti, 672 A.2d 885, 887 (R.I. 1996)[coincidental contact does not violate no-contact order]; Peltier v. Roy, 453 F.Supp. 1373, 1375 (D.R.I. 1978)[Plaintiff's invitee had legitimate purpose under section 11-44-26 of R.I. General Laws], and Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish, La., 279 F.3d 273, 285 (5th Cir, 2002)[Deputy Sheriff misconstrued a TRO as an eviction order against ex-wife].

11. PPD's actions interfered with Plaintiff's personal, contractual and property rights by discriminating against Mr. Seymour in his association with a person with emotional/cognitive disabilities, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 794, 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182(b)(1)(E), 12203; 42-87-3(5) and 42-112-1 et seq of R.I. General Laws. See Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 598-602 (1999)[ADA requires public entities to accommodate individuals with disabilities in most integrated setting]; Gorman v. Bartch, 257 F.3d 738, 749-51 (8th Cir, 2001)[reversed on other grounds Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002)][ADA applies to arrested persons with disabilities], and Roe v. Boulder Housing Authority , 909 F.Supp. 814, 822-3 (D.Colo. 1995)[citing Roe v. Sugar River Mills, 820 F.Supp. 636, 640 (D.N.H. 1993)[so-called "dangerous" tenants with mental disabilities must be reasonably accommodated].

12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are referenced, incorporated and realleged.

COUNT I-- VIOLATION OF THE REHABILITATION ACT, ADA, R.I. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1990 (RICRA) AND R.I. CIVIL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ACT

13. Defendants, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present, interfered with the personal, contractual and property rights of Mr. Seymour, individually and in his association with a person with emotional and cognitive disabilities, and retaliated against Plaintiff based on same, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 794, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(2)(C), 3617; 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182(b)(1)(E), 12203(a-c); 34-37-4(a), 42-87-3(3),(5), and 42-112-1 et seq of R.I. General Laws. See Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 562 (D.R.I. 1996) and Liu v. Striuli, 36 F.Supp.2d 452, 478 (D.R.I. 1999).

COUNT II-- VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE

14. Defendants actions created a type of malicious prosecution based on "guilt by association," which violated Mr. Seymour's Due Process rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983] and Article I, sections 2, 6, 10 and 14 of the Rhode Island Constitution, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present. See United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 266 (1967). Mr. Seymour was denied notice of accusation, the right to confront his [would be] accusers, and of his presumption of innocence. See Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478, 480 (1974)[citing Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960)][notice of accusation]; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 447-8 (1966)[illegal police procedures]; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404 (1965) and State v. Brown, 706 A.2d 465, 473 (R.I. 1998)[citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974)][right to confront accusers/witnesses]. The Plaintiff is being deprived of significant liberty and property interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (i.e., the ability to decide who may visit or enter his home). See L.A. Ray Realty v. Town of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202, 210-11 (R.I. 1997)[citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990)][Substantive Due Process]; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 481-6 [cited in Lawrence v. Texas, Case No. 02-102 (USSC, 6/26/2003)], and Aurelio v. R.I. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 985 F.Supp. 48, 56-57 (D.R.I. 1997)[Procedural Due Process].

15. Defendants, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present denied Mr. Seymour's rights of Equal Justice by recourse to the laws under Article I, section 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution.

COUNT III-- VIOLATION OF ASSOCIATIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION [42 U.S.C. 1983] AND RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

16. Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights of associational, familial and personal privacy and liberty under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983] and Article I, section 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present.

COUNT IV-- VIOLATION OF THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF PLAINTIFF'S HOME UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION [42 U.S.C. 1983], AND THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

17. Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights to the security and privacy of his home, and of persons located therein, under the Fourth (through the Fourteenth Amendment) Amendment to the United States Constition [under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Article I, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution. Specifically, the defendants barged into Mr. Seymour's home to forcibly remove and falsely arrest his lawful invitee/guest, without an arrest or search warrant and absent exigent circumstances, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02. See State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d at 383-4, and Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. at 95-100 [Overnight guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy, absent exigent circumstances]. Neither PPD, its officers, PAG nor Hanna had any business intruding into the [constitutional] privacy and security of Plaintiff's apartment [and persons located therein] on or about 6/28/02, Thankgiving Day [2002], or at any other time, without a valid warrant or probable cause, and absent any exigent circumstances, to carry out an action concerning a months-old allegation by a neighbor against Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest. See Steagald v. United States, 439 U.S. at 214-15, fn.8.

COUNT V-- FAILURE TO PREVENT CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE FEDERALLY-PROTECTED RIGHTS

18. Defendants failed to prevent a conspiracy between Mr. Seymour's Federally-subsidized landlord, PAG, Gregg W. Jenner and other individuals, to deprive Mr. Seymour of his Federally-protected rights on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. See Andrade v. Jamestown Housing Authority, 82 F.3d 1179 (1st Cir, 1996). Specifically, Defendants failed to prevent the execution of a discriminatory and retaliatory trespass and eviction under 42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617; 42 U.S.C. 12203, 34-18-46, 34-37-4, 34-37-5.1 and 42-87-3 of R.I. General Laws.

COUNT VI-- FALSE ARREST/IMPRISONMENT

19. On or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02, the Defendants executed a false arrest/imprisonment within the confines of Plaintiff's lawful home, and against a lawful invitee/guest located therein. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985); Dyson v. City of Pawtucket, 670 A.2d 233 (R.I. 1996); Weber v. Cranston School Cmte., 212 F.3d 41 (1st Cir, 2000)[standing under 29 U.S.C. 794] and Carroll v. Capalbo, 563 F.Supp. 1053, 1057, fn.7 (D.R.I. 1983)[citing Gordon v. Crouchley, 554 F.Supp. 796, 798 (D.R.I. 1982)[Third-party litigant's standing to assert constitutional rights] and Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 411 (1991)[citing Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 187-9 (1973)][threat of prosecution against third party].

COUNT VII-- INVASION OF PRIVACY

20. Defendants invaded the personal seclusion and solitude of Plaintiff on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02, in violation of section 9-1-28.1(a)(1) of R.I. General Laws. See Liu v. Striuli, 36 F.Supp.2d at 479-80.

COUNT VIII-- TRESPASS

21. Defendants trespassed on Plaintiff's lawfully-leased premises, in violation of section 11-44-26 of R.I. General Laws. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 596-7, fn.45 [Common-law and colonial laws against warrantless entry...A man's house is his castle]; State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d at 383-4.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Thomas P. Seymour respectfully asks this Court to grant him such declaratory, injunctive and other relief as it deems just and proper.

PLAINTIFF,



THOMAS P. SEYMOUR [Pro Se],
4 Cathedral Square, Apt. 109
Providence, RI 02903

---