#116, Drano Series
         

       
    Brian Meuse's Amended Verified
    Federal Complaint for Violation of His Civil Rights, including Malicious Prosecution, 
    False Arrest and Imprisonment, and Defamation: 
    All Arising out of an 
    Affidavitless Warrant, 
    a Conspiracy, Uncaring Courts,
    and a
    Parental Kidnapping Charge 
    AND a Verdict of Not Guilty
    ~~~~~
    Brian took the child because he feared her muscles would atrophy.  The courts would not listen when he told them the child was not being taken for therapy as had been advised by the Early Intervention Program.
    So he took the child out of harm's way.

    The local police issued a warrant without an affidavit.  They pretended a federal warrant existed.  No one has ever seen the federal warrant.

    Posters were placed in stores across the country and on the Internet, and the FBI were interviewed on television. 
    One of the posters identifying Brian as an abductor stayed on the America's Most Wanted website until the day the complaint below was served on AMW -- even though a jury of his peers had judged him NOT GUILTY two years earlier. 

    The complaint is long.  We had lots of evidence, oodles from the testimony by the child's mother, a daycare center caregiver, the police detective who obtained the warrant without an affidavit, his captain, and, of course, Brian himself.

    The Complaint was amended to substitute the REAL corporate name of FOX25News.
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    CIVIL ACTION: 

    --------------------------------------------------- 

    Brian J. Meuse 
    Plaintiff 

    v. 

    Susan Pane,
    Rosalyn Stults,
    Lt. Detective Daniel R. Moynihan, in his official and individual capacities, 
    Captain Donald Thompson, in his official and individual capacities,
    City of Haverhill, Massachusetts,
    Louis Freeh, in his official capacity, 
    Charles S. Prouty, in his official and individual capacities, 
    Charles P. Kelly, in his official and individual capacities, 
     FOX Television Stations, Inc.,
    America’s Most Wanted,
    National Center for Missing and 
    Exploited Children,
    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    Defendants 

    --------------------------------------------------- 

    VERIFIED COMPLAINT: JURY CLAIM AS TO ALL COUNTS

    Brian J. Meuse ["Meuse"] of Massachusetts hereby asserts the following claims against the defendants in the above-entitled action: 

                                                                                                                  Paragraphs
    1. violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: arrest ……………………………………   397-409
    2. violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: detention and confinement ……………..   410-411
    3. violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: conspiracy ………………………………   412-433
    4. violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: refusing or neglecting to prevent ………   434-440
    5. malicious prosecution …………………………………………………   441-456
    6. abuse of process ………………………………………………………     457-464
    7. violation of Mass. Civil Rights Act (M.G.L. c. 12, sec. 11I ) …………    465-470
    8. false arrest and imprisonment …………………………………………  471-478
    9. assault ………………………………………………………….……..      479-483
    10. battery ………………………………………………………….……..       484-487
    11. conspiracy ………………………………………………………….…      488-501
    12. defamation …………………………………………………………….      502-512
    13. intentional infliction of emotional distress ……………………………   513-521


    JURISDICTION
     
    1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343(a) (civil rights and elective franchise), and 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction); 42 U.S.C. §§.1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights), 1985(3) (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), 1986, and 1988 (proceedings in vindication of civil rights); and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1511; 1961 (and statutes cited therein) through 1967. 
    2. Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). 


    PARTIES
    1. Plaintiff Brian J. Meuse ["Meuse"] is a natural person residing at 115 Oxford Avenue, Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts, United States of America; was a resident of Massachusetts during all relevant times of this action, and was the significant other of Defendant Susan Pane, and father of Marissa Lyne Meuse, Pane and Meuse’s child, born August 4, 1999.
    2. Defendant Susan Pane ["Susan"], who is a natural person, was residing at 291 Sagewood Drive, Port Orange, Volusia County, Florida 32127, United States of America, at all times relevant to this Complaint.
    3. Rosalyn Stults ["Stults"], who is an attorney, was a resident of Massachusetts, and represented Susan Pane at all relevant times in this Complaint [Trial, 5/20/02, at 65].
    4. Defendant Daniel R. Moynihan ["Moynihan"], who is a natural person and the named Complainant in the Criminal Complaint, Docket Number 0038-CR-2411 in the Haverhill Division of the District Court Department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was a resident of Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts, United States of America, and a duly-appointed Detective in and Domestic Violence Officer for the Haverhill Police Department, 40 Bailey Place, Haverhill, MA, at all times relevant to this Complaint [Trial, 5/20/02, at 164-165].
    5. Defendant Donald Thompson ["Thompson"], who is a natural person, was a resident of Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts, United States of America, and a duly-appointed police officer, Captain, and Detective Commander in the Haverhill Police Department at all times relevant to this Complaint. Detective Moynihan reports to Detective Commander Thompson.
    6. Defendant City of Haverhill ["Haverhill"] is a Municipal Corporation, organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and located at City Hall, Room 100, 4 Summer Street, Haverhill, MA 01830. It is responsible for the policies, procedures, and practices implemented through its various agencies, agents, departments, and employees, and for injury occasioned thereby. It was also the public employer of Defendants Moynihan, Thompson, and Barone at all times relevant to this Complaint. 
    7. Louis Freeh was at all times relevant to this Complaint Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ["FBI"], whose headquarters is currently located in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535-0001, and which is the investigative arm of the United States Department of Justice. The FBI’s investigative authority can be found in 28 U.S.C. §533 and 18 U.S.C. §351 (Congressional Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault Act). The FBI Boston Field Office is located in Suite 600, at One Center Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (boston.fbi.gov, 617-742-5533). He is sued in his official capacity.
    8. Charles S. Prouty was appointed Special Agent in Charge of the Boston Division of the FBI on 26 April 2000 by Director Louis Freeh, and was appointed as Executive Assistant Director, Law Enforcement Services Division of the FBI on 7 November 2002 by Director Robert S. Mueller, III, who took the oath of office on 4 September 2001.
    9. Charles P. Kelly is an FBI agent, who at the times relevant to this Complaint was assigned to the Boston office under Charles Prouty. Kelly is currently assigned to the New York office, 26 Federal Plaza, 23d floor, New York, New York 10278, 212-384-1000.
    10. FOX Television Stations, Inc. [“FOXNews or FOX25News or FOX”], headquartered at 1999 S. Bundy Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90025-5235, and under the umbrella of The News Corporation Limited, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 8th floor, NY, NY 10036, is the owner and operator of Fox25News, 15 Court Square, Suite 350, Boston, MA. 02108.
    11. America’s Most Wanted ["AMW"], a television show shown on ABC-TV stations nationwide, P.O. Box Crime-TV, Washington, D.C., 20016-9126; phone: 800-CRIME-TV (800-274-6388). NCMEC and AMW are Gold-Star partners [Exh. HHH].
    12. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Wang International Children's Bldg., 699 Prince St., Alexandria, VA 22314-3175. NCMEC and Wal-Mart are partners. 
    13. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is a corporation with headquarters located in Bentonville, Arkansas. Its local agent is Corporation Service Company, at 84 State Street, 5th floor, Boston, MA 02109; phone: 617-227-9590 or 800-225-6244. Wal-Mart is a "Premiere Partner" of NCMEC. A "Premiere Partner contributes $100,000+ Per Year (In-Kind, Cash, Other)" [Exh. EEE, a set of webpages]. 

      14.  

      In 1996 Wal-Mart launched the Missing Children's Network, the most
      aggressive retailer program to date aimed at bringing missing children home. 
      The Missing Children's Network includes bulletin board displays of missing 
      children photographs in more than 2,400 stores, a Code Adam safety proce- dure to lock and search a store when there is lost child incident while a family is shopping at Wal-Mart, a television public service announcement, and provi- sion of child safety information to 78 million homes in a weekly household flier. If you are interested in learning more about this partner, please click on the link below to visit their web site. 

    1. Plaintiff sues all public employees in their official and individual capacities. 
    2. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants Moynihan and Thompson acted toward plaintiff under color of the statutes, ordinances, customs, and usage of the State of Massachusetts, City of Haverhill, and the Haverhill Police Department. 
    3. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants Freeh, Prouty, and Kelly acted toward plaintiff under color of the statutes, ordinances, customs, and usage of the U.S.A.


    FACTS

    NOTE
    Because of the length of the FACTS section, 
    Plaintiff provides here for the convenience of the court, 
    a Table of Contents for the FACT section
    The Beginning                                                                                                                                       19-20
    Susan Pane’s Work as a Prescription Drug Technician                                                              21-36
    The Birth of the Child, Marissa Lyne Meuse, and Pane’s Inability to Cope with the Infant    37-42
    Abduction of Child by Susan Pane, 10/1/99                                                                                      43-64
    Child’s Medical Condition As of June 2000                                                                                     65-68

    Meuse Retains New Counsel and Begins Discovery                                                                        69-72
    Moynihan Ignored Restraining Order Against Pane: Invidious Gender Discrimination         73-86
    Moynihan’s Non-Investigation Regarding Status of Case in Family Courts of
                Massachusetts and Florida                                                                                                         87-94
    Information Supplied to and Gathered by the Haverhill Police Department                                95-115

    Moynihan’s Non-Investigation Regarding the Drugs’ List                                                         116-129
    Moynihan’s Non-Investigation Regarding the Two Susans                                                         130-139
    Child’s Medical Condition Between July 2000 and 1 October 2000                                          140-150
    Meuse’s Legal Attempts to Take Marissa out of Harms Way                                                              151
    Faced with Court’s Failure to Act. Meuse Must Act to Save Child                                             152-172

    Moynihan’s Understanding of the Law                                                                                            174-178
    Thompson Orders Moynihan to Stop Investigation and Later Lies to the Chief                      179-184
    Susan Pane Reports Child Taken from Florida                                                                             185-193
    Moynihan’s Investigation after Pane Reports Child Taken                                                         194-203
    What Thompson and Moynihan Knew Before They Sought Arrest Warrant                           204-214

    The Unlawful Warrant for Meuse’s Arrest                                                                                    215-223
    What Thompson Knew about the Alleged FBI Unlawful Flight Warrant                                   224-232
    What Thompson Did Not Investigate about the Baby’s Health                                                     233-242
    What Thompson Knew about Moynihan’s Investigation of the Baby’s Health                          243-246
    Moynihan’s Non-Investigation Regarding Pane’s Care of the Child                                          247-252

    Captain Thompson’s General Police Knowledge                                                                             253-267
    Thompson, Moynihan, the FBI, and FBI Agent Charles Kelly Coordinate Activities               268-294
    Pane and Moynihan and the FBI Coordinate Poster Activities                                                     295-316
    The Warrant on America’s Most Wanted Website                                                                        317-324
    FOXNews Televised Broadcast                                                                                                          325-326

    Moynihan’s Communication with Pane and Stults                                                                          327-334
    Stults’ Working with the FBI and Maintaining the "Susan Pane Legal Defense Fund"         335-337
    Probable Cause                                                                                                                                       338-360
    Brian Meuse Never Intended to Remove Child Permanently from Mother                                 361-376
    Meuse’s Arrest and the Ensuing Criminal Process                                                                        377-396

     
    THE BEGINNING
    1. Defendant Susan Pane and Brian Meuse were living together in a home on Oxford Avenue in the Ward Hill area of Haverhill, Massachusetts. The home was owned by his parents.
    2. Meuse was working full-time at Compaq, 40-50 hours a week, depending on overtime availability and working in his own machine shop that was about 20 feet from his house 25-30 hours a week at the same time [Trial, 5/21/02, at 188].
        3.  
    SUSAN PANE’S WORK AS A PRESCRIPTION-DRUG TECHNICIAN
    1. Pane began working in Andover, Massachusetts, as a level-one pharmaceutical technician at Merck-Medco, a mail-order pharmacy, where she dispensed prescription drugs [Trial, 5/17/02, at 77].
    2. About a year later, when she became pregnant, she was promoted to the position of a level-two technician [Trial, 5/17/02, at 132].
    3. According to Meuse, Pane was promoted to the level-two position because of the danger of exposure to the narcotics in the working environment. People were to wear face masks, protective suits and gloves, but Pane would not wear the gear that was offered, so they moved her into the level-two position [Trial, 5/22/02, at 190].
    4. According to Pane, as a level-two technician at Merck-Medco, she deciphered the doctor's handwriting on a prescription and input her interpretation into Merck-Medco's computer system. The computer then generated a computerized prescription that went to the level-one technician [Trial, 5/17/02, 125-126].\FN1/

        FN1 Pane had access to the DEA numbers of all doctors nationwide and had the capability of entering any prescription she wanted into the system. So long as the DEA and the doctor’s name matched on a prescription, the prescription could be filled by a level-one technician or by a pharmacy [Trial, 5/22/02, at 181].
           
    1. Also according to Pane, the level-two technician, more specifically, "get[s] a bin with just a prescription in it. You read the prescription. . . . [T]he person's name, address should be on there; whatever other relative information, their phone number, their date of birth, their Social Security number. You read what the prescription says; for what drug it is, what milligrams, quantity, directions, and the doctor's name and the DEA number, if applicable, and you put all this information into the computer" [Trial, 5/17/02, 131].
    2. A level-one technician’s job begins with the prescription generated by the level-two technician’s computer. The output prescription contains a UPC-type bar code, the person’s name (but not the address and not the date), the name of the pill, the quantity and the milligrams, and "other jumbled numbers." The level-one technician holds the bar code under a laser light scanner. The computer counts the pills and sends them to the chute. The medication "comes through the chute, goes into the bottle, you put the label on, cap the bottle, that one's done" [Trial, 5/17/02, at 124-129]. The name of the person who gets the pills is not put on the prescription; it only appears on the label [Trial, 5/17/02, at 126-127].
    3. Pane technically worked at Merck-Medco until she left Haverhill. She phoned in her resignation. She had not been physically working there throughout the latter part of her pregnancy. She had not been out on maternity leave, but out on short-term disability. Eventually the short-term disability turned into a long-term disability, for when she was ready to go back to work she had, so she testified, pilonidal cysts on her tailbone, making her unable to sit as a level-two technician and input the information into the computer. "The only thing I could do if I wanted to remain working would be standing -- would be the level-one job. The doctor did not want me in the room, inhaling any types of the prescription medications. Therefore, keeping me out on my disability. . . . [Y]ou can get the scents of medication when you're working that closely with all these different medications. So, not to do any physical harm to myself or the baby, they kept me out of the pharmacy" [Trial, 5/17/02, at 132-133].
    4. Meuse complained that Pane was pill-dependent and Pane has denied being pill-dependent.
    5. Meuse requested on many occasions that Pane quit drinking, but her drinking continued and the drug addiction was getting increasingly worse and the pills were scattered all over the house. She never went for help. Instead, she started arguments, fights, and became volatile and very upset [Trial, 5/22/02, at 188].
    6. After Meuse burnt his hand, he had a 30-pill prescription for Percoset. He took one for the immediate pain of the first day. Pane took the other 29, even though he told her not to and tried to hide them from her [Trial, 5/22/02, at 187].
    7. Pane also took pills from his parents' freezer while visiting at their home [Trial, 5/22/02, at 187-188].
    8. Pane had a prescription plan with Merck-Medco Managed Care [Trial, 5/17/02, at 135; Trial Exh. KK and A].
    9. Merck-Medco Managed Care produced a claims history of the pills that Pane had received from diverse pharmacies [Trial Exh. KK and A]. There were approximately 140 prescriptions on that list [Trial, 5/22/02, at 40].
    10. Around 27 November 1998, while she was pregnant, Pane purchased amongst other pills, 360 Ultram pills.
    11. On Pane’s Merck-Medco claims history list was one prescription allegedly ordered by Dr. Bruce Pastor and others by Dr. Barrie Paster. The latter was, indeed, Pane’s doctor. The former was not. In response to a subpoena, Dr. Bruce Pastor wrote Meuse’s counsel asserting that he did not have any records for Susan Pane, that he had never written a prescription for her, and that she had never been his patient [Trial, 5/22/02, at 183]. And Pane admitted Pastor was not her doctor [Trial, 5/17/02, at 151, 172; Trial Exhs. F, KK, SS].
    12. Pane was able to do this because at Merck-Medco she had access to the DEA numbers of all the doctors, and was able to create a prescription for herself on the Merck-Medco system [Trial, 5/17/02, at 130-131, 134; Trial, 5/22/02, at 184].

    THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, MARISSA LYNE MEUSE, AND PANE’S INABILITY TO COPE WITH THE INFANT
    1. On 4 August 1999, the child Marissa Lyne Meuse ["Marissa "] was born to Pane and Meuse [Exh. RR].
    2. Because Pane breast-fed the child, the pills she ingested got to the baby through the breast milk.
    3. On 12 August 1999, eight days after Marissa’s birth, according to a nurse’s notes, Pane visited Women’s Health Care, 21 Highland Avenue, Suite 25, Newburyport, MA, office and being in crisis, almost dropped the child [Trial, 5/17/02, at 169-170; Trial Exh. B].
    4. Pane was having a very difficult time caring for Marissa and continuously sought Meuse to return from work to help her. As a result, around the end of September 1999, Meuse stopped working at Compaq [Trial, 5/21/02, at 188-189] in order to be the primary caretaker of the child [Trial, 5/22/02, at 223, 226-227].
    5. Pane’s moods swang from rage to hysteria and created a vicious cycle, during which the infant was at serious risk of harm from her mother, who was operating with impaired judgment . . . drowsy, reactions dulled, depressed, and heart palpitations from drug overuse [Trial Exh. B].
    6. Ann Kalip, who was later called by the Commonwealth as a witness at Meuse’s criminal trial, was in and out of Meuse’s home frequently during the week, testified that right after Pane gave birth to the baby, "Brian pretty much took care of [Marissa] because [Pane] had health problems. [Pane] was on the couch, she didn't move" [Table, 5/20/02, 162-163].
      7.  
    ABDUCTION OF CHILD BY SUSAN PANE, 10/1/99
    1. On 13 September 1999, Meuse filed an action for custody and paternity and a motion seeking the court to order Pane to remain in Massachusetts. [Trial Exh. L].
    2. On 21 September 1999, Pane’s mother, Barbara Pane, arrived in Haverhill, Massachusetts, to stay with Pane, Meuse, and the child.
    3. At trial, Pane testified that on 23 September 1999, she told Dr. Barrie Paster that she wanted to go to Florida for a one-week vacation [Trial, 5/17/02, at 109, 116; Trial Exh. DDD].
    4. Pane was in constant communication with Attorney Stults prior to leaving Meuse’s home [Trial, 5/20/02, at 65; Trial Exh. DDD].
    5. On 1 October 1999, Pane told Meuse that she, Pane’s mother, and the child were going for an outing to Newburyport, Massachusetts, but they did not return in the evening.
    6. On Monday, 4 October 1999, Meuse obtained a temporary restraining order pursuant to M.G.L. c. 209A [Trial Exhs. M and N]. The order gave Meuse custody and restrained Pane from leaving the Commonwealth with the child [Trial, 5/20/02, at 66; Trial Exh. M].\FN2/
      7.  
        FN2 Meuse had alleged that Pane had impaired her judgment by the drug usage, that she was jeopardizing the child's safety. The Haverhill District Court restraining order gave Meuse temporary custody to Meuse [Trial Exh. M].
         
    7. Throughout the month of October 1999, Meuse caused Deputy Jay Roberts and Sheriff Robert L. Vogel, Jr., respectively, to attempt to serve the order on Pane at 291 Sagewood Drive, her mother’s house, in Port Orange, Florida [Trial, 5/17/02, at 110, 111; Trial, 5/20/02 at 57-59; Trial Exh. K and Exh. NN].
    8. On or around 21 October 1999, Defendant Attorney Stults made her appearance as counsel for Pane in Haverhill District Court. [Trial Exh M, special appearance on page 4].
    9. During the month of October 1999, Pane’s mother repeatedly told the process server that Pane did not live at the mother’s house [Trial, 5/20/02 at 58-59; Trial Exh. K].
    10. At trial on 5/17/02, Pane testified that she was living at her mother’s house when the process servers came and that her mother had lied when she told them that Pane lived at an unknown location [Trial, 5/20/02 at 57-59, 64].
    11. On 14 October 1999, Pane caused to be filed a Complaint for Custody in the 7th Judicial Circuit Court in Volusia County, Florida [Trial, at 5/17/02, at 112].
    12. On 26 October 1999, after paying a $500 bond, Meuse was granted a Temporary Emergency Injunction from the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in Volusia County against Pane. The injunction enjoined Pane from removing Marissa from the county without order of the court\FN3/ [Exh. OO].
        13. FN3 On 25 October 2001, the cash bond of $500 was released to Brian Meuse [Exh. PP].
         
    13. Because of the lies of Pane’s mother, Meuse was unable to effect service of Judge Kevin M. Herlihy’s restraining order upon Pane until 29 October 2000, when he saw Pane in the Volusia County court [Trial, at 5/17/02, at 112].
    14. On 1 November 1999, Jim Beck wrote an affidavit swearing that on 29 October 1999, he made service on Pane at the courthouse in Daytona Beach, Florida [Exh. NN].
    15. On 3 November 1999 at 8:57, Volusia County Deputy Sheriff Crabtree served (a) the Massachusetts Abuse Prevention Order and the petition on Susan Pane and (b) the Temporary Emergency Injunction at 291 Sagewood Drive, Port Orange, Florida, [Trial, at 5/17/02, 112; Trial, at 5/20/02, at 69-71; Trial Exhs. O and P; Trial, 5/23/02, at 166].
    16. On 3 November 1999, Volusia County Deputy Sheriff Crabtree had the warrant division send a teletype to Haverhill District Court, advising them of service of the chapter 209A restraining order on Pane [Trial, at 5/20/02, at 70; Trial, 5/22/02, at 164; Trial Exh. P].
    17. Pane was in Haverhill District Court for a hearing on the c. 209A restraining order and that order was continued several times until 10 December 1999 [Trial, 5/20/02, at 73-74].
    18. Although Pane was in Haverhill District Court several times in November and December 1999, neither the court nor the Haverhill Police Department and/or Captain Thompson enforced it against her [Trial, 5/22/02, at 164-165; Trial Exhs. M and P, the latter showing service].
    19. By keeping the child in Florida, Pane was in violation of the chapter 209A order [Trial, 5/22/02, at 167].
    20. Thompson testified that a violation of the 209A order while the order was in effect may be prosecuted for three years [Trial, 5/22/02, at 169].
    21. The Florida action against Meuse was declared "null and void" in March 2000 [Trial, 5/20/02, at 84].
    22. On 3 May 2000, Judge Mary McCauley Manzi declared Massachusetts the home state of the child, declared Massachusetts would exercise jurisdiction, and wrote that the mother, Susan Pane, wrongfully removed the child to Florida in October 1999 [Trial, 5/20/02, at 81-82; Trial, 5/21/02, at 17; Trial Exh. T].
      23.  
    CHILD’S MEDICAL CONDITION AS OF JUNE 2000
    1. On 5 June 2000, Judge Mary Anne Sahagian issued a visitation schedule predicated on Pane bringing the child for an examination by the Florida Early Intervention Program and for the follow-up therapy [Exh. W].
    2. On or around 22 June 2000, when the child was 10 months of age, the child was examined by Florida Early Intervention Program and determined to have the ability of only a 5-month-old [Trial Exh. D, (Early Intervention, at page 70].
    3. By the time the child was 10 months old, the child was unable to sit up on her own (an activity a child can do around the age of 5 months), was unable to hold a spoon, was unable to hold a baby bottle or a baby’s cup, was unable to hold, for instance, a graham cracker, was unable to crawl.
    4. The medical professionals determined that both physical and occupational therapy were necessary for the child, i.e. two physical therapy sessions and two occupational therapy session per week [Trial Exh. D; Exh. W, court order 6/5/00].
      5.  
    MEUSE RETAINS NEW COUNSEL AND BEGINS DISCOVERY
    1. Performing discovery in July and August, Meuse learned that Pane had cancelled all but the first two weeks of scheduled physical and occupational therapy, that Pane had had almost 80 prescriptions for pills -- Ultram and assorted narcotics, including oxycodone with acetominaphen, also known as OxyContin, which was her drug of choice – allegedly given her by over a score of doctors from several states and filled by numerous pharmacies, and wanted morphine on at least one occasion [Trial, 5/20/02, at 41-43; Trial Exhs. A, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, X, KK]. Polymedica, polypharmica, the pharmacists call the syndrome of the prescription drug abuser [Exhs. TT, UU, VV, WW, XX, YY].
    2. The alleged prescriptions included two by a doctor (Bruce Pastor) who has sworn that Susan Pane was not a patient of his [Trial Exhs. F, KK, SS], and by many where the doctors have not been identified [Trial Exhs. F and KK].\FN4/
        3.   FN4 Barrie Paster is one of her doctors.
           
    3. Pane took a Schedule III narcotic drug (oxycodone with acetominaphen) before and during pregnancy and while she was nursing the child within the first week after her birth. Pane continued to take the narcotic drugs until she left Massachusetts for Florida in October of 1999 [Trial Exh. A, C, E, F, G, I, J, and KK, list of drugs with prescription details compiled from the documentation received as a result of subpoenas; Exhs. TT, UU, VV, WW, XX, YY].
    4. The child Marissa was in immediate danger, and would have suffered irreparable injury if the child were not put into Meuse’s care immediately.

    MOYNIHAN IGNORED RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST SUSAN PANE: INVIDIOUS GENDER DISCRIMINATION
    1. In the Haverhill District Court, however, in the Fall of 1999, Meuse had been given custody by Judge Herlihy [Trial Exh. M].
    2. Moynihan did not alert the District Attorney's Office, Kevin Burke's office, that Marissa was wrongfully removed by Pane from Massachusetts [Trial, 5/21/02, at 20-21].
    3. Moynihan did not alert the Attorney General's Office, Thomas Reilly’s office, that Marissa was wrongfully removed by Pane from Massachusetts [Trial, 5/21/02, at 21].
    4. Moynihan did not ask Carol Beaulieu, Meuse’s attorney at the time, why she was doing nothing [Trial, 5/21/02, at 21].
    5. Moynihan also had a copy of the October 4th chapter 209A RO and the November RO 209A, the Abuse Prevention order, which Brian got from Judge Herlihy against Susan" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 186; Trial Exh. M].
    6. Moynihan was familiar with the DV guidelines [ITrial, 5/20/02, at 187].
    7. Moynihan made no attempt to enforce the orders that Judge Herlihy had issued and that remained in effect from 4 October 1999 through 10 December 1999, and put out no warrant to bring Pane back with the baby to Massachusetts [Trial, 5/20/02, at 189; Trial Exh. M].
    8. When Moynihan sought a warrant for Meuse's arrest, his basis was that the child physically lived with the mother and that Meuse only had visitation with the child [Trial, 5/21/02, at 15]. He did not consider that when the mother abducted the child to Florida, the child had been living with both Meuse and Pane.
    9. Moynihan admitted that Judge Manzi’s order giving Pane custody of the child occurred on 11 October 2000, eleven days after Meuse took the child from Florida child [Trial, 5/21/02, at 16-17; Exh ZZ].
    10. Moynihan admitted that he had never seen Judge Manzi's order of 3 May 2000. In that order, Judge Manzi wrote that Pane had wrongfully removed the child to Florida in October 1999, over six months prior to Meuse taking the child from Florida and prior to giving Pane custody on 11 October 2000 [Trial, 5/21/02, at 17; Trial Exh. T].
    11. Moynihan did not read the file in the Probate & Family Court (a) because there was never a warrant for Ms. Pane and (b) because both Florida and Massachusetts allowed the child Marissa to stay in Florida [Trial, 5/21/02, at 19].
    12. Moynihan never wrote a complaint against Susan Pane [Trial, 5/20/02, at 194].
    13. The Haverhill Police Department did not issue a warrant to arrest Pane, of the opposite gender of Meuse [Trial, 5/22/02, at 48].
    14. Although Thompson was aware that Pane had unlawfully removed the child from Massachusetts, Thompson and the Haverhill Police Department did (a) nothing to address the criminal action by Susan Pane and (b) nothing to bring the child back from Florida and (c) nothing to provide Meuse a remedy for the wrong committed by Pane.
      15.  
    MOYNIHAN NON-INVESTIGATION REGARDING STATUS OF CASE IN FAMILY COURTS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND FLORIDA
    1. Moynihan never made inquiry in Probate and Family Court in Lawrence, Essex County, as to who the lawful custodian of the child was [Trial, 5/20/02, at 200].
    2. Moynihan admitted that he never looked at the Meuse/Pane file in Probate & Family Court file [Trial, 5/20/02, at 212].
    3. Moynihan testified that the courts did nothing to get the child returned to Meuse [Trial, 5/20/02, at 94, 200-201, and 213-214]. .
    4. Moynihan testified that he believed that Susan Pane was the lawful custodian of the child, and admitted that he never went to look at Probate Court.
    5. Moynihan testified that he had no idea what the police department did to get Susan Pane back here with the child during those three months the 209A restraining order was in effect [Trial, 5/20/02, at 210-211].
    6. Moynihan was not aware that an order was in Probate Court which said that if either one of those people left Volusia County, they were to tell the other where they were [Trial, 5/20/02, at 212. Exh. AAA, stipulation of 8/7/00].
    7. Moynihan admitted that he was unaware that Susan Pane would not reveal where she was all summer and fall of 2000 [Trial, 5/20/02, at 212].
    8. Moynihan testified that he "wasn't aware of anything until Jan Meuse walks in [his] office and was asking help to provide that her, Ms. Pane, was a drug addict and that the child was suffering because of that and there was abuse to the child because of that" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 212; Exh. BBB, letters from Meuse’s parents seeking help from the Haverhill Police Department].
      9.  
    INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO AND GATHERED BY THE HAVERHILL POLICE DEPARTMENT
    1. Beginning on or around 16 August 2000 through early October 2000, Meuse’s mother, Jan Meuse, contacted Defendant Detective Moynihan [Trial, 5/20/02, at 165; Exh. BBB].
    2. In September through early October 2000, according to Moynihan, Jan Meuse, the mother of Meuse, gave him "a list from Merck-Medco of prescription drugs that a Sue Pane was listed as the person who was taking the drugs, and there were several pages and a multiple different variety of drugs" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 165, 174; Trial Exhs. A and KK].
    3. When Pane left Meuse’s home on Oxford Avenue, she inadvertently left behind the empty pill bottle in Meuse’s home. Jan Meuse, Meuse’s mother, took the pill bottle to Detective Moynihan as evidence of Pane’s writing falsified prescriptions [Trial Exhs. D and X].
    4. Thompson testified that he was aware that both of Meuse’s parents wrote letters to Thompson, to the chief of police, the mayor, district attorney's office, the city council [Trial, 5/22/02, at 111; Exh. BBB].
    5. In all the letters, Meuse’s parents were worried about the child: the mother is a drug addict. In words, for all intents and purposes, they wrote: "The poor baby has not developed: she can't walk, she can't put her feet together, she can't hold a bottle, she can't hold a cracker. Would you please help us? We want Brian to have the child. We haven't heard from him, but we want you to look into the drugs, look into this drug situation."
    6. The police did nothing to help the Meuses.
    7. Thompson also received the Merck-Medco list of pills [Trial, 5/22/02, at 38; [Trial Exhs. A and KK].
    8. Captain Thompson also gave the list to Detective Moynihan to look into to see if there was something illegal about the obtaining of those drugs [Trial, 5/22/02, at 39].
    9. Thompson denied knowing that Susan Pane had at least 140 (Thompson’s count) \FN5/ narcotic prescriptions and was left with this young child and she had wrongfully removed her [Trial, 5/22/02, at 51;Trial Exh. T].
        10. FN5 Compare ¶72, supra, where Meuse reports only 80 prescriptions.
           
    10. Thompson never ordered Moynihan to check with the Merck-Medco insurance company that provided the claim history of the approximately 140 prescriptions (Thompson’s count) of Defendant Susan Pane’s claim history [Trial, 5/22/02, at 40].
    11. Thompson denied knowing that because there were two Susan Panes but had not proof that his testimony was true.
    12. Thompson did agree that there's some unique information would have to be supplied by each one of policyholder to his or her insurance company if he or she were making a claim [Trial, 5/22/02, at 62].
    13. Thompson never checked the Probate Court to read Judge Manzi's decisions [Trial, 5/22/02, at 46].
    14. Thompson testified that he has no knowledge of the ongoing, daily Probate Court matters and has not looked [Trial, 5/22/02, at 161].
    15. Thompson never read Judge Manzi's decision of 3 May 2000 which said that the mother wrongfully removed the child from Massachusetts to Florida in October 1999, over six months prior to the decision [Trial, 5/22/02, at 46-47; Trial Exh. T], but he was aware of it [Trial, 5/22/02, at 47].
    16. Thompson testified that he "asked for guidance from the District Attorney's office on this and the fact that it was presented before a judge, the judge was aware of this. The judge had not issued a warrant or any request that we make an attempt to pick up Ms. Pane" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 48].
    17. Thompson admitted that he is Moynihan’s supervisor, that he supervised Moynihan [Trial, 5/22/02, at 65], and that he was responsible for Detective Moynihan's work [Trial, 5/22/02, at 67].
    18. Thompson never contacted Merck-Medco by letter, by phone, or in person; [Trial, 5/22/02, at 67-68].
    19. Thompson never told Detective Moynihan or any one of his other officers to contact Merck-Medco [Trial, 5/22/02, at 68].
    20. The police did not do a proper investigation of the drugs and see whether the mother's drug use when she was taking narcotics going through her breasts when she was breastfeeding, to learn whether the cause of some of the problems the child was having were due to the mother’s drug use.
    21. The police made no inquiry as to whether the mother's using drugs while she was pregnant and while she was breastfeeding harmed the child, causing the child to be in such severe bad health.
      22.  
    MOYNIHAN’S NON-INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE DRUGS’ LIST
    1. Moynihan "brought the documentation over to the D.A. over here to see if he thought there was anything, you know, that could be anything unusual about it" " [Trial, 5/20/02, at 167].
    2. Of the list of drugs\FN6/ he showed to the DA, the only prescription in which the assistant DA was interested was "the Ultram and that was only because of the large count, which was 360" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 118]. The ADA was not concerned with the abundance here of codeine and other narcotic drugs [Trial, 5/21/02, at 118]. See also Trial Exhs. A, C, D, E, F, G, I,X, and KK, SS.
        3.  
        FN6 The list included Ultram, hydrocodone with Apap, Vicodin, codeine, propoxiphene, Napsalet with Apap, propoxiphene, oxycodone (Oxycontin with acetaminophen), amongst other drugs.
           
    3. Assistant District John DePaolo told Moynihan to check the 360 Ultram pills and then opined that the allegations were unsubstantiated [Trial, 5/21/02, at 67; Trial Exhs. A and KK].
    4. Detective Moynihan reported to Thompson that he had gone so far as to contact the pharmacy on a prescription and they were unable to find any record at all of the prescription he presented to them [Trial, 5/22/02, at 39].
    5. Neither Moynihan nor Thompson questioned that a prescription presented to the insurer for payment allegedly by the pharmacy was not in the pharmacy records [Trial, 5/22/02, at 39-40].
    6. Moynihan knew that Susan Pane was a pharmaceutical technician and that she dispensed drugs [Trial, 5/20/02, at 174].
    7. Moynihan did not inquire at Merck-Medco regarding Pane’s position as a pharmaceutical technician [Trial, 5/20/02, at 174].
    8. Moynihan did not learn that Pane had the ability to create prescriptions.
    9. Moynihan contacted a Westgate Pharmacy pharmacist, who said he had "no such record [of certain drugs, such s Ultram] being purchased [Trial, 5/20/02, at 175, 177].
    10. Moynihan
      • never contacted Merck-Medco to inquire how come they had it on their list of Pane history [Trial, 5/20/02, at 176-177; Trial, 5/21/02, at 119], or Dr. Byrnes, one of Pane’s primary doctors [Id.; Trial Exhs. A and KK],
      • "never talked to [any of the two dozen] doctors] whatsoever [Trial, 5/20/02, at 180],
      • never counted the number of prescriptions [Trial, 5/20/02, at 179].
      • never added up the number of narcotic pills, and checked with only one of the pharmacists [Trial, 5/20/02, at 181],
      • never checked "with Merck-Medco as to whether they had a system in place for pilfering" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 186],
      • never discussed that Pane’s prescription drug use – over five pages of over 80 prescriptions -- with the Haverhill Police Department Drug Unit at all; he "brought it to the District Attorney's office. That's where I brought it" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 212-213].
    1. Moynihan concluded that "whether Ms. Sue Pane was stealing drugs from the company she was working with, number one, it would have been a very difficult thing to prove" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 177].
    2. Incompetently, Moynihan ignored the Merck-Medco Managed Care claims history list for Susan Pane simply because he did not check the policy or with Merck-Medco [Trial, 5/21/02, at 150].
    3. Moynihan did not agree that it is fair to conclude that all prescriptions listed by Merck-Medco Managed Care on the claims history report for Susan Pane are for Susan Pane unless proven otherwise [Trial, 5/21/02, at 152].
    4. Moynihan concluded (a) that Merck-Medco produced a claims-history report for Susan Pane, (b) that the report contained both Susan Pane’s and Susan PaIne’s prescriptions on it, and (c) that Merck Medco paid the pharmacists under Susan Pane’s policy number for Susan PaIne’s prescriptions [Trial, 5/21/02, at 152].
      5.  
    MOYNIHAN’S NON-INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE TWO SUSANS
    1. Detective Moynihan reported to Thompson that he was unable to substantiate that the Susan Pane, in this case, was the same Susan Pane that's appearing on all that drug list, that there was another Susan Paine living in town [Trial, 5/22/02, at 39].
    2. In actual fact, a Susan "Paine" lived on Mercury Terrace and Susan "Pane" had signed her handwriting on a script from Dr. Byrne that was for a narcotic and filled the fake prescription at a CVS pharmacy [Trial, 5/22/02, at 182; Trial Exhs. C, X, KK, and JJ].
    3. In actual fact, Susan Paine and her husband’s pornography and sexual paraphernalia shop was still in existence a few blocks from the courthouse at time of trial.
    4. Moynihan used the introduction of a "Susan Paine" as a reason to reject the legitimate claims history list from Merck-Medco.
    5. He had "no idea: . . . [how the] "other Sue PaIne would have known what our Sue Pane's Merck-Medco insurance number was" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 184].
    6. Moynihan did not consider that the second Susan "Paine" did not know Susan Pane’s driver’s license number, date of birth, social security number, in addition to the insurance policy number.
    7. Moynihan did not consider that Pane had access to that information for everyone who went through any prescription system. That was an integral part of Pane’s job.
    8. Moynihan defense was that there was another Sue Pane in Haverhill. [Trial, 5/22/02, at 186].
    9. Captain Thompson testified that Detective Moynihan ran into trouble when he found two Susan Panes; one that had lived on Oxford and one who had lived on Orchard. Thompson testified that Moynihan unsuccessfully attempted to find the other Susan PaIne and was unable to do so [Trial, 5/22/02, at 40].
    10. Thompson claimed that the other Susan PaIne’s forwarding address led to a dead end [Trial, 5/22/02, at 40; Trial Exh. JJ].

      11.  
    CHILD’S MEDICAL CONDITION BETWEEN JULY 2000 AND 1 OCTOBER 2000
    1. Pane took the child to the therapists for about two weeks – 7/17/00 (initial visit for occupational therapy), 7/19/00, 7/25/00 00 (initial visit for physical therapy), 7/27/00, 7/31/00 -- and then stopped [Trial, 5/20/02, at 105-110; Trial Exh. D].
    2. Pane cancelled the child’s therapy visits scheduled for 8/3/00, but since it was Meuse’s visitation week, he brought the child to therapy [Trial, 5/20/02, at 106, 110; Trial Exh. D].
    3. During the week of 3 August 2000, Meuse saw the child and noticed no improvement in the child’s physical condition.
    4. On 7 August 2000, the attorneys for Pane and Meuse signed a stipulation requiring each of them to keep the other informed of the address and telephone number where they were and could reached when they had the child [Exh. AAA].
    5. Pane cancelled the child’s therapy visits scheduled for 8/9/00, 8/10/00, 8/15/00, 8/22/00, 8/24/00, 8/29/00, 8/31/00, 9/5/00, 9/7/00, and 9/12/00 [Trial, 5/20/02, at 105-110; Trial Exh. D].
    6. As a reason for cancelling the child’s therapy appointments on 8/22/00, 8/24/00, 8/29/00, 8/31/00, 9/5/00, 9/7/00 and 9/12/00, Pane testified that she went with the child on vacation [Trial, 5/20/02, at 113, 116-117].
    7. Pane testified going out of Florida with the child, resulting in her violation of (a) the 26 October 1999 injunction from the Florida court, (b) Judge Sahagian’s order of 5 June 2000, and (c) the stipulation signed by Pane’s and Meuse’s counsel on 7 August 2000\FN7/ [Trial Exh. W and Exhs. OO, QQ, and AAA].
        8.  
        FN7 Also on 3 November 1999, the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court issued an interim order restraining Pane from removing the child from Volusia County [Exh QQ].
           
    8. Asked "Wouldn't it have been nice for Marissa to get the therapy that was required so the poor child could learn how to crawl and walk and hold a bottle and (inaudible)?" Pane answered, "No" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 118]. By way of explanation, Pane said, "She could do all of those things" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 118].
    9. After her vacation, Pane brought Marissa to therapy on 9/14/00, 9/19/00, 9/21/00, and 9/26/00; on 9/28/00, occupational therapy only [Trial, 5/20/02, at 122].
    10. Pane testified that she was unemployed and that her Florida residence, in a town noted as a tourist attraction, is 15 minutes from the ocean, but she needed the vacation [Trial, 5/20/02, at 113].\FN8/
        11.  
        FN8 Pane continued to receive disability payments from Merck-Medco for several months after the child was born in August 1999 [Trial, 5/20/02, at 75, 77-78; Trial Exh. R].  Between October 2000 and March 2001, while Meuse had physical custody of the child, Pane was living on Long Island, in New York, and worked part-time in the evenings at Kohls, a department store, in Center Reach, Long Island, in New York [Trial, 5/20/02, at 114].   She remained unemployed until some time in 2001, when she went to work dispensing pills for Wal-Mart [Trial, 5/20/02, at 113, 115-116].  Around the time of the criminal trial, she was working as a cashier and doing other tasks at Wal-Mart [Trial, 5/20/02, at 115].
         
    11. Meuse saw the child during June 2000, August 2000, October 2000, and observed that the child’s physical development was not within normal ranges.

      12.  
    MEUSE’S LEGAL ATTEMPTS TO TAKE MARISSA OUT OF HARM’S WAY
    1. During the first week of September 2000, Meuse filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus and sought relief for his daughter from Judge Mary Anne Sahagian (who said she had no jurisdiction to hear the petition), Judge Mary McCauley Manzi (who refused to come out of her chamber and onto the bench), Judge Spencer M. Kagan (who said that he had no authority as the "Emergency Judge" of the day, Judge Edward Rockett (who said that it was Judge Manzi’s case and would not hear the writ of habeas corpus prepared by Meuse), and Judge Mary McCauley Manzi (who for a second time refused to come to the bench) [Trial Exh. U].

      2.  
    FACED WITH COURT’S FAILURE TO ACT. MEUSE MUST ACT TO SAVE CHILD
    1. Meuse returned to Florida for "a week’s visitation" on 1 October 2000, when the child was 14 months old.
    2. At 14 months, the child was still unable to sit up on her own (an activity a child can do around the age of 5 months), was unable to hold a spoon, was unable to hold a baby bottle or a baby’s cup, was unable to hold, for instance, a graham cracker, was unable to crawl.
    3. Meuse got on an airplane with the 14-month-old child in Florida on Sunday, 1 October 2000, returned with her to Massachusetts, and brought her to Children’s Hospital the next morning, Monday, 2 October 2000 [Trial Exh. LL].
    4. The Children’s Hospital doctors set up an immediate visit with their therapy department, which took place on Monday, 2 October 2000. The CH therapists arranged for the Pentucket Area Early Intervention Program to visit the Meuse home on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 [Trial Exh. LL].
    5. Ann Kalip\FN9/ provided daycare for Marissa for a few hours on each of three days that week in early October 2000 [Table, 5/20/02, 145-147]. The "main thing I remember . . . was that for the age she was, she did not walk, talk. She didn't do a lot of things I thought she should have been doing at that age." For Marissa’s age, she should have had "at least . . . some kind of speech, at least a few words and to be walking somewhat. She did not walk at all. . . . [S]he did what I call, she scootchied on the floor. She would do an S. She would have one foot in front of her and one leg behind her." [Trial, 5/20/02, 149].
        6.  
        FN9 Kalip was infant-CPR and first-aid certified. She had received 12 hours of training every year [Trial, 5/20/02, at 145-146]. And she had the day care center for 15 years [Trial, 5/20/02, at 152].
           
    6. Kalip continued: "[T]he thing that bothered me the most was she couldn't talk so she would get frustrated which she would just lock her body and arch her back. When she did that you could see the way she would grind her teeth, she had ground her teeth down to gums. . . . But only on one side. The way she would cross her teeth and she would grit so hard and she was just frustrated that she had actually done it so much on one side of her mouth she had ground her teeth down to gums" [Trial, 5/20/02, 150]. "A lot of children grind their teeth, but I had never seen it where they had ground it to that point" [Trial, 5/20/02, 151]. See also Trial Exhs. HH and II and Detective Moynihan’s testimony at Trial, 5/21/02, 99-100, and ¶¶241-242, infra].
    7. Marissa’s relationship with Meuse was "[g]ood. She was very, very happy when he came to pick her up [Trial, 5/20/02, 151-152].
    8. Kalip testified that "kids that aren't up to speed have different things that you recognize which would be the arching of the back, the clenching of the fists, swinging of the head. It was just one thing that I notice" [Trial, 5/20/02, 153]. And Marissa had all three [Id.].
    9. Kalip testified that Marissa was not able scribble with a crayon " [Trial, 5/20/02, 156]. "No, she was very delayed. . . . Like I told you before, she was not walking, she was not verbally -- no speech whatsoever" [Id.]. "[Y]ou have to realize when you have a bunch of children in a room together, most of them start earlier if they're around other children. She was definitely by herself; no other children. Which means she might not be around ten months to start crawling and walking. But, over a year she should be walking. She should be saying a few words. She may not say sentences. But she did not say anything; nothing. No crawling, no nothing because she would sit, like I say, she scootchied where she would just pull herself along the floor" [Table, 5/20/02, 156-157].
    10. It appeared to Kalip that Marissa had not been socializing with children prior to that [Trial, 5/20/02, 157]. "She was so excited to see children. She was not afraid. That's where I think, and I can't speak for Brian, I thought that he'd be -- even though she didn't know me, when they're included with other children they tend to feel more comfortable. If Brian had just brought her to me, alone, to watch her, I think she would have been hysterical, but she was thrilled to see other kids" [Trial, 5/20/02, 157-158]. She "definitely" had not been with children prior to that" [Table, 5/20/02, 158]. It was the level of her excitement: "Oh, she was gleaming. She was thrilled to be with the kids. She was smiling. She was happy" [Id.]. She was like that for the few days Kalip saw her [Trial, 5/20/02, 158].\FN10/
        11.  
        FN10 Later, Detective Moynihan from Haverhill Police Department called her. "He actually came to my home. He asked if I had seen her, and I had not" [Table, 5/20/02, 159]. "After she was missing he had come to the house which I had already known about a week later when everything I had seen in the newspapers and so forth" [Trial, 5/20/02, 159].
           
    11. On Wednesday, 4 October 2000, three therapists (physical and occupational therapists) from the Pentucket Area Early Intervention Program did visit the Meuse home to examine the child. They then set up appointments for Marissa’s therapy for Tuesday, 10 October 2000 [Trial Exh. LL].
    12. On Thursday, 5 October 2000, Meuse brought Marissa to a pediatrician, Normand Tanguay, at Wilmington Pediatrics in Wilmington, Massachusetts [Trial Exh. LL].
    13. From the pediatrician, Meuse learned of a specialist at Boston Floating Hospital, Dr. Mark H. Libenson, a Child Neurologist who specialized in international adoptions and worked with children who had been ignored emotionally and physically, whose physical movement had been impaired, and who had the same symptoms Marissa had [Trial Exh. LL].
    14. On 5 October 2000, Meuse’s lawyer informed Pane’s local lawyer, Rosalyn Stults, about the visits to the hospital, with the therapists and the local doctor, and the future appointments [Trial Exh. LL].
    15. Pane and/or Stults contacted the doctors with whom Meuse had made contact to examine the child and told them that Meuse was in contempt of court [Trial, 5/21/02, at 125; Trial Exh. LL].
    16. Prior to getting a custody order, Pane told Dr. Tanguay, Children's Hospital emergency department, and other doctors that she was the custodial parent [Trial, 5/21/02, at 126; Trial Exh. D, dated 10/9/00; Trial Exh. LL].
    17. Almost immediately upon his return to his home in Ward Hill, Meuse learned from messages on his answering machine that Pane and Stults had called the doctors and had threatened them with suit were they to continue seeing Marissa.
    18. By Thursday afternoon of 5 October 2000, all the doctors contacted by Meuse had cancelled his visits to them with the child [Trial Exh. LL].
    19. At some time thereafter, on 5 October 2000, Meuse dropped out of sight with the child.
    20. On 6 October 2000, Stults set up a hearing before Judge Manzi at Probate & Family Court at Lawrence, Massachusetts, for Wednesday, 11 October 2000.
    21. On 11 October 2000, Judge Manzi, after Meuse had left Florida with the child and in Meuse’s absence, at a proceeding\FN11/ of which he had no personal notice, gave Pane temporary custody of the child [Exh. ZZ].

        22. FN11 At that proceeding of 11 October 2000, no evidence was taken.

    MOYNIHAN’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
    1. Moynihan went to the police academy, studied law at the police academy, and had 19 years of service with the Haverhill Police Department, the last five of which were as a detective [Trial, 5/21/02, at 8].
    2. Moynihan testified that he knew that Massachusetts does not have jurisdiction over any crime committed in any other state [Trial, 5/21/02, at 8].
    3. But Moynihan insisted at trial that Meuse did commit a crime in Massachusetts [Trial, 5/21/02, at 9].
    4. To reach the conclusion that Meuse committed a crime in Massachusetts, Moynihan testified: "I'm referring to the common law that the Massachusetts. . . . If there's no judge's decision, a mother automatically has custody of the child" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 9]. "I've seen it a hundred times. . . . Right in the court. In the Court. . . . The mother always gets custody of the child until ---- . . . Until the court overturns it, the mother always has custody of the child. . . . I can bring in 400 women that have custody of their kids compared to your half a dozen [men]" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 10]. I think the basis [of concluding that Meuse committed a crime is that] Massachusetts had determined that they would be responsible for the custody. When it came down between who was given custody, either Florida or Massachusetts, Massachusetts took over that role. Florida would not accept -- have anything to do with the role of who had custody of the baby between Mr. Meuse and Ms. Pane" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 10-11].
    5. Moynihan believed that "Florida really didn't care who had that child" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 11] and that Judge Mary McCauley Manzi had declared Massachusetts the "home state of the child" and that Massachusetts would exercise jurisdiction over the child [Trial, 5/21/02, at 11-12].
    6. The police decided it would be easier to convict Meuse of parental kidnapping than it would to prove that Pane had falsified prescriptions, given that Pane had moved to Florida, Merck-Medco claimed to have had no safeguards in its pill dispensing department, and Merck-Medco had moved out of Massachusetts.

      7.  
    THOMPSON ORDERS MOYNIHAN TO STOP INVESTIGATING AND LATER LIES TO THE CHIEF
    1. When Moynihan learned that Meuse had taken the child, Captain Thompson told Moynihan to do no further investigation work in the matter [Trial, 5/20/02, at 176].
    2. Thompson swore on the witness stand that everything in his letter of 17 January 2001 to Chief Barone was the truth [Trial, 5/22/02, at 94; Trial Exh. CC].
    3. Thompson testified, "The chief believed me when I told him that there was a [FBI] warrant [Trial, 5/22/02, at 96].
    4. When faced with his letter of 17 January 2001 to his Chief, Leonard Barone, Thompson testified that Detective Moynihan had told him that "when Mr. Meuse did not show up with the child before Judge Manzi, she found him in contempt" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 88-89].
    5. According to Captain Thompson’s letter to Chief Barone, the paperwork that Jan Meuse gave Moynihan accused Susan Pane of abusing prescription drugs [Trial, 5/21/02, at 66; Trial Exh. CC, dated 17 January 2001]. The captain also wrote that "Detective Moynihan looked into this paperwork and was unable to substantiate any illegal activity." [Id.]
    6. Moynihan denied that the information that Thompson wrote to Chief Barone was, in fact, information that Thompson had received from Moynihan [Trial, 5/21/02, at 69].

      7.  
    SUSAN PANE REPORTS CHILD TAKEN FROM FLORIDA
    1. According to the Haverhill Police Department incident report, Susan Pane reported on 20 October 2000 that the child had been taken from Florida [Trial Exh. BB, Haverhill Police Department incident report signed by Steven Iannialfo for Clerk of the Court].
    2. On 25 October 2000, Moynihan signed an Application for Complaint [Trial, 5/21/02, at 70-71; Trial Exh. DD].
    3. Moynihan lied on his Application for Complaint [Trial, 5/21/02, at 73]: specifically he lied when he wrote "The defendant, mother, and his lawyer were advised of the warrant to be taken on the defendant. They both said they have not heard from the defendant." [Trial, 5/21/02, at 74].
    4. On the Application for Complaint, the Place of Offense is alleged to have been "Port Orange, Florida" [Trial Exh. DD].
    5. The Criminal Complaint issued on the same day as that on which the applicationwas made, to wit, 25 October 2000 [Trial Exh. Y].
    6. On the Criminal Complaint, the Place of Offense is alleged to have been "Haverhill" [Trial Exh. Y].
    7. Moynihan admitted that he did not advise Meuse’s counsel that there was a warrant against Meuse [Trial, 5/21/02, at 73].
    8. Also on the Application for Complaint, Moynihan testified that he wrote, in words for all intents and purposes, "Litigant came to Haverhill station and filed a missing person report on October 20th" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 74; Trial Exh. DD].
    9. Moynihan knew or should have known that there was an outstanding violation of the chapter 209A restraining order against Susan Pane, and should have begun prosecution of her on 20 October 2000 for the violation that occurred in the Fall of 1999 [Trial Exh. M].


    MOYNIHAN’S INVESTIGATION AFTER PANE REPORTS CHILD TAKEN
    1. Moynihan testified that he did not contact or check with the Florida court to learn whether there was any outstanding order that Meuse was supposed to comply with [Trial, 5/21/02, at 5].
    2. Moynihan did not know if there was an order in Florida that Meuse broke [Trial, 5/21/02, at 5].
    3. Moynihan did not check in Massachusetts, with the Probate and Family Court, whether there was any outstanding order that the court had found him in contempt of [Trial, 5/21/02, at 6].
    4. Moynihan at first testified did not believe there was an order that Meuse was in contempt of [Trial, 5/21/02, at 6]; then Moynihan testified that he believed there "could be a contempt order,: but "who ordered it [he did not] know" and he did not believe he had seen such a document [Trial, 5/21/02, at 68].
    5. Moynihan testified that "if [he] had such a document or if [he] had seen such a document, [he] would have given it to . . . the office of District Attorney. [Trial, 5/21/02, at 68-69]. By the end of his testimony, Moynihan believed that Meuse had not been found in contempt in Lawrence [Trial, 5/21/02, at 69].
    6. Moynihan did not believe there were any charges brought up against Meuse in Haverhill District Court [Trial, 5/21/02, at 7].
    7. Moynihan did not believe there was any Haverhill Court order of which Meuse was in contempt or had broken [Trial, 5/21/02, at 6].
    8. Moynihan testified that Meuse did not take any child from anyone in Massachusetts [Trial, 5/21/02, at 7, 8].
    9. Moynihan testified that there was nothing in Florida that said Meuse could not take the child in Florida [Trial, 5/21/02, at 7-8].
    10. Moynihan testified that "[a]s far as [he was] concerned, there was no crime in Florida" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 8].

      11.  
    WHAT THOMPSON AND MOYNIHAN KNEW BEFORE THEY SOUGHT ARREST WARRANT
    1. Although Thompson knew (a) that the probate and family court had found neither Pane nor Meuse in contempt, (b) that Meuse had been awarded custody by Judge Herlihy of District Court, (c) that Judge Manzi had found that Pane had wrongfully removed the child from Massachusetts, Thompson allowed his subordinate Detective Moynihan to seek a warrant to arrest Meuse [Trial, 5/22/02, at 48; Trial Exhs. M and T].
    2. Thompson testified that he believes that "a man has all the same rights as a woman" " [Trial, 5/22/02, at 50].
    3. Thompson testified that he was not ready to convict and get a warrant because it was known that "the baby, in the beginning, was in Florida with the mother, it was known where the baby was. The courts were aware of the situation. The District Attorney's office was aware of the situation. The judge was aware of the situation. When the baby left with the father, we did not know where the baby was. We didn't -- the judge did not know where the baby was, the District Attorney's office did not know where the baby was, and that's why at that point we proceeded with a warrant" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 50-51].
    4. Thompson denied feeling that because he knew that everyone else wasn't doing their job, he felt comfortable in not having to do his job either [Trial, 5/22/02, at 51].
    5. Thompson testified that the basis for the warrant was "that the child remained away from the mother [Trial, 5/22/02, at 84].
    6. Thompson knew that the probate court did not issue a warrant for either Pane or Meuse [Trial, 5/22/02, at 85-86].
    7. Thompson could not or would not provide on the witness stand a reason for the Probate Court not issuing a warrant either for female Susan Pane or for male Brian Meuse, but the police went after Meuse and not Pane [Trial, 5/22/02, at 86].
    8. Thompson admitted that he never saw a contempt order out of Lawrence [Trial, 5/22/02, at 90]. He believed, however, that there was a contempt order against Meuse solely because Moynihan had been on the department for 25 years [Id.].
    9. When he had written to the Chief on 17 January 2001, Thompson had never checked whether there was a contempt of court out of Lawrence, and did not know whether or where the court kept its records [Trial, 5/22/02, at 108-109].
    10. Thompson never saw an affidavit written by Detective Moynihan or by anyone else to support the warrant sought [Trial, 5/22/02, at 83].
    11. Thompson never heard Detective Moynihan swear to any facts before the Court for that warrant [Trial, 5/22/02, at 83].

      12.  
    THE UNLAWFUL WARRANT FOR MEUSE’S ARREST
    1. On 25 October 2000, Moynihan filed an application for a warrant without a supporting affidavit at Haverhill District Court for Meuse’s arrest [Trial, 5/21/02, at 66].
    2. Before Moynihan brought an application for criminal complaint and warrant, the only people he used as a resource of information beside Susan Pane and her lawyer, Rosalyn Stults, was his captain, Captain Thompson [Trial, 5/21/02, at 62].
    3. Moynihan testified that he never had conversation with Chief Barone [Trial, 5/21/02, at 62].
    4. Moynihan admitted that neither the copy nor the original arrest warrant had a signature by anyone, that he was the complainant, but did not sign it [Trial, 5/21/02, at 29-30; Trial Exhs. Y]. The court copy of the warrant is in red and black and was signed by Kim Marotta and is dated 25 October 2000 [Trial Exh. Z].
    5. Moynihan never saw the correspondence between Captain Thompson and Chief Barone [Trial, 5/21/02, at 62-63; Trial Exh. CC, letter dated 17 January 2001 from Thompson to Barone] and never saw the federal or FBI warrant out for Meuse’s arrest [Trial, 5/21/02, at 63].
    6. Moynihan testified that "Agent Kelly" told the captain there was one [Trial, 5/21/02, at 63].
    7. Moynihan does not recall telling Captain Thompson that Brian was a fugitive in flight [Trial, 5/21/02, at 63].
    8. On 25 October 2000, Clerk Kim Marotta signed the warrant even though it did not have a supporting affidavit [Trial Exh. Z].
    9. Moynihan admitted that he had "never physically and visually seen" the alleged FBI warrant for the Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution [Trial, 5/21/02, at 69].

      10.  
    WHAT THOMPSON KNEW ABOUT THE ALLEGED FBI UNLAWFUL FLIGHT WARRANT
    1. Thompson testified that he had not seen the alleged federal unlawful flight warrant [Trial, 5/22/02, at 93].
    2. Thompson told the Chief that there was an Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution warrant by the FBI [Trial, 5/22/02, at 93].
    3. Thompson testified that "an unlawful flight is how the FBI enters a case. That gives them the jurisdiction, the authority to enter the case and to conduct a search. Charles Kelly, the FBI agent, obtained the unlawful flight warrant" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 93].
    4. On 18 January 2001, Captain Thompson, detective commander, wrote something that appears to be an interview with Tim Allen. He gave that letter to Detective Moynihan and FBI Agent Kelly. Tim Allen is the brother of a police officer who stated that he knows the Meuse family and is friendly with them [Trial, 5/22/02, at 114; Trial Exh. EE].
    5. Thompson wrote that Tim Allen had stated the day before on January 17th that he was at the home of Jan and Owen Meuse, and he was there from 6:00 to 8:00 and at around 7:20 he was told that Brian Meuse was on line with his family. [Trial, 5/22/02, at 116; Trial Exh. EE]. And, according to Thompson, Allen told Thompson that Brian said "Tell Tim I said hi" and that the family told Tim Allen that Brian was in New Zealand.
    6. Thompson testified that the FBI did contact somebody in New Zealand [Trial, 5/22/02, at 116].
    7. Thompson testified that the FBI did check whether Meuse had a passport [Trial, 5/22/02, at 116-117].
    8. Thompson testified that although Allen also told him that he believed that the baby's mother, Sue Pane, had some type of drug problem and that the courts have been unfair to Meuse, he, Allen, wants to help in this situation: He would do what he can to convince Brian Meuse to turn himself in. And Mr. Allen asked you several questions regarding what Brian would be facing if he returned [Trial, 5/22/02, at 117].
    9. Thompson testified that he and Detective Moynihan told Allen that if Meuse turned himself into the police Thompson would attempt to drop the federal charge of Unlawful Flight [Trial, 5/22/02, at 118].

      10.  
    WHAT THOMPSON DID NOT INVESTIGATE ABOUT THE BABY’S HEALTH
    1. Thompson knew that Marissa was supposed to have therapy [Trial, 5/22/03, at 69].
    2. Thompson was made aware of problems with the child's health, with the child's deficits, physical deficits [Trial, 5/22/03, at 71; Trial Exh. D and Exh. BBB].
    3. Thompson was aware that Marissa had only been brought to therapy for two weeks between the period from June 22nd, when she was examined and diagnosed as needing therapy, and mid-September [Trial, 5/22/03, at 70].
    4. Thompson was aware that Detective Moynihan had the therapy records in his file, but neither attempted to see them nor saw them [Trial, 5/22/03, at 69].
    5. Thompson never had his detective speak to some medical people, for instance, the child's doctors, as to the child's health [Trial, 5/22/03, at 73].
    6. Thompson testified, "During the investigation, Detective Moynihan talked to Ms. Pane regarding the child's health. He reported back to me that …that there had been missed appointments, that the child was not in the best of health. He also had made contact with the doctor's office, and actually, in an attempt to provide, if there would be any other information that we could gather to find the whereabouts of the child" [Trial, 5/22/03, at 74].
    7. Thompson did not recall whether Susan Pane contacted Children's Hospital regarding Brian and the child [Trial, 5/22/03, at 76].
    8. Thompson himself did not contact Children's Hospital or any other doctors regarding Brian and the child [Trial, 5/22/03, at 76-77].
    9. Thompson knew that Brian brought the child to Children’s Hospital, to a local doctor, and to a local therapy company [Trial, 5/22/03, at 78].
    10. Thompson was not concerned that the child received proper medical care or appropriate therapy locally.

      11.  
    WHAT THOMPSON KNEW ABOUT MOYNIHAN’S INVESTIGATION OF THE BABY’S HEALTH
    1. Thompson knew that Moynihan’s purpose in making several phone calls to Boston Children's Hospital, Dr. Tanguay at the Wilmington Pediatrics Group, and the West Newbury Pentucket Early Intervention Program was to alert the doctors and therapists to call Moynihan if Brian showed up again with the child so that Moynihan could arrest him and grab the child [Trial, 5/22/03, at 79-81].
    2. Thompson testified that Detective Moynihan made inquiries into the child's medical history, but did not know which doctor's office Moynihan contacted [Trial, 5/22/03, at 74, 77].
    3. Thompson asked Moynihan about the Florida therapy records [Trial, 5/22/03, at 69].
    4. Thompson did not know whether Detective Moynihan called Dr. Tanguay at Wilmington Pediatrics regarding the baby [Trial, 5/22/03, at 77].

      5.  
    MOYNIHAN NON-INVESTIGATION REGARDING PANE’S CARE OF THE CHILD
    1. Moynihan investigated " [t]o a certain point" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 166].
    2. Moynihan handwrote in Trial Exh. II that Annie Kalip provided day care for 15 years and Brian brought Marissa to her, that the baby had "symptoms, locked jaw effect. Baby grit her teeth so badly that the top right teeth were worn down. The child could not crawl or put legs together. Ann tried to work with child to try to get her to be able to put her legs together. Child has six-month skills, could not talk or crawl. She thought baby was kept in a confined area port-a-crib long periods of time" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 99-100; Trial Exhs. HH and II].
    3. Moynihan testified that he asked Kalip "if she noticed any unusual symptoms with the child. She said the child would lock its jaw and grind its teeth. From doing so, the child's top right teeth were worn down. She also said the child could only drag itself. Her right foot was pointed out and the left foot was pointed behind her. The child's legs could not be put together. Her opinion was that the child was in a confined area (a port-a-crib) for long periods of time. She also said the child could not talk. She said the child's skills were that of a six month old and told Brian she needed Marissa's medical records and also his custody papers" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 100-102].
    4. Moynihan testified that he asked Susan Pane what kind of care she gave to the child, that he asked her whether she had kept the child confined in the port-a-crib, but Pane denied it " [Trial, 5/21/02, at 101-102].
    5. Moynihan told Thompson that Marissa, the child, had missed some appointments with the therapist down in Florida [Trial, 5/22/03, at 69-70].
    6. Moynihan had knowledge that Pane and/or Stults contacted the doctors with whom Meuse had made contact to examine the child [Trial, 5/21/02, at 124; Trial Exh. LL].

      7.  
    CAPTAIN THOMPSON’S GENERAL POLICE KNOWLEDGE
    1. Thompson knew nothing of the Parental Kidnapping Act, federal or state [Trial, 5/22/02, at 41-46].
    2. Thompson denied receiving a bonus incentive for the department from the federal government [Trial, 5/22/02, at 105].
    3. Thompson denied receiving a bonus incentive for the department from the federal government based on the number of people that are arrested for domestic violence or parental kidnapping cases [Trial, 5/22/02, at 105-106].
    4. Thompson admitted that he, as a detective commander, has a responsibility to use due diligence [Trial, 5/22/02, at 119].
    5. Thompson explained to the jury what due diligence means in his position: "That I have the obligation to investigate -- I believe that this is the area that we're headed -- that I have the obligation to conduct these investigations in a reasonable, proper, use the same word, diligent manner. To carry on, as we're talking about an Unlawful Flight warrant, I believe that it certainly is due diligence when you receive a call from the FBI stating, we have obtained an Unlawful Flight warrant. That's what enables the posters to go out. That's when they tell you that they are entering the case and going to conduct a search. I feel that my obligations towards that issue; due diligence with the Unlawful Flight warrant were certainly covered. There was a warrant then. The warrant has been dismissed. I have absolutely zero doubts that there was never not an Unlawful Flight warrant" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 121-122.
    6. Thompson believed without question whatever the FBI told him regarding a warrant " [Trial, 5/22/02, at 122]: "I was told by the FBI that there was warrant, Unlawful Flight warrant for Mr. Meuse. The knowledge of one officer is considered to be the knowledge of all officers. . . . That is a rule in police investigations" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 123-124].
    7. Thompson knew that there was no crime in Florida, i.e., that Florida was not handling the case, but he did not learn that on his own. He never communicated with anyone in Florida about the Meuse case [Trial, 5/22/02, at 126]; Melissa Alleruzo and Eileen Forman in the DA’s office spoke to someone in Florida about the Meuse case [Trial, 5/22/02, at 127; Trial Exh. CC].
    8. Thompson testified that Florida felt that the case belonged in the Massachusetts courts because there were court orders in effect in Massachusetts and they referred it to us for investigation and/or prosecution [Trial, 5/22/02, at 129].
    9. Thompson admitted, in words for all intents and purposes that he does not have the authority to prosecute someone who commits a crime in another jurisdiction, for instance, in another State [Trial, 5/22/02, at 133-134].
    10. If Meuse had committed a crime in Florida, Thompson would not have had a right to try him for that crime here in Haverhill District Court [Trial, 5/22/02, at 134].
    11. Thompson testified that Meuse was not charged with a crime in Florida [Trial, 5/22/02, at 137]. Meuse did not take the baby from Pane in Massachusetts [Id.]. "The baby was taken in Florida, [Id.].
    12. Thompson testified that before he can bring a criminal complaint, he must first determine that a crime has been committed before he tries to charge someone with the crime [Trial, 5/22/02, at 142].
    13. Thompson denied, however, that one of the first things that he has to determine in a parental kidnapping case, in Massachusetts is whether a parent took the child in Massachusetts [Trial, 5/22/02, at 142].
    14. Ada, Oklahoma, police contacted Moynihan’s captain,, Captain Thompson" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 173].
    15. On 5 April 2001, the day Meuse was arraigned, Judge Herlihy wanted to see the FBI warrant and requested Assistant District Attorney DePaolo to produce it.

      16.  
    THOMPSON, MOYNIHAN, THE FBI, AND FBI AGENT CHARLES KELLY COORDINATE ACTIVITIES
    1. Moynihan was involved with Charles Kelly of the FBI Boston unit in the investigation of this case [Trial, 5/20/02, at 168-169].
    2. Moynihan and the FBI, including Kelly, performed stakeouts, went to the homes of different people' whose names were provided by Pane, performed "follow-ups" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 170-172]. He, Agent Kelly, and others spent "close to a couple of hundred hours" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 173]: "two hundred hours" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 188].
    3. Thompson testified that the police made (a) note that Meuse was assisted by a fathers’ group, the Fatherhood Coalition, (b) note of articles that were in the newspaper, (c) note of articles that were on the internet, (d) note of signs that were in front of the Meuses' home, (e) note of picketing of the courthouse [Trial, 5/22/02, at 99-100].
    4. Thompson testified that Detective Moynihan worked with Agent Kelly of the FBI, but he, Thompson, was not aware of any direct contact that Agent Kelly had with the Fatherhood. He was aware, however, that Detective Moynihan had such contact [Trial, 5/22/02, at 100].
    5. The FBI chased Meuse’s friends, knocked on their doors in the middle of the night, tapped people's phones.
    6. Thompson testified that he knew Meuse had been interviewed by local TV and newspaper reporters [Trial, 5/22/02, at 100].
    7. Thompson testified that he knew Pane had been interviewed by local newspaper reporters [Trial, 5/22/02, at 104].
    8. Moynihan spoke to Captain Thompson a couple of times a week anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes about the Meuse/Pane case [Trial, 5/21/02, at 76]:

    It was always ongoing, whether it was once or twice a week. Whenever something was discovered or if I had to go someplace, a surveillance or something like that, I always advised the captain as to what was going on. I just couldn't like go off on my own and do things. He had to have knowledge of like what I was doing and where I was going.

    A lot of times it would have to do with Agent Kelly. The FBI was the one that did a lot of the extensive investigation on this part. They have the resources. The city police department has nowhere near the resources. So, Agent Kelly called me, I have this bit of information, you want to come with me, I'd like to go here and check this location, or I'd like to go here and do this surveillance, and that's what would happen.

    And I'd relay that information to my captain that I'd be with Agent Kelly, I'd be going out of town, and that's about what it boiled down to.
    1. Moynihan took guidance from the FBI: "Whenever they came up with something they wanted to investigate with me, we went and did it" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 79].
    2. According to Moynihan, Captain Thompson, to a certain extent, gave him guidance or guidelines to follow in this case [Trial, 5/21/02, at 78-79]; for instance, "[o]nce Mr. Meuse became a defendant, he told me . . . that I was no longer to deal with Jan Meuse; that he had become the defendant and that we were no longer to provide her with any information or try to do any investigation on the part of Mr. Meuse" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 79].
    3. Moynihan testified that he received that instruction from Thompson when Meuse allegedly became a fugitive from justice [Trial, 5/21/02, at 78].
    4. Moynihan defined fugitive as being "a person [who] has a warrant on him and he's running from the law, he was hiding from the law, he is concealing himself from justice, not coming forth to the court system, as ordered" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 78].
    5. Moynihan equated the alleged knowledge that Meuse’s family had with Meuse’s knowledge [Trial, 5/21/02, at 78].
    6. Moynihan admitted that he had no "proof that his family even knew where [Meuse] was on October 25th or after October 25th" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 79].
    7. Moynihan admitted that Meuse "was just running because he had no knowledge of it, whatsoever. That's why they found him in Oklahoma. He had no idea that anybody was looking for him" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 80].
    8. Moynihan admitted that he told Timothy Allen that if Brian turned himself in, Moynihan would attempt to drop the federal charge of Unlawful Flight, which didn't exist, and to keep the Parental Kidnapping charge a misdemeanor, but the Parental Kidnapping charge was always just a misdemeanor [Trial, 5/21/02, at 84; Trial Exh. EE].
    9. The domestic violence advocate Jean Walker, kept a steady correspondence up with Rosalyn Stults, Pane's lawyer, and with Charles Kelly of the FBI [Trial, 5/21/02, at 91-92].
    10. Kelly got in touch with the HPD "[p]robably to set up a time and date for us to get together to go on a surveillance or, you know, to interview people [Trial, 5/21/02, at 92].
    11. Moynihan and the FBI were working off a list of names supplied to the FBI [Trial, 5/21/02, at 92].
    12. According to Moynihan, the FBI got telephone bills from Mr. and Mrs. Meuse's phone [Trial, 5/21/02, at 134]. He, Moynihan, "had nothing to do with the phone bills or the -- anything, any type of contacts that came out of their house" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 134].
    13. The bills the FBI obtained were the Meuses’ phone bills from August 2000 through October 2000 [Trial, 5/21/02, at 135].
    14. According to Moynihan, Agent Kelly "conveyed to [him] certain phone calls to certain locations and the FBI conducted investigations into those locations, but he did confide in to me where the locations were, and which I don't have recall. Some, I believe were in New Hampshire. Some were in Maine" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 136].
    15. Moynihan described photographs he was shown of the child after Meuse had been caring for her: he observed that Marissa was walking, running, smiling, picking up a toidy potty [Trial, 5/21/02, at 139-140, 142]. The photos were date stamped by the camera on 8 January 2001 and 12 January 2001 [Trial, 5/21/02, at 140], three and a half months after he took the child from Florida [Trial, 5/21/02, at 142].
    16. Moynihan’s domestic violence advocate, Jean Walker, maintained a file on Meuse’s defense counsel. The material was supplied to Walker by Pane’s lawyer, Stults [Trial, 5/21/02, at 144-145].
    17. Jean Walker is the department’s Domestic Violence civilian professional partially she's paid under the Violence Against Women Act [Trial, 5/22/02, at 115]. She maintains the office.
    18. In response to Meuse’s counsel’s question, "She kept an eye on me?" Moynihan responded. "Yes, she did. I believe so. The eye in the sky" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 145].
    19. Moynihan testified that all of the material provided to Moynihan’s victim witness advocate was provided to the FBI [Trial, 5/21/02, at 145].

      20.  
    PANE AND MOYNIHAN AND THE FBI COORDINATE POSTER ACTIVITIES
    1. Pane, too, "quite often" had conversations with Agent Charles Kelly of the FBI Boston unit in the investigation of this case [Trial, 5/17/02, at 98-99, 100, 104-105].
    2. Pane was in continuing communication with Moynihan during the investigation of the case: "I just remember calling him quite often" [Trial, 5/17/02, at 97-98, 100, 104-105;Trial Exhs. HH and II].
    3. Because of her "numerous phone conversations with the police and the FBI," she was living in New York during the time of the investigation [Trial, 5/17/02, at 99-100].
    4. Between October 2000 and 22 March 2001, Pane had about 50 conversations with different organizations: (a) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, (b) Voice for the Children, (c) a California-based organization. [Trial, 5/17/02, at 102-103].
    5. Pane provided the organizations current pictures, height, weight, skin color, sufficient information so that the organizations could put together a package, including a poster, for distribution [Trial, 5/17/02, at 102-103].
    6. Pane had 500 posters made at a time, provided them to the NCMEC in the very beginning of October 2000, distributed them throughout many states, and hung them in laundromats, grocery stores, other stores, hotels, gas stations in Massachusetts generally, the Haverhill and Methuen areas in particular, and in many, many towns in New York [Trial, 5/17/02, at 103-104].
    7. Moynihan had nothing "to do with FBI Most Wanted show on Fox TV" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 188].
    8. "The FBI set that up and that was all set up through, I believe, through the Wal-Mart" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 188].
    9. Moynihan testified that the FBI "put out that [Meuse] was a fleeing felon" [Trial, 5/20/02, at 188].
    10. The poster, Moynihan testified, said Parental Kidnapping.
    11. The poster on the America’s Most Wanted Website was and remains at http://www.amw.com/site/searchlight/missmeusemarissa200010.html. The poster may be seen on page 32, infra.
    12. The poster by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ["NCMEC"] names Meuse as an "abductor" and November 6, 2000, as the date when Meuse allegedly fled unlawfully to avoid prosecution [Trial, 5/21/02, at 86].
    13. Moynihan denied having anything to do with the information written on the NCMEC poster [Trial, 5/21/02, at 86]. He did not knowwhether the Haverhill Police Department or the Office of the District Attorney in Essex County had anything to do with what was on this poster [Trial, 5/21/02, at 87].
    14. He believed that the local FBI was mainly responsible for the poster [Trial, 5/21/02, at 87-88].
    15. There was also a second Wanted poster for Parental Kidnapping [Trial, 5/21/02, at 88-89; Trial Exh. GG].
    16. On the poster in Trial Exh. GG, the FBI wrote that an arrest warrant for Meuse issued for "Parental Kidnapping" and "Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution." Readers were to contact the FBI Violent Fugitive Task Force by calling 617-742-5533.
    17. There was also a third "Family Abduction" poster [Trial, 5/21/02, at 88-89; Trial Exh. FF].
    18. On the poster in Trial Exh. FF, the FBI wrote that on 6 November 2000, an FBI warrant for Meuse, the "Abductor," issued for "Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution."
    19. On Saturday 10 February 2001, following the America’s Most Wanted show, the advertisement "The Kidnapping by a Haverhill man, Wanted by the FBI" was aired on the FOX stations.
 
MISSING
ABDUCTOR\12/
MARISSA LYNE MEUSE
BRIAN MEUSE
Case type: 
DOB:
Missing from:
Age Now:
Sex 
Height:
Weight
Hair:
Eyes		 FamilyAbduction
Aug-04-1999 
Oct-08-2000 
1
Female
2' 7" - 79cm
22 lbs - 10 kg
Lt Brown
Brown
Port Orange, Fl 
USA
U		 DOB: 
Sex:
Height
Weight: 
Hair
Eyes:
Case No:
aa		 Jun-26-1962
Male
5'8" 173cm
160 lbs - 73 kg
Brown
Hazel
897945aa
 Marissa was abducted by her non-custodial father, Brian Jeffrey Meuse. A FBI warrant for Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution was issued for the abductor on November 6, 2000. 

They may travel out of state in a black and grey 1978 Chevrolet Corvette with Massachusetts license plates 1978HD. Marissa was abducted by her non-custodial father, Brian Jeffrey Meuse. A FBI warrant for Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution was issued for the abductor on November 6, 2000. 

They may travel out of state in a black and grey 1978 Chevrolet Corvette with Massachusetts license plates 1978HD.
ANYONE HAVING INFORMATION SHOULD 

CONTACT

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

1-800-843-5678 (1-800-THE-LOST)
or
Haverhill Police Department (Massachusetts) 1-978-373-1212 or Your Local FBI

AMW Contact: Gina Long (202) 204-2625

Please tell the person you speak with that you saw this poster on the
AMW.com SEARCHLIGHT
FN12 "‘Abduction’ is physical taking of minor child from parent having legal custody." Murphy v. I.S.K. Con. of New England, Inc., 409 Mass. 842, 860 (1991).
 
  1. On Saturday 10 February 2001, on a FOX news segment entitled "New England’s Unsolved Mysteries: The Hunt for Brian and Marissa Meuse," the poster marked as Trial Exh. GG appeared. It instructed the audience to call the FBI Violent Fugitive Task Force at 617-742-5533.
Wanted for Parental Kidnapping
Unauthorized Flight to Avoid Prosecution
FBI Violent Fugitive Task Force 617-742-5533
  1. On that television show, on Saturday 10 February 2001, the head of the Boston office of the FBI, Charles Prouty, made two statements: "Our investigators are working very closely with the Haverhill Police Department and we have spent a lot of time on this in the last couple of months and I believe that we will find him. I don’t doubt that he does love his daughter, but he has taken the law into his own hands and the custody agreement is um, . . . exists and he simply has to abide by that." 
  2. FBI Boston Chief Prouty misrepresented that there was a custody agreement.


THE WARRANT ON AMERICA’S MOST WANTED WEBSITE

  1. As of the writing of this Complaint, the poster remains on America’s Most Wanted website: http://www.amw.com/site/searchlight/main200101.html. The word MISSING over Marissa’s picture now reads "RECOVERED.
  2. And below the names of the child and Meuse is now added the row reading "CLICK ON PICTURES FOR MORE DETAILS." After clicking, the same details as shown above are displayed.
  3. Nowhere on the website does it read that Meuse was found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers.
  4. Moynihan did not know whether the Haverhill Police Department ever did anything to locate Susan Pane or ever contacted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children or contacted the FBI to get their help to locate Susan Pane [Trial, 5/20/02, at 190].
  5. In his 19-year career, Moynihan had arrested a dozen or so women and around a hundred men, around 10 percent women, 90 percent men. "That's the national rate, ten to one." [Trial, 5/20/02, at 192-193].
  6. Moynihan wrote the complaint against Meuse for Kidnapping of a Minor by a Relative, to wit; her father, pursuant to chapter 265 section 26A [Trial, 5/20/02, at 198].
  7. The complaint read, "On 10/8/2000, being a relative of Marissa Meuse, a child less than 18 years old, did without lawful authority hold or intend to hold such child permanently for a period, protracted period did take or entice such child from such child's lawful custodian" 26A [Trial, 5/20/02, at 199].
  8. On page two of His Honor's memorandum dated 30 July 2001, Judge Alan Swan wrote, "[T]here is still no order or judgment of custody" in the Probate & Family Court case entitled Meuse v. Pane [Trial, 5/21/02, at 15, and Trial Exh. CCC]. Moynihan agreed that there had been neither a judgment nor order of custody [Trial, 5/21/02, at 15].
    9.  
FOXNEWS TELEVISED BROADCAST
  1. On or around 9 or 10 February 2001, FOX25News New England Unsolved Crimes broadcast a story about Meuse. The story was somewhat balanced, but Charles Prouty asserted untruthfully that Meuse was a fleeing fugitive.
  2. Before the local feature story, FOX25News advertised the story as a Kidnapper wanted by the FBI, and showed the picture of Meuse and Child poster [Trial Exh. GG].
    3.  
MOYNIHAN’S COMMUNICATION WITH PANE AND STULTS
  1. Pane had written several letters to Detective Moynihan [Trial, 5/21/02, at 42; Trial Exh. HH].
  2. Moynihan spoke to Susan Pane when she called maybe once or twice a week [Trial, 5/21/02, at 22-23].
  3. Moynihan never told Pane to get back to Massachusetts with the child [Trial, 5/21/02, at 22].
  4. Moynihan spoke to Rosalyn Stults, her attorney, once every other week [Trial, 5/21/02, at 23; Trial Exh. II].
  5. Moynihan never told Stults that her client wrongfully removed the child and that she should get her client back to Massachusetts or otherwise a warrant would issue to bring her back [Trial, 5/21/02, at 23].
  6. Moynihan never considered issuing a warrant to get Susan to bring back the child [Trial, 5/21/02, at 23].
  7. Moynihan testified that he did not consider issuing a warrant to arrest Susan because Meuse and Pane were "in court on a custody battle at the time and it was the court's decision at the time that a decision had never been made" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 23].
  8. Moynihan testified that he kept no notes or records of Stults’ calls, but testified that Stults called wanting "to know what was going on in the investigation," telling him "what was going on down in Florida, what they were proceeding to do as far as getting out the posters and that certain people they were getting to help them in trying to recover the kidnapped child" [Trial, 5/21/02, at 61-62].


STULTS’ WORKING WITH THE FBI AND MAINTAINING THE
"SUSAN PANE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND"

  1. Stults communicated with Charles Kelly [perhaps spelled "Kelley"] by FAXed letters on numerous dates, including but not limited to a 29-page letter on 14 November 2000 and a 3-page letter on 16 November 2000.
  2. On or around 31 December 2000, Pane released to the print and broadcasting media an "Open Letter to Brian Meuse" [Exh. GGG].
  3. In the press release of 31 December 2000, Pane identified that donations were to be made payable to the "Susan Pane Legal Defense Fund" and to be sent to "Attorney Roslyn [sic] Stults, 14 Lynde Street, Salem, MA 01970" [Exh. GGG].

PROBABLE CAUSE
  1. The complaint alleged that Meuse took the child on 8 October 2000. Thompson testified that he did not know in which of the 50 States Meuse and the child were on October 8th [Trial, 5/22/02, at 146].
  2. Thompson testified that he did not know whether Meuse and the child were together on 8 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 146].
  3. Thompson testified that he knew from Judge Manzi's order of 3 May 2000 that Susan Pane had the child wrongfully because she had wrongfully removed the child [Trial, 5/22/02, at 146].
  4. It is undisputed that Judge Manzi’s order of 3 May 2000 was never vacated or modified [Trial Exh. T].
  5. Thompson was unable to prove that Pane had lawful authority and that Meuse did not have any lawful authority to have the child.
  6. Judge Alan Swan on 30 July 2001 ruled that there had been even by that date no judgment or order of custody in the Meuse v. Pane case in the probate and family court [Trial, 5/21/02, at 12-15; Exh. CCC, Judge Swan’s Memorandum and Decision, p. 2].
  7. Judge Manzi gave Pane custody of the child on 11 October 2000, eleven days after Meuse had taken the child.\FN13/
FN13  A law affects substantive rights and is ex post facto, according to that decision, if it makes criminal an action innocent when done; makes a crime more aggravated than when committed; increases the punishment for the crime, . . . or "alters the legal rules of evidence, and [requires] less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender " (emphasis in the original). Stewart v. Chairman of Massachusetts Parole Bd., 35 Mass.App.Ct. 843, 846 (1994) (internal cite omitted), quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798).
    1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. Calder, at 390.
  1. Meuse was not present in court on 11 October 2000 and had no personal notice of the proceeding [Trial, 5/23/02, at 14-15].
  2. Moynihan admitted knowing that Meuse took the child from Florida before Judge Manzi issued the order of custody to Pane [Trial, 5/21/02, at 168].
  3. Thompson was relying on Judge Manzi’s order of 11 October 2000 Trial, 5/22/02, at 149].
  4. The Criminal Complaint was written on 25 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 148].
  5. Thompson never saw Judge Swan's memorandum and decision of 30 July 2001 in this case [Trial, 5/22/02, at 149; Exh. CCC].
  6. Thompson agreed at trial that Judge Manzi’s order of May 3d, in which she said Susan had wrongfully removed, was valid and lawful [Trial, 5/22/02, at 150; Trial Exh T].
  7. Therefore Susan Pane had not been given custody of that child by the court on 1 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 153], and did not have lawful authority to have the child at the very least until 11 October 2000.
  8. Thompson admitted that he was aware that Pane did not have custody on 1 October 2000, on 2 October 2000, on 3 October 2000, on 4 October 2000, on 5 October 2000, on 6 October 2000, and on 7 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 154-155].
  9. Thompson did not admit that he was aware that Pane did not have custody on 8 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 155]: Thompson testified: "I did not read the order and I would have to say that there must be something in the order which gave her custody" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 155].
  10. Thompson testified that he was not aware that the 11 October 2000 order was not in effect on 8 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 156].
  11. Thompson ultimately testified that Pane had not yet been awarded custody on October 8th [Trial, 5/22/02, at 157].
  12. Thompson admitted that he was aware that Pane did not have custody on 9 October 2000 and on 10 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 157].
  13. Thompson testified that on October 11th then Susan got custody [Trial, 5/22/02, at 157].
  14. Thompson was aware that she never had a hearing on October 11th and that Meuse was not in court on that date [Trial, 5/22/02, at 158].
  15. Thompson testified that he was not aware that Meuse never knew about that order by Judge Manzi on October 11th [Trial, 5/22/02, at 158]: "I don't know whether he knows it or not, no" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 158].
  16. Thompson testified that he believed that Meuse intended to hold Marissa permanently or for a protracted period [Trial, 5/22/02, at 159]. Thompson’s belief was based on Meuse not having returned the child for six months [Trial, 5/22/02, at 160].


MEUSE NEVER INTENDED TO REMOVE CHILD PERMANENTLY FROM MOTHER

  1. Meuse testified that he "never had any intention of removing the child from her mother or anybody else, permanent or otherwise. . . . I would not have wanted to have taken away from Marissa the rights to know her mother or anyone else. I did not do it for any malicious or intent of purpose to remove her for any period of time, no. My only concern was for my daughter's health, safety and welfare, that her muscles were atrophying and that to prevent her from becoming permanently handicapped, either a paraplegic or quadriplegic and from her condition" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 193].
  2. Upon taking her he took her immediately to the Boston Children's Hospital emergency outpatient in Boston [Trial, 5/22/02, at 193].
  3. He did not bring her to a hospital in Florida, he testified:
". . . because I only had visitations one week out of every eight, which would not have allowed me to make sure that she got the medical attention that she needed only on that one week that of course I would have had.

"Second, because that there was already supposed to be medical attention for her in Florida and it was being neglected and denied her by the mother. So, there was absolutely no evidence to me whatsoever, that if I tried to start any more Florida help for her that it would have continued unless I was -- maybe the week that I was there.

"And even the week that I was there in Florida for the Early Intervention that was set up by Judge Sahagian's order, it was denied by the mother that I was allowed to even give my daughter that attention during my visitation. So, it was clear to me that the child would not get her medical help" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 194].
  1. That is why Meuse brought her to Massachusetts [Trial, 5/22/02, at 194]. He also had exhausted any money he had saved in trying to even visit her prior to this [Trial, 5/22/02, at 194-195].
  2. Meuse testified, "[When] I brought her to the emergency outpatient. They did an evaluation. They made note of the condition of the child was basically a lifeless rag doll that had no ability to hold up her own feet or her own arms or sometimes her own head, would just lifelessly fall back. We could not pick up her arm. It would just flop back down. They did not deem her as an emergency because she was not bleeding to death or dying of a heart attack or anything, but they did take her as important enough to have me immediately bring her right upstairs to another department. . . . That was [the] Early Intervention's Program that is set up for specifically children that have immediate needs. [There] we did another evaluation and the woman there who did evaluate her deemed her in dire need of help and she set up immediately appointments for her to have home evaluation and therapy, and she deemed that it was important that it was done immediately within the next day or two and they even canceled other appointments and fit her in, specifically, to get her attention as soon as possible [Trial, 5/22/02, at 195-196].
  3. That visit by two people from West Newburyport Early Intervention occurred [Trial, 5/22/02, at 197].
  4. Meuse described the session: "They evaluated Marissa. They tried to work with her to find out exactly what her abilities were. I had her on the floor in the living room on a bed quilt, as the only thing she could do was lie down on the floor. So, she was lying there and then they approached her and tried to see what abilities she had. Whether or not, like has been stated before, whether she could sit, stand, crawl, have the ability to hold something in her grasp; in her fingers. In the reports and going through that she did not -- she would sit up if you placed her sitting up and she'd stay sitting up if you kept her attention. Had you not kept her attention, she would get bored with it and fall back and lock her legs in a crossed position, as stated by Annie Kalip, that she was very frustrated and couldn't communicate [Trial, 5/22/02, at 197].
  5. Meuse continued: "They said it was very important that Marissa has immediate medical attention and continues therapy and also suggested other doctors and avenues that I should look into, and they scheduled the future appointments and I did also follow their recommendations and looked for a pediatrician, neurologist, and other doctors and help [Trial, 5/22/02, at 198].
  6. Meuse found Dr. Normand Tanguay, of Wilmington Pediatrics in Wilmington, Mass. and visited with him on 5 October 2000 [Trial, 5/22/02, at 198]. The doctor told Meuse that Marissa had what he described as "Russian Baby syndrome." Dr. Tanguay referred Meuse to a pediatric neurologist at Boston Children's Floating Hospital. Meuse set up an appointment for Marissa with the pediatric neurologist.
  7. Later that day Meuse learned that Susan Pane's attorney, Rosalyn Stults, was in contact with them and that Stults was getting the medical records from Children’s Hospital and Tanguay’s office.
  8. Stults and Pane canceled the Early Intervention Program appointments that Meuse had made.
  9. On a document found in Moynihan’s file, Stults had handwritten "Cathy at Children's Hospital, phone number at the Children's Hospital, fax for Dr. Sun which is one of the doctors in the emergency, to get the release forms of the emergency evaluation. More phone numbers for Dr. Tanguay. Called him at 4:30 on October 6, 2000. Called back to check if we received a fax requesting his -- my records of Marissa with Dr. Tanguay. Another phone number for Dr. Gordon at the Early Intervention, has Linda Schaeffer as Susan's contact person" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 204; Trial Exh. LL].
  10. He did not want to leave Massachusetts, but his only concern at that time was to get the child medical attention to help her, to prevent her muscles from atrophying and being a permanent handicapped person. The only way "I could obtain that without it being canceled, interrupted, or not getting it, either through Florida or Massachusetts or anywhere else was to do it without anyone knowing where I was, who I was with, who I was seeing for a doctor, what therapists I brought her to or whatever, I could do to get her help. So, I was on my own with my daughter seeking her medical attention until she was capable to walk or crawl or be at the level age that she was; as old as she was" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 207].
  11. The examination of her in Florida was when she was ten months old. At that time, the doctors concluded that she had the physical ability of a five-month old [Trial, 5/22/02, at 208].
  12. The child’s ability to function did not improve between June 2000, when she was 10. If anything she was less able to hold her head up or when carrying her was like carrying a dead body [Trial, 5/22/02, at 208].
  13. Around Thanksgiving, Meuse and the child were televised by Boston Channel 4 Eye Team reporter, Joe Bergantino. Moynihan and Thomson testified that they saw the TV show. On that tape, Marissa was, with the help of Meuse and Bergantino by either holding her hand or pushing or leaning or carrying, able to take a few steps unguided without holding on from . . . , like one bench to a table, but that was a much drastic improvement in the eight weeks until that tape was taken [Trial, 5/22/02, at 209].
  14. By Christmas, Marissa had a very full vocabulary. "She had been transformed since 10/1 to Christmas into a very attentive, happy, joyful child that had the ability now to smile, to show expressions, to be able to hold, grasp, to stand, crawl, walk, run, talk. She could count to 20, knowing what she was counting and talking about. It was not just babble" [Trial, 5/22/02, at 210; Trial Exh. MM, photographs of Marissa on 8 and 12 January 2001].
  15. The so-called child-protection agencies in both Florida and Massachusetts did nothing to help Marissa [Trial, 5/22/02, at 212-214].
  16. Whether the 11 October 2000 order was valid and lawful is irrelevant, given that Meuse had no personal notice of the proceeding and had no knowledge of the order.
MEUSE’S ARREST AND THE ENSUING CRIMINAL PROCESS
  1. On or around the first week in December 2000, Meuse and the child were living in Ada, Oklahoma.
  2. Meuse was renting a house at 808 West 12th Street in Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
  3. Meuse and the child lived in a residential area across from a park with playground equipment. Marissa loved to play with the other children on the swings, slide, and other rides. Meuse was with Marissa 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Meuse gave the child therapy every day and had her on a specific diet from an infant-raising book. He and the child were very active and always doing something or going somewhere like shopping or playing.
  4. On 22 March 2001, while Marissa was taking her regular nap, Meuse was folding some laundry. The front door was open and Meuse noticed some people outside. As he went to take a closer look out the front door, an officer with a shotgun came running towards the door. The officer tripped on the step and went sliding across and off the porch on his face. As he stood up and rushed at Meuse standing in the front room, he was very shook up and nervously shaking his shotgun in Meuse’s face. Wearing only a pair of shorts and hiding nothing, Meuse was standing in the middle of the room with his hands out and up. Meuse told the officer to relax so he would not accidentally shoot Meuse. Meuse said, in words for all intents and purposes, "I do not have any weapons or anything." Then Meuse turned around slowly so the officer could see that [Exh. FFF].
  5. Meuse was not given his Miranda rights at that time. Instead, Meuse was arrested forthwith and then imprisoned and strip-searched.
  6. Meuse learned from the local newspaper in Ada that two women, Glenda Thomas and Alberta Morris, had seen a Meuse Wanted poster on a Bulletin Board in a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The store is located at 1601 Lonnie Abbott Boulevard, Ada, Oklahoma [Exh. FFF].
  7. Thomas and Morris women called the police and told them that they had seen Meuse and the child at Highlander Laundromat in the morning [Exh. FFF].
  8. On 23 March 2001, Meuse was given his Miranda rights at the request of the court at Ada, Oklahoma and charged with parental kidnapping.
  9. Meuse spent 11 days in the Pontococ Jail. He was kept in a 10-man jail cell with as many as 15 or 20 men in it at any given time. The conditions were inhuman. Where there once was a light socket in the ceiling, there were just live wires hanging from the ceiling. The floor was half-covered with puddles from the walls leaking in water from outside rains. Meuse had to sleep on a damp or even wet cement floor with only a thin, little mat and a small, thin blanket. The food was despicable and in very small portions. Sometimes someone didn’t get any, because the jailers would run out of it. Meuse was then transported to Massachusetts in a van. The van was designed for 8 passengers but was filled at times with up to 12 men. Meuse and the other men were all shackled at the wrists and feet and together. It took several days of driving around the country before Meuse was delivered to the Essex County House of Correction ["Middleton"] in Middleton, Massachusetts.
  10. Meuse spent three days housed in Middleton. Meuse was denied the right to counsel and the right to make a phone call to his counsel. Meuse was also confined to a 4-by-10-foot room with another man every minute of his stay there.
  11. When brought to Haverhill District Court for arraignment, Meuse was able to persuade a court officer into contacting Meuse’s attorney for him before he was brought from the holding cell upstairs to the courtroom.
  12. Meuse’s bail was set for $15,000.00. Meuse said that he was not going anywhere cause he had no reason to do so; he said, "The only reason I ever went anywhere was to get my daughter the care that she needed."
  13. Meuse went to court several times in the 14 months before he had a jury trial.
  14. To Meuse, those in the legal system appeared unconcerned about Marissa’s health and welfare.
  15. Prior to 6 October 2000, when he went away with the child, Meuse had asked for help from as many as 26 judges, prior to Judge Swan for the criminal trial. "Between my parents and me, we had contacted and asked for help from the newspapers, the Haverhill police, Haverhill Detective Daniel Moynihan, Haverhill Police Chief Leonard Barone, Haverhill’s Judge Herlihy in his personal capacity, the FBI, DSS, the Haverhill District Court, the Family Probate Court in Lawrence, the Family Probate Court in Salem, the City of Haverhill’s Mayor, the City of Haverhill’s Attorney, each member of the City of Haverhill’s City Council, and various televisions stations."
  16. After being arrested, Meuse continued to ask for all of them to look at the evidence that Marissa was being put back in Harm’s way, and asked them to help her [Trial Exh. BBB].
  17. While waiting for trial, Meuse was not able to find a job. Possible employers denied him a job because of his CORI record. Meuse applied for food stamps at Welfare’s Department of Human Resources. DHR said that Meuse could not do the mandatory, prerequisite volunteer work for receiving food stamps. He was excluded because of his CORI.
  18. The criminal proceedings continued for 14 months. On the first day of trial in May 2002, Judge Alan Swan said that Meuse was precluded from using the necessity defense, a defense he and his counsel had been led to believe they could use.
  19. On Thursday, 23 May 2002, Meuse was found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers.
  20. Since trial to this day, Meuse has been unable to find employment. Meuse is known as the "kidnapper" almost everywhere he goes.


COUNT 1: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. 1983: ARREST

  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 396 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants were subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
  3. Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial of Meuse's rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law,\FN14/ to wit,
    1. by depriving Meuse of his liberty without due process of law, by taking him into custody and holding him there against his will,\FN15/
    2. by making an unreasonable search and seizure of his property without due process of law,
    3. by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny Meuse equal protection of laws,
    4. by refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to plaintiff,
      5.  
    thereby depriving plaintiff of his rights, privileges, and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.\FN16/
     
      FN14Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056, 1061 (1st Cir. 1997); McNamara v. Honeyman, 406 Mass. 43, 52 (1989).

      FN15County of Sacramento v. Lewis. 523 U.S. 833 (1998); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982); Williams v. Hartman, 413 Mass, 398, 403 (1992).

      FN16Miga v. Holyoke, 398 Mass. 343, 349, 350 (1986) (deprivation of pretrial detainee's substantive due process rights where state seeks to impose punishment without a constitutional adjudication of guilt). Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, n. 16 (1979)

  1. Around 3:30 P.M., plaintiff, handcuffed to two other detainees, was transported from the Haverhill Municipal Court to a Essex County jail, put into a holding area with other detainees, strip-searched, given prison garb, and remained in jail until he was bailed out by his parents around 10 A.M. on Tuesday, 10 April 2001.
  2. Meuse had to appear in Haverhill Municipal Court three more times.
  3. On 23 May 2002, the jury found Meuse not guilty as charged.
  4. Defendants City of Haverhill and the Haverhill Police Department negligently trained Defendants Thomson and Moriarty.
  5. Moynihan had an ulterior motive, namely, personal financial benefit, for arresting Meuse and charging him with crimes he had not committed.
  6. Pane had the improper purpose of trying to gain an advantage in the custody action and to unlawfully deprive Meuse of his property and liberty.
  7. Stults’s purpose was to aid and abet Pane, her client, in the custody action, to benefit Stults herself financially and reputationally from depriving Meuse of his property and liberty.
  8. There was no warrant for the arrest of plaintiff on 22 March 2001 by the ADA police. The arrest was without reasonable grounds for said Defendants to believe Meuse had committed an offense and Defendants knew they were without probable cause to arrest Meuse.
  9. No complaint, information, or indictment was ever sworn against Meuse alleging offenses occurring prior to the moment an Ada, Oklahoma, police officers Casey Northcutt and Fox handcuffed Meuse and told him he was under arrest.
  10. As a result of the concerted unlawful and malicious arrest, all Defendants directly or indirectly deprived Meuse of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection of the laws, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the false arrest against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $2,500,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages\FN17/ in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.
FN17"Punitive damages are recoverable in sec. 1983 suit where defendant's conduct is motivated by an evil motive or intent, or where it involves reckless or callous indifference to plaintiff's federally protected rights). Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 50-51 ((1983); Clark v. Taylor, 710 F.2d 4, 14 (1st Cir. 1983). Miga, supra at 355.

COUNT 2: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. 1983: DETENTION AND CONFINEMENT
  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 409 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. As a result of the concerted unlawful and malicious detention and confinement of Meuse, all Defendants directly or indirectly deprived Meuse of both his right to his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection of the laws, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the false detention and confinement against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $2,500,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.


COUNT 3: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. 1983: CONSPIRACY

  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 411 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. Moynihan had gathered information from a third-party caregiver (Anne Kalip) who described to Moynihan the serious physical and psychological condition of the child, the condition which Moynihan wrote in his notes.
  3. Moynihan one affidavitless warrant that was unlawful, having no basis for it, whatsoever.
  4. The FBI alleged to the world that there was an outstanding warrant for Meuse.
  5. Moynihan was not sure whether he or the HPD had supplied the information to the FBI for the warrant poster.
  6. Susan Pane secured an interview with NBC-TV’s Sally Jessy Raphael show and they televised the FBI’s Wanted Poster two times during the broadcast across the nation.
  7. Rosalyn Stults was interviewed by the Eagle-Tribune, publishing in Essex County, Massachusetts, and advertised the then-upcoming Sally Jessy Raphael show.
  8. The FBI coordinated activities with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children with the intent to broadcast nationwide the poster of Meuse and Marissa.
  9. On 10 February 2001, FOXNews broadcast the FBI/NCMEC Missing/Abductor poster.
  10. On Friday. 16 February 2001, American Broadcasting Company’s ["ABC’s"] Sally Jessy Raphael’s show broadcast a different version of the FBI/NCMEC Missing/Abductor poster. It read "FAMILY ABDUCTION" rather than "MISSING/ABDUCTOR."
  11. Beginning on or around 10 February 2001, FOX TV’s America’s Most Wanted show displayed the FBI/NCMEC Missing/Abductor poster on its website [see above] and that poster exists on the website to date.
  12. All the Defendants (a) had an object to be accomplished; (b) had an agreement on the object or course of action; (c) performed one or more unlawful overt acts; and (d) caused Meuse damages that were a direct result of those acts.
  13. The object and course of action was to capture Meuse by the following:
    1. by misrepresenting that a custody order was in place when Meuse took the child from Florida,
    2. by misrepresenting that Meuse was a felon,
    3. by misrepresenting that Meuse was a fugitive, that he had taken unlawful flight to avoid prosecution,
    4. by misrepresenting that Meuse was wanted for parental kidnapping,
    5. by preparing posters for display in stores, postoffices, other physical locations, and on television and in newspapers,
    6. by being interviewed by reporters for television and newsprint.
  1. In furtherance of their object, Defendants did two or more overt acts against the plaintiffs. Those unlawful overt acts include, but are not limited to, the following:
    1. authored and prepared the posters,
    2. falsely published to local and national audiences that a federal warrant to capture Meuse had issued,
    3. falsely published to local and national audiences that Meuse was wanted for parental kidnapping,
    4. falsely published to local and national audiences that Meuse had taken unlawful flight to avoid prosecution,
    5. arranged for their distribution of the posters,
    6. distributed the posters across the nation,
    7. published the posters on television for local and national audiences,
    8. arranged for being interviewed on local and national television stations, and
    9. were interviewed on local and national television shows.
  1. Rosalyn Stults advised and strategized with Susan about how to evade service of process of the 209A order and to keep the child from him before and after the original 209A temporary restraining orders had expired;
  2. Susan Pane intentionally told her mother to lie to a deputy sheriff and a process server that Susan was living in an unknown location. [Trial Exh. K, attempt at service; Trial Exh. NN, affidavit]
  3. Stults and Pane had the goal to get posters published nationwide to capture Meuse and with the an agreement Susan intentionally misrepresented that there had been a custody order prior to Meuse taking the child from Florida.
  4. FOXNews, the Haverhill police department, Thompson, Moynihan, Stults, Prouty, NCMEC, and Pane misrepresented that Meuse was a fleeing felon.
  5. In concert with Pane's and Stults’s representations and misrepresentations, Moynihan, Thompson, Barone, Kelly, and Prouty indirectly caused the detention and confinement of Meuse on the grounds that Meuse violated a custody order.
  6. The defendants agreed that the object or course of action was to arrest, detain, and confine Meuse without probable cause, and maliciously charge and prosecute him with crimes.
  7. Plaintiff suffered harm and damages that are a direct result of those acts.
  8. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious conspiracy, all Defendants deprived Meuse of both his liberty without due process of law and his right to equal protection of the laws, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 and 1985.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the conspiracy against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $2,500,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.


COUNT 4: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. 1983:
REFUSING OR NEGLECTING TO PREVENT

  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 433 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. At all times relevant to this Complaint, all Defendant police officers of the Haverhill Police Department were acting under the direction and control of Police Chief Barone, and Defendant City of Haverhill.
  3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, all Defendant agents of the FBI were acting under the direction and control of FBI, Director Louis Freeh, and Charles Prouty.
  4. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, the Haverhill Police Department, Chief Barone, the City of Haverhill, the FBI, Director Louis Freeh, and Charles Prouty knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis Defendant police officers and agents in their duties to refrain from:
    1. unlawfully and maliciously harassing a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities,
    2. unlawfully and maliciously arresting, imprisoning and prosecuting a citizen who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities,
    3. conspiring to violate the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and
    4. otherwise depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities.
  1. Defendants Thompson, the City of Haverhill, the FBI, Director Louis Freeh, and Charles Prouty had knowledge or, had they diligently exercised that duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis, should have had knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore alleged, were about to be committed. The afore-named defendants had power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of said wrongs, could have done so by reasonable diligence, and knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence failed or refused to do so.
  2. Defendants Thompson, the City of Haverhill, the FBI, Director Louis Freeh, and Charles Prouty directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct of Defendant police officers and agents heretofore described.
  3. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligent and intentional acts of the Defendants Haverhill Police Department, Chief Barone, the City of Haverhill, the FBI, Director Louis Freeh, and Charles Prouty, Plaintiff suffered physical injury, loss of income, and severe mental anguish in connection with the deprivation of his constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants the City of Haverhill, Captain Thompson, Director Louis Freeh, and Charles Prouty, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $2,500,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable.
 

COUNT 5: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 440 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. Defendants instituted criminal process against the plaintiff with malice.
  3. Susan Pane and Rosalyn Stults played an active part in the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings.
  4. Stults played an indirect role by advising Susan how to evade service of process of the original 209A temporary restraining order.
  5. Moynihan played an active part in the initiation of the criminal proceedings by causing the false arrest and imprisonment of Meuse.
  6. Moynihan signed the application for criminal complaint against Meuse.
  7. The charges were not based upon probable cause, that is the state of the facts in the mind of the prosecutor would not lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that Meuse was guilty.\FN18/
FN18  Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass.App.Ct. 12, 19 (1982), cites omitted. Morreale v. DeZotell, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 281, 282 (1980); Nolan & Sartorio, 37 M.P.S., Torts, sec. 79, pg. 96 (2d ed. 1989 & 1993 Supp.).
  1. Defendants Moynihan and Thompson had a duty to ascertain whether there was reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution,\FN19/ to wit, knowing that Meuse had been given emergency custody of the child by Judge Herlihy,
  2. Defendants Moynihan and Thompson had a duty to arrest Pane when she showed up at the station on 20 October 2000, while the violation of Judge Herlihy’s 209A order was still effective.\FN20/
FN19Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass.App.Ct. 12, 18 (1982).
FN20
[I]nformation known to be [] sufficiently unreliable or incomplete to support a finding that it was unreasonable to rely upon it without additional information. See Griffin v. Dearborn, 210 Mass. 308, 313 (1911) (where defendant knew that his horse was taken by G's minor son, and did not know whether the son did so, as the son claimed, on order from G, (t)he defendant's immediate prosecution of the son without any precedent investigation" could be found to lack reasonable grounds); Smith v. Eliot Sav. Bank, 355 Mass. at 548, (where defendant bank failed to pursue information as to whereabouts of S, in whose name unauthorized withdrawals were made, and teller identified the plaintiff as forger seven months after brief withdrawal transaction, jury could have found that identification was "so suspect that a 'man of ordinary caution and prudence' would not have relied upon it," quoting from Bacon v. Towne, 4 Cush. at 239.)
Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass.App.Ct. at 20-21.    
  1. Defendants Moynihan and Thompson knew or should have known that the 209A order against Pane was in effect, that Pane was evading service; they had a duty to ascertain the status of that 209A and failed that duty.
  2. Defendants Moynihan and Thompson and the FBI agents knew or should have known that Pane had intentionally misrepresented facts about the non-existent custody order when Meuse took the child from Florida and about the medical condition of the child, Marissa.
  3. Pane recklessly made categorical statements to Officer Moynihan accusing the plaintiff of violating a court order by taking the child, statements that resulted in Meuse's arrest.\FN21/
FN21
It is established in a related context that an individual's freedom of movement cannot be subject to the "'honest ... suspicion' of a shopkeeper ... (acting) on his own 'inarticulate hunches.'"

Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 359 Mass. at 325 (false arrest).Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass.App.Ct. at 24-25.
  1. Pane instigated or participated in the prosecution by pressing police to arrest and apply for a complaint for an improper purpose.\FN22/ 
FN22 Conway v. Smerling, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 3 (1994) ("Although distinct from the tort of abuse of process, see Bednarz v. Bednarz,[] 27 Mass.App.Ct. [668], 669, 673, there is in malicious prosecution the common ingredient of an improper purpose, i.e., using court proceedings primarily to gain a private advantage, because of hostility and ill will, and without belief by the accuser in the guilt of the accused. Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 668 comments c-g").
  1. Stults instigated or participated in the prosecution by pressing police to apply for a complaint for an improper purpose.
  2. The criminal proceeding terminated in favor of the plaintiff when the assistant district attorney recommended the dismissal of all four charges against Meuse and the court accepted the recommendation and dismissed the charges against Meuse.\FN23/
FN23 Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 318 (1991). "A dismissal of a criminal complaint by the court . . . entered by a district attorney satisfies the requirement that the criminal prosecution has been terminated in favor of the plaintiff." Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 1994 WL 879797 (Mass.Super. 1994), citing Wynne v. Rosen, 391 Mass. 797, 800 (1984).
  1. Defendants City of Haverhill is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Meuse demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 6: ABUSE OF PROCESS

  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 456 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. Defendants maliciously used a "legal process `to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not the legitimate purpose of the particular process employed.'"\FN24/
FN24 Carroll v. Gillespie. 14 Mass.App.Ct. 12, 26 (1982), quoting Jones v. Brockton Pub. Mkts., Inc., 369 Mass. 387, 389 (1975), quoting from Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. [423,] 426 (1963).
  1. Pane knew that the complaint initiated was groundless and made misrepresentations to the officers to gain advantage in the custody action.\FN25/
FN25
A person may be liable for false imprisonment not only when the person's own acts directly impose a restraint upon the liberty of another but also when that person, by providing false information, causes such restraint to be imposed. Karjavainen v. Buswell, 289 Mass. 419, 427 (1935) (questioned on other grounds by Mezullo v. Maletz, 331 Mass. 233, 239-240 [1954]). Restatement (Second) of Torts s 37 (1965) ("If an act is done with the intent to confine another, and such act is the legal cause of confinement to another, it is immaterial whether the act directly or indirectly causes the confinement").
Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 47 Mass.App.Ct. 86, 97-98 (1999).
  1. Stults knew or should have known that the complaint was groundless and she sought to use the process for an ulterior purpose, including, but not limited to, the purpose of aiding her client to gain advantage in her divorce.
  2. Defendants Moynihan and Thompson knew or should have known that the complaint initiated was groundless.
  3. Defendant Moynihan applied for a warrant without an affidavit and was granted an unlawful warrant for Meuse.
  4. Defendants Moynihan and Thompson used the legal process with the ulterior purpose, to wit, for personal financial benefit.
  5. Defendants City of Haverhill is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Meuse demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate. 

COUNT 7: VIOLATION OF MASS. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, M.G.L. c. 12, sec. 11I

  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 464 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants was subject to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
  3. Defendants Susan Pane, Stults, Moynihan, Thompson, Barone, Kelly, and Prouty interfered with or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation,\FN26/ or coercion with Plaintiff's exercise and enjoyment of his rights -- e.g., his rights to his liberty, and his right to due process -- secured by the state and federal constitutions or laws of the United States and/or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. \FN27/ 
FN26  "Under the MCRA, a `[t]hreat'. . . involves the intentional exertion of pressure to make another fearful or apprehensive of injury or harm. `Intimidation' involves putting in fear for the purpose of compelling or deterring conduct. . . . [c]oercion [is] `the application to another of such force, either physical or moral, as to constrain him to do against his will something he would not otherwise have done.'" Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. 47 Mass.App.Ct. 86 (1999) quoting Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467, cert. denied 513 U.S. 868 (1994).
There must also be evidence of "actual or potential physical confrontations involving a threat of harm," id. at 473 n. 8, though the confrontation may involve third persons and the threat of harm need not be directed at the plaintiff. See Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, 399 Mass. at 100-101 (potential physical harm to audience and orchestra members by third persons protesting plaintiff's political views is a confrontation within the MCRA). A plaintiff is not required to prove a specific intent to threaten, intimidate, or coerce for the purpose of interfering with a secured right. Id. at 99-100. Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. 47 Mass.App.Ct. at 92 (1999).
      FN27 Rogan v. Menino, 973 F.Supp. 72, 77 (D.Mass. 1997).
  1. Thus, under color of state, Meuse's liberty was threatened, and he was intimidated and coerced into not enforcing his right to living in his home.
  2. Defendants City of Haverhill and the FBI are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
  3. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Meuse was intimidated and put in continuing anxiety and has suffered damages including but not limited to the aforesaid damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Meuse demands judgment against Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs of the litigation in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.
 

COUNT 8: FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT\FN28/

  FN28

A person may be liable for false imprisonment not only when the person's own acts directly impose a restraint upon the liberty of another but also when that person, by providing false information, causes such restraint to be imposed. Karjavainen v. Buswell, 289 Mass. 419, 427 (1935) (questioned on other grounds by Mezullo v. Maletz, 331 Mass. 233, 239-240 [1954]). Restatement (Second) of Torts s 37 (1965) ("If an act is done with the intent to confine another, and such act is the legal cause of confinement to another, it is immaterial whether the act directly or indirectly causes the confinement").
Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 47 Mass.App.Ct. 86, 97-98 (1999).
  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 470 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. At all times relevant herein, (a) the Defendants acted with the intention of confining Meuse within fixed boundaries, (b) the act directly or indirectly resulted in confinement, and (c) Meuse was conscious of the confinement.\FN29/ 
FN29 Restatement (Second) Torts, sec. 35; see Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 400 Mass. 82, 89-92 (1987); Nolan & Sartorio, 37 M.P.S. Torts, sec. 16, p. 16 (2d ed. 1989 and 1993) Supp.
  1. All the Defendants indirectly caused to be imposed on Meuse by force or threats an unlawful restraint upon his freedom of movement, to wit by arresting and handcuffing and shackled together with several others.
  2. Meuse was shackled in such a way that his hands were in front, but the leg shackles were worse, they restricted all movement, and the hand shackles and feet shackles were tightly connected together.
  3. Shackled with his hands behind his back, Meuse was transported for 5 or 6 days and nights to numerous cities between Oklahoma and Massachusetts, at each of which he was detained in a cell.\FN30/
FN30 Simpson and Alperin, Summary of Basic Law, § 1841.
  1. It was all Defendants who, under the color of state law, indirectly caused the unlawful imprisonment of Meuse in diverse jails from Oklahoma to Massachusetts.
  2. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the defendants, Meuse suffered harm and damages including but not limited to the aforesaid damages.
  3. Defendants City of Haverhill and the FBI are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the litigation in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.


COUNT 9: ASSAULT

  1. Meuse repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 478 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. Meuse is a reasonable person.
  3. All Defendants indirectly but intentionally created an apprehension of immediate physical harm by means of an overt gesture, for no known purpose other than to create in Meuse an apprehension of immediate physical harm.\FN31/ Those overt gestures included the following:
    • an overly hyperkinetic policeman, literally shaking, held a shotgun two inches from Meuse’s face
    • a policeman with a 9-millimeter handgun aimed at Meuse

      FN31 Nolan & Sartorio, 37 M.P.S., Torts, sec. 12, p. 6 (2d ed. 1989 and 1993) Supp.); Restatement (Second) Torts, sec. 21.
  1. Any reasonable person would also become apprehensive in the face of defendants' threatening conduct.
  2. Defendants City of Haverhill and the FBI are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for actual, special, and compensatory damages in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.


COUNT 10: BATTERY

  1. Meuse repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 483 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. Without the consent of Meuse, Defendants intentionally, harmfully, and offensively touched Meuse by handcuffing and shackling him.\FN32/

    3.   FN32 Waters v. Blackshear, 412 Mass. 589, 590-591 (1992).
  3. Without the consent of Meuse, all Defendants indirectly caused the intentional, harmful, and offensive touching of Meuse when chaining and shackling Meuse in the police station.
  4. Defendants City of Haverhill and FBI are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, and compensatory damages in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 11: CONSPIRACY

  1. Meuse repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 487 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. All the Defendants (a) had an object to be accomplished; (b) had an agreement on the object or course of action; (c) performed one or more unlawful overt acts; and (d) caused Meuse damages that were a direct result of those acts.
  3. The object and course of action was to capture Meuse by the following:
    1. by misrepresenting that a custody order was in place when Meuse took the child from Florida,
    2. by misrepresenting that Meuse was a felon,
    3. by misrepresenting that Meuse was a fugitive, that he had taken unlawful flight to avoid prosecution,
    4. by misrepresenting that Meuse was wanted for parental kidnapping,
    5. by preparing posters for display in stores, postoffices, other physical locations, and on television and n newspapers,
    6. by being interviewed by reporters for television and newsprint.
  1. In furtherance of their object, defendants did two or more overt acts against the plaintiffs. Those unlawful overt acts include, but are not limited to, the following:
    1. authored and prepared the posters,
    2. falsely published to local and national audiences that a federal warrant to capture Meuse had issued,
    3. falsely published to local and national audiences that Meuse was wanted for parental kidnapping,
    4. falsely published to local and national audiences that Meuse had taken unlawful flight to avoid prosecution,
    5. arranged for their distribution of the posters,
    6. distributed the posters across the nation,
    7. sponsored the posters across the nation
    8. published the posters on television for local and national audiences,
    9. arranged for being interviewed on local and national television stations, and
    10. were interviewed on local and national television shows.
  1. Rosalyn Stults advised and strategized with Susan about how to evade service of process of the 209A order and to keep the child from him before and after the original 209A temporary restraining orders had expired;
  2. Susan Pane intentionally told her mother to lie to the deputy sheriff that Susan was living in an unknown location.
  3. Stults and Pane had the goal to get posters published nationwide to capture Meuse and with the an agreement Susan intentionally misrepresented that there had been a custody order prior to Meuse taking the child from Florida.
  4. FOXNews, Prouty, Wal-Mart, NCMEC, AMW, Moynihan, and Susan misrepresented that Meuse was a fleeing felon.
  5. Wal-Mart sponsored NCMEC and the America’s Most Wanted segments in which the poster against Meuse was used.
  6. FBI Agent Charles Prouty helped further the conspiracy when he was interviewed by the agents, servants, or employees of the television broadcasters.
  7. In concert with Pane's and Stults’s representations and misrepresentations, Moynihan, Thompson, Barone, Kelly, and Prouty indirectly caused the detention and confinement of Meuse on the grounds (a) that he violated a custody order; (b) that he was wanted for parental kidnapping, and (c) that he was fleeing unlawfully to avoid prosecution.
  8. The defendants agreed that the object or course of action was to arrest, detain, and confine Meuse without probable cause, and maliciously charge and prosecute him with crimes.
  9. Defendants City of Haverhill and the FBI are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
  10. Plaintiff suffered harm and damages that are a direct result of those acts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and interest in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 12: DEFAMATION

  1. Meuse repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 501 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. On Saturday, 10 February 2001, by televising on FOX stations the Wanted poster and an interview of FBI Agent Prouty, Defendants published that Meuse was wanted for parental kidnapping and was unlawfully fleeing to avoid prosecution.
  3. By false statements both orally and pictorially on 10 February 2001, Defendants intended to impeach Plaintiff Meuse’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.
  4. The defamatory statements were, including, but not limited to, the following:
    1. that there was a custody agreement,
    2. that Meuse was Wanted for parental kidnapping,
    3. that Meuse was unlawfully fleeing to avoid prosecution
  1. On Friday, 16 February 2001, ABC televised on the Sally Show, hosted by Sally Jesse Raphael, an episode entitled "My Child Has Been Stolen."
  2. On that show, Defendants caused a Wanted poster of Meuse and the child to be televised.
  3. The "My Child Has Been Stolen" episode was sponsored by NCMEC and America’s Most Wanted.
  4. The Wanted poster was displayed two times and read, ""Family Abduction." portrayed Meuse and the child, and instructed viewers to call 1-800-The-Lost upon seeing Meuse and/or the child.
  5. Defendants published the statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard as to whether they were false.
  6. By false statements both orally and pictorially on 10 February 2001 and on 16 February 2001, Defendants intended to impeach Plaintiff Meuse’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.
  7. Meuse has been harmed and damaged by Defendants’ publications.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief and actual, special, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and interest in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and appropriate.  

COUNT 13: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  1. Meuse repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 512 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.
  2. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Meuse by maliciously prosecuting Meuse, or by abusing the lawful process by unlawful purpose, or by violating Meuse's constitutional rights, or by falsely arresting and imprisoning the plaintiff, by conspiring against Meuse, or by interfering with Meuse's state civil rights by threats, coercion, or intimidation, or knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of their conduct.
  3. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
  4. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of Meuse's distress.
  5. Meuse is a reasonable man.
  6. The emotional distress sustained by Meuse was severe and of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure.\FN33/

    FN33 Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 145 (1976).
    1. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiff was, is, and, with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to the intentional exclusion.\FN34/
    FN34 "Extreme and outrages conduct is not required if the emotional distress resulted from the commission of another tort. American Velodur Metal, Inc. v. Schinabek. 20 Mass.App.Ct. 460, 470-471 (1985).
  1. Defendant City of Haverhill is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
  2. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Meuse has suffered and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment, and humiliation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, including interest, jointly and severally against all Defendants in an amount deemed by this Court to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Brian J. Meuse, 
By his attorney, 


5 March 2004                             Barbara C. Johnson
                                                    Barbara C. Johnson, Esq. 
                                                    6 Appletree Lane 
                                                    Andover, MA 01810-4102 
                                                    978-474-0833 
 
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION

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

9 March 2004                            Brian J. Meuse
                                                  Brian J. Meuse

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this ___th day of February 2004.
 

                                                    _________________
                                                    Notary Public
 

 
EXHIBITS

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ADDENDUM

NOTE

Exhibits A through MM, and Exhibits SS and DDD are Exhibits marked by the Haverhill District Court as Trial Exhibits during the criminal trial of Meuse.. The other exhibits are simply exhibits. They were not offered or introduced during the criminal trial.
Exh A Merck-Medco Prescription History

Exh B 8-12-99 Women’s Health Care: Pane Almost Dropped Baby, Depressed, Florida

Exh C CVS #1886 Records 10-26-00

Exh D Marissa’s Medical Records (selected pages; records too lengthy for inclusion)

Exh E Brooks Pharmacy Records

Exh F CVS #1886 Records 8-1-00

Exh G CVS #1174 Records 7-27-00

Exh I Lawrence General Addiction, Pane Seeking Morphine

Exh J Anna Jacques Hospital, page 117, Addiction, Sleeping Pills, No Abuse

Exh K Volusia County Sheriff’s Department. Service Attempts, Dodging Service

Exh L Complaint for Paternity and Motion to Remain in Massachusetts 9-13-99

Exh M 209A dated 10-1-99

Exh N 209A Complaint dated 10-1-99 and Supporting Affidavit

Exh O Volusia County Sheriff’s Dept. Return of Service Temporary Injunction 11-3-99

Exh P Volusia County Sheriff’s Department. Served 209A and Petition of Paternity

Exh R Disability Check In Late November 1999

Exh T 5-3-00 Manzi’s Order, Susan Pane Wrongfully Removed Marissa

Exh U Pleadings filed September 2000: Writ of Habeas Corpus, etc.

Exh V 12-29-99 Prevent Marissa from Being Taken Back to Florida

Exh W 6-5-00 Judge Sahagian’s Order of Visitations

Exh X Forging Prescription, Two Pane’s

Exh Y 10-25-00 Criminal Complaint

Exh Z 10-25-00 Warrant (no supporting affidavit)

Exh BB 10-20-00 Haverhill Police Department Incident Report

Exh CC 1-17-01 Letter from Thompson to Barone

Exh DD 10-25-00 Application for Complaint

Exh EE 1-18-01 Letter of Interview with Tim Allen

Exh FF Family Abduction Poster

Exh GG Wanted for Parental Kidnapping, Unauthorized Flight to Avoid 
Prosecution

Exh HH 11-5-00 Moynihan Daily Log re Ann Kalip

Exh II Moynihan Handwritten Daily Log re Ann Kalip

Exh JJ The Other Paine’s Signature

Exh KK Merck-Medco Claim History for Susan Pane

Exh LL 10-2-00 Doctors Records for Marissa, and Susan’s Stopping Help

Exh MM Photos of Marissa January 8 and 12, 2001

Exh NN Jim Beck, Attempted Service of Process of 209A (Pane Dodging Service)

Exh OO 10-26-99 Temporary Emergency Injunction: Do Not Remove From Volusia County

Exh PP $500.00 10-26-99 Temporary Emergency Injunction, Dismissed

Exh QQ 11-4-99 Interim Order Not to Remove Child from Volusia County

Exh RR 8-4-99, Marissa’s Birth Certificate

Exh SS Dr. Bruce Pastor, letter stating No Such Patient

Exh TT Dr. B. Eugene Brady

Exh UU Hale Hospital, Dept. of Nuclear Medicine (not included with Complaint – too thick)

Exh VV Amesbury Health Center, Dr. Barrie Paster, (too thick for 
inclusion)

Exh WW Hale Hospital, Excerpt from hospital records (too thick for inclusion)

Exh XX Lawrence General Hospital, Excerpt from hospital records (too 
thick for inclusion)

Exh YY Anna Jacques Hospital, Excerpt from hospital records (too thick for inclusion)

Exh ZZ 10-11-00 Manzi’s Order of Custody

Exh AAA 8-7-00 Order of Contact at All Times of Marissa

Exh BBB Asked Everyone for Help Starting in August 99

Exh CCC 7-30-01 Swan’s Order, No Custody

Exh DDD 9-23-99 Letter, Barrie Paster, 1 Week in Fl., Restraining Order

Exh EEE Set of webpages showing Wal-Mart as a Premiere Partner of NCMEC

Exh FFF DA’s Trial Exh. K: Ada, Oklahoma, Police Report

Exh GGG 31 December 2000 Press Release "Open Letter to Brian Meuse"

Exh HHH America’s Most Wanted -- Gold Star Partner of NCMEC

NOTE

Exhibits A through MM, and Exhibits SS and DDD are Exhibits marked by the Haverhill District Court as Trial Exhibits during the criminal trial of Meuse.. The other exhibits are simply exhibits. They were not offered or introduced during the criminal trial.

drano-footer


Google


Drano Series HomePage (Click) Feedback (Click) The Store (Click)
#1,   Meuse
#5,   Linnehan & Brown 
#9,   Linnehan & Brown
#13, Meuse
#17, Linnehan & Brown
#21, Linnehan & Brown
#25, Sylvia v. Sylvia
#29, Linnehan & Brown
#33, Trimboli
#37, Linnehan Related
#41, Smith/Pocahontas
#45, Smith/Pocahontas
#49, Smith/Pocahontas
#53, Smith/Pocahontas
#57, Smith & Judges
#61, Smith/Pocahontas
#65, Linn. Dom. Rel.
#69, Linnehan & Brown
#73, 1st Cir. B&L Decis.
#77, LyndaPaul-Child-sup
#81, 1st Amendment/Bar
#84a, Sano case/Banned in Mass.
#88, Money from estate
#90, Count 2: Answer Interwoven
#93, Herald in on Bar War
#97, Opposition to Nissenbaum
#101, Judicial Immunity Roots
#105 Barb's letter-Rule 1.15 (am.
#109  Barb v. BBO (Federal)
#113 Smith'sOpposition to Boston
#116 Meuse's §1983 Complaint
#120 Petition-Writ of Certiorari-USSCt
#124 Meuse-Opp-to-NCMEC Dis
#128-Letter-Petition-Rehearing
#132 Pretrial-conf-Lafortune
#136 Smith o-james-recons-dism
#140 Smith o-sj-R 56.1 facts mp1
#144 surreply-to-offs-reply-recon
#148 m-dismiss-jdp-ccs-malp-2
#152 contempts-Pocahontas & Smith
-------------------------------------------------------
#156 strike-appearance-ag-for-bbo
-------------------------------------------------------
#160 m-lv-excess-pp-brief
#164 answer-to-contempt-petition
#168 m-vacate-stay-and-consolidation
#172 appeal-judgment-of-dismissal-app-ct
#176  amended-motion-for-acceleration
#180 reply-to-crane-weisberg-appellee-brf
#184 appendices-to-petition-writ-for-cert
 		#2,   Meuse
#6,   Meuse
#10, Meuse
#14, Linnehan & Brown
#18, GAL in Case
#22, Linnehan v. Sylvia
#26, Grandparents
#30, Meuse
#34, Linnehan Related
#38, Smith/Pocahontas
#42, Linnehan Related
#46, Smith/Pocahontas
#50, Smith/Pocahontas
#54, Smith/Pocahontas
#58, Smith/Pocahontas
#62, Smith & Judges
#66, Linn. Dom. Rel.
#70, Linn.Child-support
#74, Fraud-5-Lawyers
#78, StupidButFamous
#82, 1st Amendment/Bar
#85, Bogus contempt, coming
#89, Petition for Discipline
#90, Count 3: Answer Interwoven
#94, Restraining Order
#98, Hearse at Lawyers Weekly
#102, Bar Board:Star Chamber
#106 Motions filed at Bar Board
#110 Reply Appeal Immunity
#114 The Younger Doctrine
#117 Fed QuasiJudicial Immunity
#121 Opp. to Dismiss by FOX TV
#125 F4J London Parade Pics
#129 Letter- Editor Lawyers Wkly
#133-Barb v, BBO: App Brief
#137 Smith-o-dipiano-recons-dism
#141 Smith o-sj-Boston-memo mp1
#145 m-partial-recon-cc-wiretap
#149 reply-o-dism-jdp-ccs-2d-mal
#153 barb-v-bbo-crane-defamation
-------------------------------------------------------
#157 strike-appearance-ag-for-BC-ABC
-------------------------------------------------------
#161 m-str-docs-obc-record-appendix
#165 m-declaration of-practice-of-law
#169 o-impound-supp-appendix-record
#173 show-cause-brief for hear'g-1st-Cir
#177 motions-vacate-reverse-dismiss
#181 five-motions-and-oppositions-sjc
 		#3,   Meuse
#7,   Recusing Judge
#11, Meuse
#15, Linnehan & Brown
#19, Linnehan & Brown
#23, Robyn Sylvia, Aff.
#27, Meuse
#31, Linnehan & Brown
#35, Smith/Pocahontas
#39, Linnehan & Brown
#43, Linnehan Related
#47, Smith/Pocahontas
#51, Smith/Pocahontas
#55, Smith/Pocahontas
#59, Smith/Pocahontas
#63, King HarrySmith
#67, Meuse Kidnapping
#71, Smith/Judges/A-G
#75, LaidbackPocahontas
#79, Fraud-StupidButFamous
#83, 1st Amendment/Bar
#86, Proposed Findings/Bar
#90, Answer to Petition Discipline
#91, Motion for Attorney Fees
#95, Court Commits Crimes
#99, Opposition to Attorney Fees
#103 Appeal Judicial Immunity
#107 Barb v. BBO et al (State)
#111 Complaint - Sec 1983
#115 TOC-Proposed Findings
#118 Opposition to Motion Strike
#122 Barb v. BBO -- immunity
#126 Meuse- re- Bivens Claims
#130 LaFortune-Opp to Preclude
#134 Memorial Butch Bailey
 #138 o-city-recons-denial-dismiss
#142 Smith surreply-Boston-facts
#146 Smithsupp-m-partial-recon-cc
#150 Barb-appeal-recommend-BB
#154a announcement-of-disbarment
#154 opp-recommendation-disbarment
#158 m-dismis-by-bbo in Barb v BBO
---------------------------------------------------
#162 m-recuse-SJC Justice-spina
#166 claims-USDC-Local Rule-83.6(2)(D)
#170 m-decl-practice-of-law-full-panel-sjc
#174 reply-unauthorized-practice-laws-jc
#178 motion-dismiss-disbarment-violation
#182 app-for-further-app-review-Rule27-1
 		#4,  Meuse
#8,  Meuse
#12, Linnehan & Brown
#16, Meuse
#20, Linnehan & Brown
#24, Sylvia c. Sylvia
#28, Deleted
#32, Linnehan & Brown
#36, Smith/Pocahontas
#40, Smith.Pocahontas
#44, Linnehan Related
#48, Smith/Pocahontas
#52, Smith/Pocahontas
#56, Judge Contempt
#60, King HarrySmith 
#64, Linnehan Related
#68, GAL Fees
#72, Brown & Linnehan
#76, Fraud-LaidbackLawyer
#80, 1st Amendment/Bar
#84, Sano case/Bar
#87, Senior citizen,Gordon
#90, Count 1: Answer Interwoven
#92 Immunity-DMA-Elderly
#96, Jarasitis: Judas to Justice
#100, Motion for Jury Trial
#104 Judicial Accountability Art.
#108 Preliminary Injunction
#112 Smith'sOpposition to Det.
#115a-Proposed Findings-Divorce
#119 Barb v. BBO--Prop Findings
#123 Meuse-Opp-to-STF-Dism.
#127 Meuse- Fake FBI Docs
#131 LaFortune-Mot-to-Dismiss
#135 Smith's dipiano-mot-dism
 #139 mal-pros-garden-variety
#143 Smith's o-recon-sj-qual-iy
#147 Reply-to-offs-o-partl-recon
#151 barb-ussct-petition-writ-cert
----------------------------------------------
#155 petition-for-rehearing-spina
#159 app-brief-and-letter-to-clerk
#159a app-brief-surprises
#163 m-jury trial for contempt
#167 combined-correct-docket-order-toc
#171 appeal-judgment-of-contempt-sjc
#175 nonlawyer-representing-parties
#179 reply-apps-disbarm't-contempt
#183 -scotus-petition-for-writ-certiorari

#1, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#3, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#5, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#7, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#9, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#11, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#13, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#15, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#17, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#19, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#21, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#23, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#25, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#27, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#29, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#31, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#33, Drano  (Not available in 640 pixels)
#2, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#4, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#6, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#8, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#10, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#12, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#14, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#16, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#18, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#20, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#22, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#24, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#26, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#28
#30, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#32, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#34, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
 
Barbara C. Johnson, Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-4102 Phone 978-474-0833