|
.
| |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Case Number: 09-22574-CIV-MARTINEZ-BROWN
AISHA GOODISON
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT S. MUELLER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________/
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S
CASE
1. Plaintiff restates her previous allegations regarding wrongdoing by the
Defendants; standing by each claim as 100% true and correct.
2. Let the record reflect, the Defendants have not denied a single allegation
raised and submitted by the Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff further states the following as affirmative reasons her case
should not be dismissed.
4. Precedent Setting Ruling By Default Essentially Overturning The Civil
Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
5. The Defendants' legal counsel, Carole M. Fernandez, is asking the Court to
do the unthinkable - rule the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
did not give blacks equal rights under the law, particularly in the area of law
enforcement.
6. Fernandez, acting on the Defendants' behalf, stated in her motions, the
Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not apply to the
Defendants, erroneously deeming them exempt as government employees, therefore
they are not obligated to observe and comply with it, which is untruthful and
unlawful.
7. The Defendants are federal agencies that receive federal funding, from
American taxpayer dollars, which under the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, makes them subject to said law and barred from discriminating
against anyone.
8. Additionally, every U.S. citizen and resident is subject to obeying the
Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all laws of the land. No
exceptions.
9. If the Defendants' counsel somehow prevails in her
unconscionable, unlawful legal argument and flawed premise in this regard, it
shall in effect overturn the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
destroying the rights of 40 million black people in America.
10. The Defendants have no legal authority to challenge the Civil Rights Act
and Civil Rights Act of 1964. They are overstepping their bounds and in effect,
taking on the duties of the U.S. Congress without permission.
Fourth Amendment Violations
11. The Defendants have violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights via
unlawfully wiretapping her, scanning her email boxes and employing the FBI's
noted CIPAV software Trojan on her computers, to access their contents. THE
DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT DENIED ENGAGING IN THESE ACTS.
12. Plaintiff broke the story on her website read by millions and her
allegations were confirmed true and correct 3-months later via government
Inspector General, Glenn A. 13. Fine's report and the subsequent Congressional
hearings into the scandal, which Defendants Robert S. Mueller and the FBI were
excoriated for on live TV and by the domestic and international press.
14. As such, the Defendants are liable and must be held accountable in Court.
Anything less is a miscarriage of justice and a terrible double standard the
world shall not excuse.
15. The Defendants are not greater than the U.S. Constitution. They must obey
it like all citizens and residents of this nation.
Freedom of Information Act
16. Why are the Defendants fighting tooth and nail to withhold the Freedom of
Information Act covered files she has requested. It lends a terrible impression
that is not going over well with the public, also known as the Electorate.
17. Plaintiff is entitled to the Freedom of Information Act covered files she
requested, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552 and as there is a clearly
demonstrable "threat to life or safety" present in this case,
following Defendant Department of Justice's guidelines, the files must be
released.
18. Defendants DOJ represented this as their position before the courts [Mayock
v.
Nelson, 938 F. 2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1991); Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 644
(5th Cir. 1993).]
19. It is present in the Settlement Agreement as a result of the Mayock
litigation. Plaintiff Mayock entered into a Settlement Agreement with the
government in 1992.
20. This language mirrored the "exceptional need or urgency"
standard on expedited processing set forth in the 1983 DOJ FOIA Update guidance
on "When to Expedite FOIA Requests".
21. Withholding these FOIA files also presents an unlawful conflict of
interest, as Defendant Robert S. Mueller is withholding FOIA files that are
incriminating to him and others. The Defendant is not allowed to misuse his post
in this manner, as it violates U.S. law.
Defendants Sanctioned In Kansas Court
22. On December 30, 2009, a Kansas Federal Court sanctioned the Defendants
for "lack of transparency" in refusing to answer questions during
discovery.
23. It is clearly the position the Defendants have taken in all their cases,
deeming if I don't like what is being asked or if it is incriminating, I shall
simply violate the law of the land and not respond.
24. One cannot comport oneself in this manner while going about the people's
business. It runs contrary to the tenets of a democracy.
25. Throughout this case, the Defendants via their legal counsel, have failed
at every rung to deliver any answers to the Plaintiff's allegations, opting for
the same, trite legal defense, verbatim, they have used in many cases filed
against them for violating citizens rights. Pacer court documents reflect this
undeniable pattern.
26. It is quite mysterious that hundreds of cases filed against the
Defendants, listed in Pacer, all amazingly lack "subject matter
jurisdiction" and "failed to state a claim for relief." That is a
legal cop out on the Defendants' part.
27. How can so many litigants be wrong? In actuality, it is the Defendants
that are wrong in this measure and misapplying the law to evade legal
accountability at the expense of innocent people seeking justice in Court.
28. It is very disappointing that President Obama's DOJ (Defendant
"Department of Justice") is employing this terrible lack of
transparency, especially against a very physically unwell person that became ill
as a result of their criminal negligence and misconduct, via subsidiary,
Defendant FBI. Plaintiff expected more.
29. Plaintiff is entitled to the FOIA files and legal redress, as she would
not have sustained an unprecedented, stress induced brain hemorrhage had the
Defendants not discriminated against her in violation of the Civil Rights Act
and Civil Rights Act of 1964, two of their employees threatened her and the
agency left her at the mercy of known violent criminals, who they are
constitutionally obligated to restrain and prosecute for breaking the law.
30. Plaintiff shall communicate her troubling findings in this case to her
millions of website readers, also known as the Electorate, as it
is a matter of public interest. For the Defendants to attempt to deprive a
physically sick person, who is in grave danger, of her legal rights in court, is
reprehensible.
Life In Jeopardy
31. As a rule of law, cases that meet the statutory criteria, as this action
does, are not dismissed, especially when a Plaintiff's life, health and
well-being have been placed in serious jeopardy, where a risk of death is
imminent.
32. The Defendants continue on this unconscionable course of attempting to
wrongfully gain a dismissal of a valid case, as the subject matter incriminates
a few of their own.
33. The law never made such allowances for anyone and it is a gross conflict
of interest that they would pursue a path of injustice, at a sick person's
expense, to cover their wrongdoing.
Valid Claim For Relief
34. Plaintiff has appropriately and accurately stated a valid claim for
relief, employed by others in similar legal filings that were successful.
35. The Plaintiff has also stated the correct jurisdictional premise and the
appropriate venue. Plaintiff has correctly cited U.S. law applicable in this
case.
36. Case law supports the Plaintiff's legal action, as the Civil Rights Act
and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plainly states any person can sue using it as
the premise for a Complaint to gain injunctive relief, when they have been
discriminated against.
37. For the Defendants to attempt to deny Plaintiff this right constitutes
additional discriminatory conduct.
38. There was nothing deficient about or amiss with Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, but due to Defendants' counsel, Carol M. Fernandez, once again
raising the same faulty claim that Plaintiff did not make a short and plain
statement, Plaintiff amended the Complaint, to make each line even shorter and
plainer.
39. Plaintiff's "Amended Complaint" was perfectly usable and is
laid out in the same fashion many other successful legal actions that prevailed
in court, were structured.
40. The Defendants are once again discriminating against Plaintiff in
claiming her Complaint is deficient, when other cases formulated and structured
in the exact same manner were successful in court.
41. The fact still remains the Defendants have violated The Fourth Amendment,
The Civil Rights Act, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Freedom of
Information Act.
42. The Defendants are not in compliance with the law and Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint should stand, as it is sufficient and useable.
43. Plaintiff also takes great offense at the Defendants' counsel attempting
to state, because she is Pro Se, Plaintiff will be too much trouble to compile a
Joint Scheduling Report with, as the Court requested.
44. Plaintiff has a genius level IQ, authored forthcoming, groundbreaking
medical and scientific patents, authored thousands of pages of copyrights valued
at billions and created numerous inventions based in advanced technology.
45. However, going by the statements of the Defendants' counsel, Plaintiff is
not intelligent enough to grasp the principles of a Joint Scheduling Conference,
when she has viewed many in Court records and online.
46. Considering the Plaintiff's life and health are in serious jeopardy, with
risk of death, that was a very callous and cruel statement to make. It is the
equivalent of stating Ms. Fernandez and her clients cannot be bothered whether
Plaintiff lives or dies.
47. It is disrespectful to the Plaintiff, her life and taxpayers on the
whole, that the Defendants would seek to rob a victim of crime, who is
physically unwell, of her day in Court, as they can't be bothered, even though
the taxpayers pay their salaries.
49. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to relief in this legal
action, all the Defendants are properly sued under the aforementioned laws and
the case should not be dismissed.
Submitted by Aisha Goodison (pro se):___________________ Date: 1-13-2010
AISHA GOODISON
P.O. Box 11375
Miami, Florida 33101
Plaintiff certifies a copy of this document has been sent to the Defendants
via their local counsel:
U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Carol Fernandez
99 N.E. 4th Street,
Suite 300,
Miami, Florida 33132
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Case Number: 09-22574-CIV-MARTINEZ-BROWN
AISHA GOODISON
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT S. MUELLER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________/
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. The Defendants have challenged the Plaintiff’s legal right to bring a lawsuit
under the Freedom of Information Act, Civil Rights Act, its offshoot the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourth Amendment. However, constitutional and
statutory law supports the Plaintiff’s claim.
2. The Defendants have adhered to an unethical, amoral, erroneous defense in
this case, not supported by U.S. Law, in contending Plaintiff has not cited any
litigable premise under which relief can be sought or granted.
3. Plaintiff accurately, appropriately and sufficiently cited her claim, under
the Freedom of Information Act, the Civil Rights Act, its component the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourth Amendment, laws which are very much in effect,
upon which relief can be granted.
4. Plaintiff authored pleadings, which set forth, “A short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Established law
validates Plaintiff’s complaint and subsequent motions.
5. The Civil Rights Act Of 1964, Sec. 303 states, “Nothing in this title shall
affect adversely the right of any person to sue for or obtain relief in any
court against discrimination.”
6. The law is self-explanatory. Plaintiff is entitled to sue to obtain relief in
the event discrimination arises and has demonstrated clear-cut racial
discrimination by the Defendants, who brought justice in cases almost identical
to Plaintiff’s, even though said cases had less evidence than Plaintiff, but the
victims of crime are white Americans and Plaintiff is a black U.S. citizens of
foreign birth.
7. The Defendants are subject to the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and receive federal funding, making them liable under said U.S. law for
this terrible racial discrimination and harassment that almost cost Plaintiff
her life.
8. The Civil Rights Act Of 1964, Sec. 601 states, “No person in the United
States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
9. The law is transparent, as it states no person in America shall be
discriminated against under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.
10. Federal funding, underwritten by the American taxpayers, which includes
Plaintiff and her family for the past 25 years, funds the FBI. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation is a federal law enforcement agency that exists due to
the financial support of the U. S. taxpayer.
11. The Plaintiff went to the Defendants with a very strong, credible case,
supported by volumes of evidence, which they used to help obtain a conviction
against a very violent, invasive, abusive private investigator, Anthony
Pellicano, in another legal action, while essentially leaving her at the mercy
of affiliated miscreants schooled by him in the ways of criminal mischief.
12. In November 2005, FBI Agents, J. Christopher Kaczynski and Mary Katherine
Koontz, told Plaintiff in person and over the phone, the agency would and is
investigating her case.
13. In December 2005, FBI Agent Mary Katherine Koontz informed Plaintiff over
the phone that she would hear from them in the New Year regarding the criminal
case.
14. FBI Agent Mary Katherine Koontz previously told Plaintiff in November 2005
that the case files and copyrights she brought into the Miami FBI field office
would be turned over for investigation to a female FBI agent who specializes in
copyrights, whose name she did not specify. Plaintiff legally demands to know
what happened?
15. In July 2006, Plaintiff received a letter from the Minneapolis FBI Field
Office stating she is a, “Victim of crime” and they are investigating an
incident they discovered, where her personal and identifying information was
criminally accessed.
16. This could only have happened three ways:
17. During documented hacks into Plaintiff’s computers, confirmed by two
computer companies, with the identity of the computer intruders known to the
FBI, Plaintiff’s preexisting copyrights, personal documents, passport number,
license number and various other items, privately stored therein, was illegally
copied and unlawfully used.
18. During one of several break-ins to Plaintiff’s home, where the Miami Shores
Police was called and reports issued, due to copyrighted CD-ROMs containing
Plaintiff’s original, unpublished copyrighted scripts, songs, book manuscripts
and other intellectual property, was stolen from the property, then mysteriously
surfaced later, attributed to miscreants in Hollywood known to the FBI.
19. In criminal misconduct private eye Anthony Pellicano was convicted of, via
bribing police officers to illegally access the personal information of targets
of his unlawful surveillance on behalf of Hollywood stars, Plaintiff’s license
number, home address, phone number and social security number were illegally
obtained.
20. Plaintiff legally demands to know what happened in the FBI Minneapolis
investigation, as she has not received a report regarding the case they
contacted her in writing about in 2006.
21. In the summer of 2006, Plaintiff consulted with a private investigative
agency, Kroll on Brickell Avenue in Miami, who were told by the Miami FBI that
they are investigating Plaintiff’s case and had received the updates she sent in
by certified mail, regarding additional copyright thefts, break-ins to her home
and the escalation of the terrible, unprovoked harassment against her.
22. In short, it was dishonorable to use information the Plaintiff furnished the
Defendants with, to obtain a definitive, crushing conviction against a dangerous
criminal, Anthony Pellicano, but deny her justice, the investigation they
promised her on three separate occasions, a comprehensive, formal report on said
investigations, which other victims of crime have received, containing on
average 50-300 pages and the FOIA files she properly requested in accordance
with U.S. law.
23. It says to Plaintiff and the watching world, the Defendants are not people
of their word, who leave innocent victims of crime at the mercy of criminals.
24. It is just as egregious to stonewall and harangue a physically unwell victim
of crime, who followed U.S. law in attempting to legally obtain FOIA files, she
is entitled to under the law.
25. The Defendants are attempting to defend the indefensible, via violating the
Freedom of Information Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Racial Discrimination
26. The Defendants discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff, which greatly
contributed to a life threatening, stress induced brain hemorrhage. Through
their criminal negligence, they also permitted known criminals to assault and
harass her in documented incidents.
27. The law does not permit such mistreatment and deprivation of rights in
America. Plaintiff is entitled to “Equal rights under the law.”
28.) 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, § 1981
§ 1981. Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same
right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be
parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white
citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,
licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the
making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the
enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual
relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by
nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
29.) Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, § 1982
§ 1982. Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and
Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
Conspiracy To Violate Plaintiff’s Rights
30. Two Los Angeles FBI employees entered into a conspiracy to bully, degrade,
threaten and harass the Plaintiff. Los Angeles FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller
employed threatening, menacing and abusive speech against the Plaintiff in a
phone call, constituting witness tampering against a victim of crime and a
conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.
31. As the FBI has a practice of recording calls, Plaintiff would like a tape of
the aforementioned call played in Court, to illustrate the unprovoked
harassment, hatred and belligerence Plaintiff was subjected to, by an agency
that had taken advantage of her to gain a criminal conviction in the Anthony
Pellicano case while denying her justice in a case of blatant racial
discrimination.
32. The Defendants also unlawfully spied on Plaintiff, which led to her breaking
the Patriot Act abuse story on her widely read website, which Defendant Robert
S. Mueller was LATER excoriated over in Congress during a televised hearing.
33. Plaintiff is entitled to relief, as conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights is unlawful under, 42 U.S.C. § 1985), Title 42, Chapter 21, § 1985, which
states:
34.) Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force,
intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States
from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein,
freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person
or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence
the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such
court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any
verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being
or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of
impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of
justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal
protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing,
or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the
equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on
the highway or on the premises of another, 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 or
Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory
the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent
by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote,
from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the
election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice
President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any
citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any
case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged
therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such
conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of
having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States,
the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages
occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the
conspirators.
35.) DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
18 U.S.C. § 242, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13 states, “Whoever, under color of
any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains,
or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his
color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens…
36.) Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, § 1983
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof 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, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act
or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall
not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief
was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a
statute of the District of Columbia.
UNLAWFUL ACTS
37. The Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment and Title 42, Chapter 21A of
the U.S. Code, in unlawfully spying on the Plaintiff without just cause,
employing warantless wiretapping, email scanning and the FBI’s computer Trojan
CIPAV.
38. Plaintiff found out it was happening to other American citizens as well.
39. This offended Plaintiff, prompting her to expose the Defendants’
unconstitutional misdeeds in her Copyrighted, time-stamped, December 2006 Sound
Off Column, which set off a firestorm of criticism for the agency, when the
veracity of her claims were confirmed three months later in March 2007 via the
DOJ’s Inspector General.
40. This information is easily confirmed via Plaintiff’s Copyright Office
records and certificates, web publishing dates and lastly, the DOJ Inspector
General’s March 2007 report.
41.) THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”
42.) TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21A > SUBCHAPTER I > Part A
Part A—Unlawful Acts
# § 2000aa. Searches and seizures by government officers and employees in
connection with investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses
43.) TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21A > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 2000aa–6
§ 2000aa–6. Civil actions by aggrieved persons
(a) Right of action
A person aggrieved by a search for or seizure of materials in violation of this
chapter shall have a civil cause of action for damages for such search or
seizure—
(1) against the United States, against a State which has waived its sovereign
immunity under the Constitution to a claim for damages resulting from a
violation of this chapter, or against any other governmental unit, all of which
shall be liable for violations of this chapter by their officers or employees
while acting within the scope or under color of their office or employment; and
(2) against an officer or employee of a State who has violated this chapter
while acting within the scope or under color of his office or employment, if
such State has not waived its sovereign immunity as provided in paragraph (1)…
(c) Official immunity
The United States, a State, or any other governmental unit liable for violations
of this chapter under subsection (a)(1) of this section, may not assert as a
defense to a claim arising under this chapter the immunity of the officer or
employee whose violation is complained of or his reasonable good faith belief in
the lawfulness of his conduct, except that such a defense may be asserted if the
violation complained of is that of a judicial officer.
(d) Exclusive nature of remedy
The remedy provided by subsection (a)(1) of this section against the United
States, a State, or any other governmental unit is exclusive of any other civil
action or proceeding for conduct constituting a violation of this chapter,
against the officer or employee whose violation gave rise to the claim, or
against the estate of such officer or employee.
(e) Admissibility of evidence
Evidence otherwise admissible in a proceeding shall not be excluded on the basis
of a violation of this chapter.
(f) Damages; costs and attorneys’ fees
A person having a cause of action under this section shall be entitled to
recover actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000, and such
reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred as the
court, in its discretion, may award: Provided, however, That the United States,
a State, or any other governmental unit shall not be liable for interest prior
to judgment.
(g) Attorney General; claims settlement; regulations
The Attorney General may settle a claim for damages brought against the United
States under this section, and shall promulgate regulations to provide for the
commencement of an administrative inquiry following a determination of a
violation of this chapter by an officer or employee of the United States and for
the imposition of administrative sanctions against such officer or employee, if
warranted.
(h) Jurisdiction
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under this section.
44. Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, § 1988
§ 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts
by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the
protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for
their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws
of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into
effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are
deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish
offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the
constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of
such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent
with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and
govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is
of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
45. Under law, the life-threatening situation the Plaintiff has been placed in,
as a direct result of the Defendants’ conduct, warrants speedy expedition of
Freedom Of Information Act files, Plaintiff correctly requested, after being
declined in writing by the Defendants, with the instruction she must sue to
obtain the files.
46. Failure to furnish copies of said files to the Plaintiff and in an
expeditious manner, places the Defendants in willful, open violation of the
Freedom of Information Act.
47. President Obama, issued a memorandum in 2009, regarding the desire to bring
accountability to America, with his instruction Freedom of Information Act files
be promptly processed and released.
48. Therefore, it is odd and dehumanizing that the Defendants continue
withholding said FOIA files from Plaintiff, once again proving blatant
discrimination.
48. Freedom of Information Act
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Act
A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.
As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "sunlight is said to be the best of
disinfectants." In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which
encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression
of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart
of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the
Government and the citizenry alike.
The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption:
In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep
information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by
disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of
speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort
to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of
those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA,
executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of
cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to
renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new
era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all
decisions involving FOIA.
The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative
steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests
from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens
about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.
I direct the Attorney General to issue new guidelines governing the FOIA to the
heads of executive departments and agencies, reaffirming the commitment to
accountability and transparency, and to publish such guidelines in the Federal
Register. In doing so, the Attorney General should review FOIA reports produced
by the agencies under Executive Order 13392 of December 14, 2005. I also direct
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to update guidance to the
agencies to increase and improve information dissemination to the public,
including through the use of new technologies, and to publish such guidance in
theFederal Register.
This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any
other person.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby authorized and
directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FreedomofInformationAct/
Conclusion
49. The Defendants need to set this injustice right, via releasing the FOIA
files Plaintiff requested and financially making amends, as their misdeeds have
cost Plaintiff her health and considerable income, leaving her with substantial
medical bills that will be well into six figures and continue for many years to
come, due to the established nature of the stress induced hemorrhage and nerve
damaged right leg.
50. Prior to the Civil Rights and Copyrights case the Plaintiff went to the
Defendants about in 2005, in their official capacity as law enforcement,
Plaintiff had no health problems and virtually no stress in her life.
51. However, that all changed when the Plaintiff was subjected to terrible human
rights abuses via a private investigator and his clients in a sick religious
cult, Kabbalah, then was harassed and threatened by two FBI employees, Laura
Eimiller and gun toting FBI agent whose name she refused to give, identifying
only by picture, for Plaintiff speaking out against the FBI/DOJ’s criminal
negligence harming Plaintiff.
52. The harassment and civil rights crimes against Plaintiff continues to this
day, as her computers are still being hacked, she is constantly being sent
fraudulent, menacing emails from members of Kabbalah, pretending to be the FBI
and others and Plaintiff is still being stalked.
53. For example, on New Years Eve, in Plaintiff’s neighborhood of Miami Shores,
she went for a walk and to run some errands and a Kabbalah member followed
Plaintiff, then after a few minutes, rushed towards Plaintiff with her large,
menacing dog, forcing the Plaintiff to cross the street to get away from them.
54. If Plaintiff had not crossed the street, she would have been exposed to
Kabbalah’s usual threats and menacing speech, as has transpired many times over
the past few years, by members of the Miami Kabbalah Center, sent to harass,
terrorize and distress her, in acts law enforcement refers to as “gang
stalking.”
55. Plaintiff is the most physically unwell she has ever been, due to the
aforementioned brain hemorrhage and the metabolic acidosis from the Topamax and
Gabapentin medication prescribed by her neurologist at Jackson Memorial
Hospital, but she had bills to pay and items to mail and as such, went for a
walk to do so, under great fatigue, nausea and head pain.
56. But even that became an obstacle course, as usual, with Plaintiff having to
once again navigate away from a member of a deranged religious cult that refuses
to leave her alone.
57. In the past, they have come up to Plaintiff in numerous public settings,
wearing red string Kabbalah bracelets, identifying themselves as members of the
cult, issuing death threats, threats of violence, threats about the mafia (Miami
Kabbalah member Chris Pacello is a convicted mobster), threats of extortion and
other abusive and invasive speech.
58. On several occasions in public they have violated the Plaintiff’s personal
space and made physical contact, deliberately bouncing, bumping or shoving the
Plaintiff in a rough manner and on one occasion threatened the Plaintiff, while
repeatedly poking her in the shoulder.
59. This ought not be in America, as it is illegal. Such stalking and harassment
constitutes violations of U.S. and Florida law. Plaintiff should be able to live
her life free of such interference and impedance.
58. The Defendants have failed to do their job in restraining misconduct against
Plaintiff, a law abiding, defenseless, unarmed citizen, who does not believe in
violence. As a result, miscreants known to the FBI believe they are free to
continue publicly abusing and terrorizing Plaintiff.
Abuse Has Extended To Plaintiff’s Mother
(59-75 redacted online for safety reasons)....
76. As illustrated by the facts in this case, Plaintiff and her family have been
subjected to a terrible assortment of very damaging, unconstitutional civil
rights abuses, which the Defendants engaged in criminally negligence regarding,
rather than bringing justice, to fulfill their constitutionally sworn duties.
77. The Defendants are no strangers to claims of civil rights violations. They
have been sued in other civil rights cases such as:
Samsonov v. FBI (Case Number: 3:2009cv05006)
Maske v. FBI Denver (Case Number: 1:2009cv02222)
London v. Federal Bureau of Investigations (Case Number:4:2009cv02979)
Pearson v. Defendant (Case Number:3:2009cv00699)
Aguiar v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Case Number:1:2009cv22608)
Morgan v. FBI (Case Number: 5:2009cv00834)
Maske v. FBI (Case Number: 1:2009cv01773)
Harik v. FBI (Case Number: 8:2009cv01835)
Reza Ansari v. FBI (Case Number: 1:2009cv11117)
Sharon P. Benaich v. FBI, Laura C. Miller (Case Number: 1:2009cv00465)
Greg Felts v. FBI (Case Number: 1:2009cv03738)
Michael Dellamerica v. FBI (Case Number:1:2009cv21542)
Papyrus of Growth and Development Printing v. FBI (Case Number:1:2009cv03256)
Jackson v. FBI (Case Number:2:2009cv00447)
Jackson v. FBI (Case Number:2:2009cv00446)
Ignacio v. FBI (Case Number:3:2008cv00194)
Alexander v. Several Unknown Named FBI Agents (Case Number:1:2008cv00156)
Voinche v. FBI and Robert Mueller (Case Number:3:2008cv00045)
Brown v. FBI (Case Number:1:2008cv00484)
Reitz v. FBI (Case Number:2:2008cv00056)
Nagy v. FBI (Case Number:2:2007cv02227)
Vaidya v. FBI (Case Number: 4:2007mc00652)
Delaney v. FBI (Case Number:3:2007cv03290)
Campbell v. The FBI (Case Number:1:2007cv02961)
Gibbons v. FBI (Case Number:3:2007cv00991)
Yendes v. Four Unknown Named FBI Special Agents (Case mber:3:2009cv01143)
78. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to relief in this legal
action and all the Defendants are properly sued under the aforementioned laws.
Submitted by Aisha Goodison (pro se):_______________ Date: 1-4-2010
AISHA GOODISON
P.O. Box 11375
Miami, Florida 33101
Plaintiff certifies a copy of this document has been sent to the Defendants via
their local counsel:
U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Carol Fernandez
99 N.E. 4th Street,
Suite 300,
Miami, Florida 33132
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Case Number: 09-22574-CIV-MARTINEZ-BROWN
AISHA GOODISON
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT S. MUELLER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________/
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1. The Defendants have again moved this Court to improperly dismiss the
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, on very shoddy grounds. They have misapplied,
misused and twisted federal law, in a manner not consistent with justice,
equity, fairness and the Constitution, at the expense of a physically sick
person, struggling with the after effects of an unprecedented brain hemorrhage,
the Defendants’ conduct greatly contributed to, via their misdeeds.
2. Plaintiff’s life is at stake, as she sustained, “One of the most deadly
neurological emergencies” where the “death rate is about 45 percent in the first
30 days, and about half of survivors suffer significant disability” according to
Bio-Medicine, but clearly that means nothing to the Defendants, as they persist
in submitting antagonizing Motions To Dismiss, to deny her justice and legal
relief, knowing the Plaintiff could die if the current misconduct transpiring
against her via miscreants known to them, does not desist.
3. As law enforcement, the Defendants are obligated to bring justice in
accordance with U.S. law, as demonstrable crimes have been committed, but have
left the Plaintiff to be abused, harassed and terrorized in ongoing misconduct
at the hands of miscreants, with two of the FBI employees contributing to the
abuses.
4. The mere fact the Defendants continue to enter flawed Motions to Dismiss,
knowing of the Plaintiff’s deteriorating health and allowing her to be
unlawfully exposed to demonstrable “acute emotional trauma” where medically,
there exists a high probability of death for someone in her condition, sends the
message they do not care if a now physically ill, black victim of crime lives or
dies.
5. It sends a terrible message to the public, but fits the pattern of
criminal negligence and racial discrimination the Defendants have utilized
against her (and others) since 2005, in essentially leaving a victim of crime to
die, while allowing known miscreants to threaten, terrorize and abuse her,
causing further “acute emotional distress.”
6. The Defendants contend the Plaintiff cited no law in her complaint, under
which relief can be granted, which is untrue.
7. The Plaintiff correctly cited the Civil Rights Act, The Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Freedom of Information Act and the Fourth Amendment, as applicable
laws she seeks legal relief under.
8. Many other cases in federal court have been litigated, brought to trial,
with damages won, under the same aforementioned laws. Why are the Defendants
attempting discriminate against the Plaintiff to deny the Plaintiff the same
right other citizens have been afforded in this regard and at the worst possible
time, when she is ill.
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
9. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed under the
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Plaintiff is entitled
to judicial review of this claim pursuant to 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(B).
9. Plaintiff’s life and health are at stake,
qualifying the files for expedited release, as the DOJ represented such
circumstances, as their position before the courts [Mayock v. Nelson, 938 F. 2d
1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1991); Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 644(5th Cir. 1993):
10. Expedited Processing for Demonstrated
Exceptional Need or Urgency. A requestor who demonstrates, consistent with
applicable guidances and law, an “exceptional need or urgency”, shall have
his/her request processed out of turn on an “expedited” basis...
11. FOIA offices are to grant such treatment when
the requestor demonstrates that:
a. an individual’s life or personal safety would be jeopardized by the failure
to process a request immediately; or
12. substantial due process rights of the requestor
would be impaired by the failure to process immediately, and the information
sought is not otherwise available.
13. Procedures for Expedited Processing - A request
for expedited processing which demonstrates either of the above circumstances
shall be processed immediately.
14. This language mirrored the “exceptional need or
urgency” standard on expedited processing set forth in the 1983 DOJ FOIA Update
guidance on
15. Upon information and belief, said FOIA files
contain thousands of pages and Plaintiff seeks the release of all of them.
16. Miami FBI Agent, Mary Catherine Koontz, told the Plaintiff in November
2005, during an FBI interview at their North Miami Beach field office, that the
agency would investigate the case and present the findings via a report, then
based on the dollar amount of the damages, which is now in the billions, it
would be the determination of the U.S. Attorney, whether to pursue criminal
charges against the offenders.
17. Where is the report? Individuals that go to the FBI as victims of crime,
typically receive a report summarizing the findings of their investigation, yet
four years later, the Plaintiff hasn’t received a single piece of paper in this
regard.
18. For example, in the case of Sophia Stewart, a black writer whose
copyrights were infringed, the FBI and U.S. attorney for New York, for reasons
that provoked outrage among the public on dozens of pop culture websites and
radio station sites, declined to bring charges against the now wealthy
perpetrators, but did investigate and issue a lengthy report, illustrating her
works were present on the set of a movie that drew substantively from it,
without permission, to create the finished, infringing product, The Matrix.
19. The Defendants are stonewalling the Plaintiff, hiding incriminating
documents and findings. It is reminiscent of the same conduct they utilized
against the U.S. Congress last month, as revealed by Senator Hoekstra on CBS
News. In the days proceeding the Fort Hood shootings, a regrettable incident
where the FBI’s criminal negligence in allowing a suspicious surveillance
target, Nidal Malik Hasan, to roam free, resulted in said shooter going on to
unconscionably murder 13 people and wound 32 more.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
20. The Defendants illogically and erroneously stated in their second “Motion
To Dismiss” regarding Plaintiff’s allegations against FBI Director, Robert S.
Mueller, violating her Fourth Amendment Rights:
“21. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations against Mueller are founded upon
unwarranted deductions which are insufficient to support a plausible claim.”
22. After Plaintiff sent FBI Director Robert S. Mueller a formal complaint in
September 2005, regarding the Civil Rights and Copyrights case, which he did not
respond to, though her life has been at stake, she received credible
information that on the instruction of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, she is
illegally being wiretapped, her computers unlawfully accessed via the FBI’s
software Trojan CIPAV and her emails “combed” meaning copied and read by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and others.
23. Offended at the intrusion, on December 31, 2006, Plaintiff wrote,
copyrighted and published an article to millions online, exposing the FBI for
engaging in said misconduct against innocent people in America such as herself.
24. Three months later, in March 2007, the Department Of
Justice’s Inspector General, Glenn Fine, released a very scathing report,
stating during an audit he discovered the FBI has been unlawfully wiretapping
people and accessing their emails, among other things, without a warrant.
25. The FBI was excoriated by the domestic and international press, public
and U.S. Congress, with FBI Director Mueller apologizing in Congress for this
unseemly misconduct, during a televised hearing seen by millions.
26. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertions in this regard are not “deductions”
but fact. Robert S. Mueller violated the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights and
seeks to cover said misconduct in denying the Plaintiff’s request for FOIA files
regarding her.
27. He is also a man with a well-publicized history of destroying
incriminating files, as revealed in numerous articles in mainstream
publications, such as the Associated Press and Reuters.
28. How could the Plaintiff have gotten this story so correct three months in
advance of the official report, being the first writer to disclose this
information online, if her allegations regarding the same invasiveness being
done to her by the FBI, are not true. The Defendants insult the Plaintiff’s
intelligence and that of the public following the case, when they make such
illogical, irrational statements.
29. The Defendants also claimed in their second Motion to Dismiss, “Unless
the alleged conduct is shocking to the conscience, courts generally will not
create Bivens actions against federal agency officials based upon discretionary
agency decisions made in the administration of their duties...”
30. The Defendants’ aforementioned statement regarding “Bivens actions” came
across as an admission of guilt in this case or why entertain such a notion, if
one is innocent of the Plaintiff’s allegations. It’s the equivalent of stating
“Yes, so what if we did violate the Fourth Amendment - it’s probably not
shocking enough for the Courts to do anything about it” - as if such conduct is
status quo, when it is a egregious violation of the Constitution.
31. Furthermore, what could be more “shocking” and inappropriate than
unlawfully spying on a law-abiding citizen, whilst she authors socially
conscious columns read by millions, valuable copyrights and scientific
patents that seek to aide and prolong human life.
32. The Plaintiff’s allegations were “shocking” enough the Defendants were
condemned online by the press and public and shortly after, the U.S. Congress as
well, when said allegations were confirmed 3-months later by the audit report of
the Department of Justice’s Inspector General Glenn Fine.
33. It created a worldwide scandal the public is still appalled by to this
day, evident by scathing articles still being published on the subject.
34. The public firmly believes FBI Director Mueller and the FBI brazenly
violated the Fourth Amendment at thousands of people’s expense, which the
Inspector General’s report confirms.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
35. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, "No person in the United
States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
36. Plaintiff, based on race and national origin, was “Excluded from” access
to and “denied the benefits of” vital law enforcement services, by an agency,
the FBI, which receives “federal financial assistance” and funding.
37. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on race, sex,
ethnicity or country of origin, by any entity of the government such as the FBI.
38. The spirit of the Civil Rights Act, a parent law, and its offspring, the
component known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constitutes the conference of
equal rights upon all U.S. citizens and it is magnificent and has been a
blessing to the black community.
39. However, regrettably the FBI has violated it on numerous occasions,
resulting court cases from private citizens and black FBI agents alike. The FBI
has a problem with race relations spawning egregious incidents of race based
discrimination and racial harassment.
40. This motion will illustrate that Plaintiff, as a black U.S. Citizen of
foreign birth, was denied equal access to law enforcement services, which is a
basic right of all Americans, in misconduct initiated and directed by FBI
Director Robert S. Mueller.
41. In September 2005, Plaintiff sent a credible formal complaint regarding
the violation of her Civil Rights and Copyrights to FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller, which the U.S. Post Office confirmed in writing his office received and
signed for. An accompanying complaint was sent to the Department Of Justice. Mr.
Mueller, in violation of his oath of office, did not respond to the complaint or
have anyone address it in any manner, in spite of the fact the Plaintiff’s life
was at stake and still is, due to terrible, violent misconduct being committed
by miscreants known to the FBI.
42. In November 2005, after calling the FBI to inquire about the status of
the complaint and finding out, according to the Miami FBI, Robert S. Mueller’s
office had not even entered it into the agency’s outdated, computer system that
is often criticized in Congress, plaintiff was instructed to come into the Miami
FBI for interviews, which she did.
43. Previously undisclosed, factual allegations Plaintiff made to the FBI in
writing and verbally, was proven 100% true and correct three years later in the
Anthony Pellicano criminal trial, which saw the disgraced private investigator
to the stars convicted and sentenced to 15-years in prison.
Anita Busch
44. To illustrate, once again, the racial discrimination transpiring against
Plaintiff in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white-American writer,
Anita Busch, made similar allegations to the FBI regarding Anthony Pellicano and
the FBI not only brought the case via an indictment, they protected Busch, who
suffered less abuses than the Plaintiff.
45. Plaintiff has nothing against Anita Busch. Plaintiff’s heart goes out to
Ms. Busch and admires her courage in standing up to Anthony Pellicano and the
Hollywood denizens that illegally engaged him, to essentially destroy her life,
for daring to exercise her Constitutional right to freely write articles about
them, by resorting to retaliatory measures against her, such as illegal
wiretapping, installing car surveillance bugging devices, issuing death threats,
stalking and vehicular assault.
46. Plaintiff wishes Ms. Busch nothing but the best, as Plaintiff understands
what she has gone through, having experienced it herself.
47. However, Plaintiff as a black U.S. citizen and writer of foreign birth,
was denied equal access to law enforcement services by the same FBI and DOJ that
took up Busch’s case. That proves beyond the shadow of a doubt, the FBI and DOJ
have been racially discriminating against the Plaintiff.
48. Two cases, two victims of crime, two women, two writers, same
allegations, but one is white and one is black, yet the black one was left to
die and denied all access to law enforcement, while the white one was assigned
police protection and full access to FBI law enforcement services, with a full
criminal trial underway.
49. One can’t ask for a worst example of racial discrimination than that. The
Defendants have unquestionably violated the Civil Rights Act, in acts of blatant
racial discrimination and it is patently offensive.
50. For example, Plaintiff disclosed information to the FBI in writing
and verbally that had not been previously disclosed, such as the
miscreants, whose private investigator, is Anthony Pellicano, hired a man to
try to run her over with a black Mercedes. Three years later, for the
first time, it was made public during the Anthony Pellicano trial in 2008, that
the vicious private investigator paid someone to try to run Ms. Busch over
with a black Mercedes outside her apartment. It was clearly apart of
Pellicano’s method of operation (m.o.).
51. In 2005 Plaintiff disclosed to the FBI, in writing and verbally that
unlawful wiretapping and other illegal surveillance methods were being used by
Anthony Pellicano and the Hollywood denizens that employed him, to gain an
unfair advantage in litigation.
52. In the FBI’s February 2006 indictment against Pellicano and during the
subsequent 2008 trial, the same language the Plaintiff used to the FBI verbally
and in writing in 2005, was employed to gain a conviction against him, as it
filled in pieces of the puzzle, as to Pellicano’s method of operation and
motivation.
53. Other language present in Plaintiff’s 2005 complaint to the FBI and
preexisting, published, time stamped, copyrighted website articles, were
incorporated into the trial as well, verbatim by the prosecution.
54. Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations to the FBI in 2005 are quite credible,
of a greater scope and were proven true years later via the trial U.S.A. v.
Anthony Pellicano, yet Plaintiff was discriminated against and denied justice,
while other victims were granted it.
55. The Defendants must be held legally accountable for this blatant
discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not
“discretionary” but “discriminatory” and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller should
be ashamed of that. Based on feedback Plaintiff has received, the public is
certainly appalled by his misdeeds.
56. Plaintiff is an established writer, whose articles have reached millions,
with greater circulation than many newspapers – yet as a black woman, of foreign
birth, who is a U.S. citizen, she was negligently left to endure unspeakably
wicked human rights abuses, due to the fact she is a black minority and famous
Hollywood denizens commissioned the misconduct against her, seeking to
criminally exploit her Copyrighted Catalog worth billions.
57. As cited previously in Plaintiff’s first Opposition To Motion To Dismiss,
other similar cases for computer intrusion and data theft, were sent to the FBI
years after Plaintiff’s yet were investigated and prosecuted before anything has
been done on Plaintiff’s case (August 2007’s Quantum Technology Partners and
December 2008’s United Way hacking cases).
Attempting To Cover Up An Open Secret
58. Over 20 million people know about the Plaintiff’s case, via her websites,
numerous RSS feeds, blogs, articles and interviews.
59. Millions worldwide also watched the case unfold online and saw with their
own eyes, where Plaintiff would release copyrighted works, then they would be
infringed, in violation of the Copyright Act and Lanham Act.
60. Emails, photographs and people also bore witness, as the Plaintiff was
criminally stalked, cyber-stalked, harassed, threatened and assaulted, by
miscreants known to the FBI and DOJ, with evidence to support said claims.
61. Yet, the Defendants have irrationally and inexplicably taken up a
cover-up of one of worst open secrets in pop culture, known by millions
worldwide.
62. Plaintiff has called for boycotts of the individuals engaging in this
misconduct and as the evidence is so strong, which the public witnessed with
their own eyes, said miscreants suffered career destroying sales declines as the
public’s punishment and vote of no confidence in their terrible misdeeds against
an innocent person.
63. Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully submits, in light of these facts
regarding the public boycotting these miscreants in droves, how do the
Defendants honestly believe the public, millions of people worldwide, view them
for attempting to cover-up misconduct millions saw with their own eyes. It is
conduct not befitting any organization calling itself a law enforcement agency.
64. Plaintiff is certain had the FBI and DOJ done their jobs, Plaintiff’s
copyrights would not have been infringed to the extent they have been,
copyrights that a significant portion of the proceeds from, were earmarked by
Plaintiff, to help disease sufferers, where MUCH MORE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE
FOR CANCER AND AIDS PATIENTS TOWARDS CURES AND MAKING THEIR LIVES BETTER.
It is inexplicable and incomprehensible that the Defendants, via their deeds,
would seek to get in the way of that and world history will not record it well.
65. God in heaven only knows the number of lives that could have been
saved and made better had they not done this terrible thing. Plaintiff
is very upset about that and will be for the rest of her life. What
extraordinary acts of ill-will.
Defendants: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Does Not Grant People Equal
Access To Law Enforcement Services
66. In the most offensive, racist, discriminatory, hurtful statement to date
that has cropped up in this case, the Defendants had the audacity and
unmitigated gall to proclaim in their second “Motion To Dismiss” that the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 does not guarantee her equal rights.
67. “Plaintiff cites to no provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which
provides her a right of “equal access to law enforcement services” of a federal
agency or entitles her to bring an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964
against any of the defendants.”
68. Plaintiff accurately and correctly stated that she is entitled to relief
under the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
69. The Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plainly states, one
can bring legal action to gain relief under said law. There are currently over
200 Civil Rights lawsuits against the FBI listed in Pacer, where the Plaintiffs
in those cases seek far greater sums of money in relief for violation of their
rights.
70. The Defendants behave as though Plaintiff’s claims against them are
extraordinary and unheard of, when they are currently facing a significant
number of lawsuits containing the same allegations, revealing a pattern of abuse
by the Defendants, against minorities and or U.S. Citizens of foreign birth.
71. Therefore, to state Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under the Civil
Rights Act and its components, not only violates it, but initiates a new
incident of discrimination in stating she has no right to legally do what other
victims have done in seeking legal redress under said law.
72. It is very troubling that the Defendants, in open contradiction to the
law, believe otherwise. To state such a thing is to challenge the very Civil
Rights Act, in conduct that can only be described as abhorrent.
73. Furthermore, the mere fact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in existence,
states one can be granted relief under it, otherwise, what would be its
functional purpose. It does not exist for mere symbolism, which is clearly how
the Defendants view it – a symbol that means nothing in practice.
74. It was signed into law to grant equal rights to all and if the Defendants
missed that, as their words indicate, the U.S. Congress needs to commission an
investigation into the discriminatory statements contained in the Defendants’
second “Motion to Dismiss” as to why the FBI and DOJ, based on their words,
believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not guarantee blacks and whites equal
rights in the area of law enforcement. Such thinking poses a terrible threat to
the civil rights of black people in America.
75. This is exactly what the Plaintiff has been asserting all along – The
Defendants believe they can discriminate against whomever they please, failing
to comprehend the spirit and substance of the Civil Rights Act, when the premise
behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is granting equal rights to all.
76. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to confer equal rights upon
blacks and whites, due to the rampant discrimination that fueled the Civil
Rights Era, which judging by the Defendants’ conduct, clearly has not
dissipated.
77. If crimes are committed against a black or white person, they are
entitled to legal redress, police protection and justice, which the Defendants
have discriminatorily denied the Plaintiff. The Defendants are behaving as
though Plaintiff is some sub-human entity not entitled to civil rights or
justice.
78. Further proof of the FBI’s discriminating practices against blacks is the
hundreds of cold cases the FBI has recently taken up, in an attempt to improve
its tarnished image in the black community, regarding previous cases they
covered-up.
79. Case after case illustrates, the FBI deliberately did not do its job
during the Civil Rights era, regarding blatant, race based crimes being
committed against black people in America, which includes assaults, lynching,
shootings and cold blooded murder and do not plan on bringing justice in any
substantiative measure in modern times.
80. Even with this creation of the FBI’s new cold case initiative, regarding
blacks whose civil rights were violated, with some being murdered due to the
color of their skin, the current prosecutions are very few, as the FBI clearly
prefers that some things remain covered up and buried.
SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT
81. The Defendants allege, “ Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to
comply with FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1) and (a)(2). F ED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1)
requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support.”
82. The Plaintiff did make a “short and plain” statement regarding the
Court’s jurisdiction and her filing was even shorter and plainer than the
Defendant’s Answer to the lawsuit.
83. The jurisdictional basis stated in the Plaintiff’s case has been used in
hundreds of the cases filed by numerous lawyers and those legal complaints were
heard by the Court and went to trial with favorable verdicts.
84. Why are the Defendants attempting to discriminate against the Plaintiff
once again, in stating she cannot cite the same jurisdictional premise others in
Miami and other cities across America, have successfully sued under.
85. The majority of the case transpired in Miami, Florida. For the Defendants
to seek to move jurisdiction elsewhere, such as Washington, D.C., where
Defendant Mueller works, attempting to put the Plaintiff to great cost,
inconvenience and undue burden, when she lives in Miami and is undergoing
medical treatment for the severe after effects of the aforementioned,
unprecedented brain hemorrhage and a nerve damaged right leg, is callous and
unconscionable.
86. Plaintiff already stated she does not seek to summons FBI Director Robert
S. Mueller from Washington, though she holds him personally responsible and
liable for the misconduct that transpired against her. Plaintiff also stated the
U.S. Attorney’s office in Miami can continue to litigate the case, as they’ve
done in numerous other legal actions.
87. Therefore, why attempt to disqualify and change jurisdiction and venue,
at a physically sick person’s expense, who is also a victim of crime.
88. The U.S. Code, TITLE 28, PART IV, CHAPTER 85, § 1331 states regarding the
“Federal question” that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case.
FBI EMPLOYEES NAMES
89. The Defendants stated in their second Motion to Dismiss, “Plaintiff does
allege that two FBI employees ‘viciously threatened’ her, but neither of these
individual is named as a defendant and plaintiff does not allege any conduct by
any FBI employee which reasonably constituted a threat to her.”
90. Calling a victim of crime that went to the FBI for help, in a case where
she has been harassed, assaulted, terrorized and bullied, then, as an employee
of said agency, unprovoked, screaming at and degrading her over the phone, while
making nasty, threatening statements in an emphasized tone, about an irate,
heavily armed, FBI agent being “very angry with her” is completely inappropriate
and constitutes witness tampering and implied threats of violence.
91. It was the day the Plaintiff resolved in her mind that the FBI, who
should be out catching criminals, had no intention of bringing justice in her
case and had left her for dead, in favor of well known lawbreaking citizens.
92. Plaintiff spends her time working on scientific patents to prolong human
life, yet she is being abused by a law enforcement agency, when there are
thieves, murderers and terrorists out there (at the time, such as Nidal Malik
Hasan) plotting and committing crimes against innocent people. The FBI needs to
get its priorities in order.
93. Plaintiff was hoping to amicably resolve this case without having to add
the FBI employees to the lawsuit as Defendants, as they acted according to the
agency’s terrible instructions, but apparently, based on the Defendants second
Motion to Dismiss, they are encouraging the Plaintiff to sue their own employees
for misconduct they engaged in while retained by them.
94. If the Defendants would like to voluntarily furnish the Plaintiff with
the CORRECT names and spellings of the FBI spokeswoman Laura “Emiller” or
“Eimiller” and the unnamed, heavily armed FBI Agent she called Plaintiff in
reference to, issuing threats, while screaming at and degrading the Plaintiff,
who ended up in the hospital shortly after, sustaining a stress induced brain
hemorrhage, Plaintiff will add them to the lawsuit as Defendants.
95. Plaintiff did not want to stock the Complaint with “Jane Doe” and “John
Doe” Defendants, as according to a recently published legal opinion, the Court
discourages such filings. Separately, for accuracy reasons, Plaintiff also
requests the correct names and spellings of the two Miami FBI agents that
interviewed her in November 2005, believed to be FBI Agents J. Christopher
Kaczynski and Mary Catherine Koontz.
96. In light of the aforementioned facts, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, the
FBI and DOJ, should not be dismissed from this action, nor should the action be
dismissed, as they are liable for their unlawful conduct, not protected by the
“Immunity Shield” which does not protect, condone or authorize violations of the
Constitution, Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Freedom of
Information Act.
97. Plaintiff could also die, as a result of another hemorrhage, which she is
at much greater risk of sustaining due to the first one having happened, if this
matter is not properly resolved, as ongoing misconduct by miscreants known to
the FBI, still plagues her life, posing a great threat to her immediate safety,
health and well being.
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
Submitted by Aisha Goodison (pro se):___________________ Date: 12-15-09
AISHA GOODISON
P.O. Box 11375
Miami, Florida 33101
Plaintiff certifies a copy of this document has been sent to the Defendants
via their local counsel:
U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Carol Fernandez
99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300,
Miami, Florida 33132
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Case Number: 09-22574-CIV-MARTINEZ-BROWN
AISHA GOODISON
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT S. MUELLER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________/
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
BACKGROUND
1. The Plaintiff, Aisha Goodison, professionally known as “Aisha” is a writer,
singer, instrumentalist, director, producer, painter and inventor. She was a
child prodigy and has a genius level IQ.
2. She holds dual citizenship to Jamaica, her homeland and America, where she
currently resides in Miami, Florida. She hails from an award winning family that
has specialized in arts and entertainment for decades.
3. Her father is an award winning radio personality, whose show is listened to
by millions of people all over the world. He is also a Justice of the Peace, who
does extensive charity work that has helped many worthwhile causes. Previously,
he was an international soccer player and the youngest man to ever play for the
Jamaican National Team.
4. Her mother is a former Jamaican beauty queen that previously worked for an
artist management company. One of her aunts is Jamaica’s poet laureate and
another is the nation’s most famous media personality.
5. Aisha is the writer and web designer of a very successful string of Internet
sites. They are AishaMusic.com, JudiciaryReport.com, SonustarNews.com,
SoundOffColumn.com, Compendius.com, CelluloidFilmReview.com and
UnitedPeaceInitiative.com, which are read by an audience of millions.
6. She is one of the most read bloggers on the Internet. She has also been
featured in mainstream print, radio and Internet.
7. Aisha is the author of a multi-billion dollar valued Copyrighted Catalog of
works that contains 12,500 songs, 1000 movie scripts, movie treatments and short
stories, 15 book manuscripts, 300 music video treatments, 500 photographs, 100
photo treatments, perfume, clothing line, nano-technology, a solar cell phone
and thousands of other items.
8. Aisha is also the author of forthcoming medical and science patents to extend
and improve human life, health and well-being. Her company is called Sonustar.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Violations of the Freedom of Information Act
9. This action is filed under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C.
§ 552, which the Defendants have violated in denying the Plaintiff records she
properly requested.
10. The Plaintiff is entitled to judicial review of this claim pursuant to 5 USC
§ 552(a)(4)(B).
11. The Plaintiff seeks the release of files and records under the Freedom Of
Information Act, as she has exhausted all administrative means to obtain them.
12. Over the past few years, the Defendants have sent the Plaintiff denial
notices and informed her she can sue them if she wishes to obtain the records.
13. To date the Defendants have not disclosed agency records responsive to
Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and violated the applicable statutory time limit for
the processing of FOIA requests.
14. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and the immediate release of all
records and files in their entirety, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and Department of Justice, regarding her, her copyrights, companies, ventures
and the Madonna case she filed a complaint about in 2005.
15. Plaintiff further seeks all files and records bearing her name Aisha, Aisha
Goodison, Aisha K. Goodison, Aisha Kamilah Goodison and any and all variant
spellings others chose, such as Alisha Goodison. Aisha seeks the release of all
files involving her, even if they do not bear her name.
16. The FBI has wrongfully withheld these files, acknowledging in writing there
are files, but declining to release them without a lawsuit from the Plaintiff,
providing no explanation, in conduct that is in violation of the Freedom of
Information Act.
17. Aisha has tried in good faith to obtain these files and records, containing
thousands of pages, through the appropriate administrative means, but was
denied, with her subsequent appeal rejected as well.
18. Therefore, Plaintiff requests the court instruct the Defendants to
immediately send copies of the files and records to her, as Plaintiff’s life is
at stake twofold, regarding abuse, harassment and threats from miscreants known
to the Defendants and the stress induced brain hemorrhage that resulted because
of the case, damaging her now fragile health.
19. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Office of Information and Privacy
published guidelines on “When to Expedite FOIA Requests” in 1983.
20. The DOJ adopted the Open America standard of “exceptional need or urgency”
and interpreted this to mean that FOIA processing should be expedited in the
case of a threat to life or safety or a showing of a loss of substantial due
process rights.
21. There is a “threat to life or safety” present in this case and it is very
upsetting and distressing that the Defendants continue to violate the
aforementioned guideline in this case.
22. The DOJ also represented this as their position before the courts [Mayock v.
Nelson, 938 F. 2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1991); Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 644
(5th Cir. 1993).]
23. The Settlement Agreement as a result of the Mayock litigation, Plaintiff
Mayock entered into a Settlement Agreement with the government in 1992. The
Settlement Agreement states:
24. Expedited Processing for Demonstrated Exceptional Need or Urgency. A
requestor who demonstrates, consistent with applicable guidances and law, an
“exceptional need or urgency”, shall have his/her request processed out of turn
on an “expedited” basis...
25. FOIA offices are to grant such treatment when the requestor demonstrates
that:
a. an individual’s life or personal safety would be jeopardized by the failure
to process a request immediately; or
26. b. substantial due process rights of the requestor would be impaired by the
failure to process immediately, and the information sought is not otherwise
available.
27. Procedures for Expedited Processing - A request for expedited processing
which demonstrates either of the above circumstances shall be processed
immediately.
28. This language mirrored the “exceptional need or urgency” standard on
expedited processing set forth in the 1983 DOJ FOIA Update guidance on
“When to Expedite FOIA Requests”.
Violations of the Fourth Amendment
29. The Defendants have violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution
regarding, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by
Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.”
30. Plaintiff also had a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy under Katz v. United
States.
31. Defendant Mueller, in his capacity as FBI Director, has violated the
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, in violation of the Constitution, via
warantless wiretapping, email scanning and CIPAV usage.
32. Plaintiff outed the FBI Director and his agency on this misconduct, in her
Copyrighted, December 31, 2006 Sound Off Column, read by millions around the
world online, which was confirmed by DOJ Inspector General, Glenn Finne, three
months later, in March 2007, via his audit report.
33. Defendant Robert S. Mueller, in his capacity as FBI Director, set the agenda
in this case and engaged the FBI in this regard, to violate the Plaintiff’s
Constitutional rights, with the knowledge and complicity of the Department of
Justice and as such, they area all liable in this action, under established U.S.
law.
34. Plaintiff, as one of the most read journalists on the internet, was the
first to break the Patriot Act abuse scandal story, via said time stamped,
Library of Congress copyrighted article, registered and published before the
IOG’s official findings were released.
35. To date, the Plaintiff has broken over 40 exclusives in her ground breaking
copyrighted articles and Columns, such as her site JudiciaryReport.com, read by
millions, that months later were proven 100% true and correct by current events
and Inspector General audit reports (www.JudiciaryReport.com/exclusives.htm).
36. Plaintiff did so as a result of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller and his
agency’s violation of her Constitutional rights in spying on her and other
American citizens, in what was later labeled the Patriot Act abuse scandal, for
which Mueller and the FBI were excoriated in the U.S. Congress on live
television and in the official DOJ audit report.
37. The Constitution did not grant FBI Director Mueller exclusive rights to
unlawfully spy on American citizens, then violate the Freedom of Information
Act, to hide and or destroy the evidence of said misconduct.
38. Thus, based on their own words in their Answer the “Shield of Immunity” does
not apply to the Defendants in this case.
39. To invoke the “Shield of Immunity” is to state Director Robert S. Mueller is
above the law and does not have to legally answer for his conduct that violates
the Constitution, which is the law of the land.
40. Cases were permitted against FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, most of which
are civil rights violation cases that also violated the Constitution, many
resulting in settlements or favorable judgments against FBI Director Mueller, in
a manner that did not prove a distraction to him in his duties at the FBI, as it
was litigated by the Justice Department.
41. The Plaintiff does not seek to summons the FBI Director to Miami, therefore
this case can unobtrusively proceed, with the Justice Department and U.S.
Attorney’s office acting on his behalf.
Violations of the Civil Rights Act
42. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex and national origin by federal and state governments.
43. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, "No person in the United
States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d.
44. Plaintiff, based on race and national origin, was “Excluded from” access to
and “denied the benefits of” vital law enforcement services, by an agency, the
FBI, which receives “federal financial assistance” and funding.
45. The Defendants have violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in unlawfully
denying the Plaintiff equal access to law enforcement services, due to the color
of her skin and national origin, in being a naturalized U.S. citizen.
46. U.S. Federal government inquiries have found the FBI has pervasive problems
with racial discrimination, racial harassment and racial retaliation, in how it
deals with the public and even its own FBI agents of color and or foreign
origin, resulting in many lawsuits.
47. Cases against the Defendants for said misconduct include Bassem Youssef vs.
FBI et al, Abdallah Higazy vs. FBI et al, Donald Rochon vs. FBI et al and Amir
Meshal v. FBI et al.
48. FBI agents Wilfred Baptiste, Kendall Hobson, Paul Sutherland, Nathan Tucker
and Carlos Luquis of the New York FBI also sued the agency for deplorable acts
of racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
49. The FBI was previously sued in 1993 and settled a class action lawsuit filed
by black FBI agents, exposed to horrible racism and racial retaliation on the
job.
50. Plaintiff has been denied access to law enforcement services, discriminated
against by the Defendants and viciously threatened by Laura Eimiller and her
gun-toting FBI coworker, an agent she refuses to name, identifying only by
photograph.
51. Said misconduct constitutes witness tampering, whilst the Plaintiff was left
to be savaged by lawbreaking miscreants known to the Defendants, who they are
supposed to be investigating, to fulfill their Congressional and Constitutional
duties.
52. The Defendants were and are Constitutionally and legally obligated to stop
said criminal misconduct from transpiring against the Plaintiff, as the
country’s national law enforcement agency.
53. In willfully not doing so, the Defendants violated the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which bars said discrimination, “Based on race, color… and national origin
by federal and state governments.”
54. Depravation of Civil Rights is a very serious matter and one the U.S.
Congress, who the Defendants are answerable to, denounce on a regular basis, as
an abhorrent malfeasance. It is a litigable claim upon which this Court has
jurisdiction.
55. The Plaintiff provided the Defendants with proof her preexisting copyrights
are being stolen, her house burglarized to steal additional intellectual
property CD-ROMs, as reported to the police, she is being sent unlawful,
harassing, emails with threats of violence, being stalked, approached, viciously
threatened and assaulted in public and her computers are being hacked on a daily
basis.
56. These crimes have been witnessed by several people, supported by digital
evidence such as emails, site statistics, preexisting copyrights and harassing
communication from the perpetrators, that even tried to set her up in writing
and harass her on the air, on a radio show in Australia (Nova 919).
57. These are federal crimes the Defendants are legally and Congressionally
obligated to pursue and bring justice.
58. However, the Defendants deliberately did not, opting to allow a set of
miscreants to engage in every imaginable horror against the Plaintiff that comes
to their unconscionable minds.
59. The Plaintiff provided more than adequate proof via her preexisting
Copyrights illustrating they are being hacked and infringed, in crimes the FBI
is federally obligated to investigate and bring justice.
60. They willfully did not, opting to engage in stonewalling to protect the
individuals behind the profitable crimes, being committed against a black,
naturalized citizen that did them no harm.
61. This misconduct has now mushroomed into the Defendants improperly and
unlawfully withholding incriminating investigative documents, in violation of
the Freedom of Information Act, critical to the Plaintiff’s life, existence and
well being.
62. There are no allowances under U.S. law for such conduct by the Defendants,
irrespective of their job posts.
63. The crimes committed against the Plaintiff that she reported to the
Defendants, with adequate proof and evidence, were swept under the rug by the
Defendants.
64. The FBI, with the knowledge of the D.O.J, did this on Robert S. Mueller’s
instructions. Such conduct by the Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of their
honest services as law enforcement, which all American citizens are entitled to.
65. Mr. Mueller took the low road and Plaintiff almost paid for it with her
life. As such Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which bars such blatant discrimination and harassment.
66. The Defendants’ misconduct has caused great injury to Aisha in violation of
the aforementioned, established U.S. laws.
Prayer For Relief
67. The Plaintiff seeks the release of files and records under the Freedom Of
Information Act, as she has exhausted all administrative means to obtain them.
15. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(3) requires that governmental agencies "upon any request
for records...shall make the records promptly available to any person."
68. The Plaintiff seeks $850,000 in punitive and compensatory damages against
the Defendants and all other remedies the court deems fit, for willful and
egregious violations of the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Fourth Amendment.
69. The Defendants massive, gross negligence, harassment, abuse, inhumane
indifference and willful acts of discrimination, almost claimed Plaintiff’s
life.
70. Said misconduct destroyed Plaintiff’s health, assets and finances, with the
Defendants’ conduct being a proximate cause of the subsequent life threatening,
unprecedented, stress-induced brain hemorrhage Aisha suffered, somewhat similar
to the aneurysms Vice President Joe Biden suffered.
71. As a result of the brain hemorrhage, Aisha was hospitalized at Jackson
Memorial Hospital on October 13, 2008.
72. AISHA WILL NEED COSTLY MEDICAL CARE AND EXPENSIVE PRESCIRPTIONS, WITH
FOLLOW UP MEDICAL VISITS, FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE, due to physical side
effects stemming from the stress induced brain hemorrhage and a nerve damaged
right leg, the byproduct of a botched angiogram, when the hospital performed an
emergency surgical procedure, trying to ascertain the source of the “life
threatening” brain hemorrhage that was later attributed to stress. Her current
medical bill is in excess of $60,000 and not even a quarter of the medical
treatments, such as surgery and nerve blocks, have been undertaken yet.
73. Aisha underwent 2 MRIs, 2 CT scans, an angiogram, an EKG, EMG, Doppler,
blood tests, urine tests and a battery of other exams, which all came up normal,
save for the unprecedented brain hemorrhage in the occipital lobe that showed up
on the MRIs and CT scans.
74. Aisha had no preexisting medical conditions and has never been sick beyond
the occasional common cold. She has never taken drugs or smoked and does not
drink.
Upon examination it was revealed, she suffered no external injuries to create
the hemorrhage.
75. It is clearly the end result of the terrible, dehumanizing, stressful ordeal
and traumatic abuse she was put through at the hands of the negligent FBI and
entertainment industry members involved in the occult, Hollywood’s Kabbalah
Center cult, who have been allowed to stalk, terrorize, threaten, harass, abuse
and assault her for years.
76. The traumatic brain hemorrhage has produced side effects such as chronic
nausea, vomiting, dizziness, extreme fatigue, head pains, head aches, blurred
vision at night, sensitivity to light and in a separate incident, permanent
nerve damage in her right leg, due to the aforementioned angiogram.
77. Aisha is in danger of sustaining another brain hemorrhage, due to the fact
the FBI has failed to rein in known miscreants that continue to stalk, harass,
terrorize and contact her on a frequent basis, which creates severe stress and
is against Aisha’s neurologists’ orders.
78. IF AISHA SUSTAINS ANOTHER STRESS INDUCED BRAIN HEMORRHAGE, ACCORDING TO
EXPERTS IN THE MEDICAL FIELD, IT HAS AN EXTREMELY HIGH PROBABILITY OF BEING
FATAL.
79. Therefore, Aisha’s life is at stake and the aforementioned Hollywood
harassers need to be restrained and a protective order issued.
80. The continued harassment has also slowed down Aisha’s medical recovery, as
she continues to undergo difficult outpatient medical treatment in hopes of a
recovery.
81. In late October 2009, Plaintiff was again prescribed medication by Jackson
Memorial Hospital that she did not wish to take, refusing them three times, as
reflected by her medical records, concerned about their effects.
82. The hospital repeatedly insisted she take the medications, Topamax and
Gabapentin, both the subject of many lawsuits for wrongful death, which
immediately formed a bad drug cocktail in October 2009, with terrible side
effects, resulting in a serious, potentially fatal medical condition called
Acidosis, often associated with Topamax (Toprimate), further damaging
Plaintiff’s health.
VENUE
83. Venue is proper in the District of Florida under 5 USC § 552(a)(4)(B) which
grants jurisdiction to the district court in the district in which the
complainant lives.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
84. The Court has personal matter jurisdiction to hear this case. The Plaintiff
is a resident of Miami, Florida, which is located in the Southern District of
Florida.
85. The Miami FBI, who is involved in this case, as the Defendants’ local field
office, the Plaintiff was instructed to visit three times by the FBI, is located
within the Southern District of Florida at 16320 N.W. 2nd Avenue, North Miami
Beach, Florida 33169.
86. The Department Of Justice maintains a field office in Miami as well, located
within the Southern District of Florida, at 155 S. Miami Ave, Miami, Florida
33130-1617.
87. The majority of the alleged misconduct that transpired against the Plaintiff
occurred in Miami, Florida, which is located within the Southern District of
Florida, giving rise to this action in this district.
88. The majority of the elements present in this case, have a connection to
Miami and the Southern District of Florida. Thus, it is the most appropriate
venue under the law.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
89. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. This Court has
the ability by law to hear Freedom of Information Act and Civil Rights Act
cases, as both fall under Federal Law and as such are traditionally heard in
Federal Courts in the United States of America.
90. This Court retains subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction
over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) which grants a district
court of the United States jurisdiction to enjoin an agency from improperly
withholding records and to order said agency to produce such records to the
complainant.
Federal Question
91. The U.S. Code, TITLE 28, PART IV, CHAPTER 85, § 1331 states regarding the
“Federal question” that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case.
Submitted by Aisha Goodison (pro se):___________________ Date: 12-15-09
AISHA GOODISON
P.O. Box 11375
Miami, Florida 33101
Plaintiff certifies a copy of this document has been sent to the Defendants via
their local counsel:
U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Carol Fernandez
99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300,
Miami, Florida 33132
FBI's second motion to dismiss:
click here for PDF
FBI's motion to dismiss:
click here for PDF
FBI Answer: click here
for PDF
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
