TEXAN FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
§
Jason Fregia, §
Plaintiff, §
v. § CIVIL NO._____________
Ann Bright §
Carter Smith §
Timothy Birdsong §
Robert McDonald §
Gary Saul §
Ken Kurzawski §
Defendants__________________________________________________
Jason Fregia, §
Plaintiff, §
v. § CIVIL NO._____________
Ann Bright §
Carter Smith §
Timothy Birdsong §
Robert McDonald §
Gary Saul §
Ken Kurzawski §
Defendants__________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1. This is a §1983 action filed by Plaintiff Jason Fregia, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking money damages, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. The defendants’ named herein have interfered with Plaintiff Fregia constitutional rights because of his research into the Texas American eel and the possible discovery that Texas Parks and Wildlife employees have been falsifying Federal Environmental Impact Reports to get permits and funding to build obstructions in Federal Navigable Waters thought out Texas impeding a native migratory fish and violating Federal Environmental Laws.
2. Plaintiff Jason Fregia (“Plaintiff”), for his complaint against Ann Bright, Carter Smith Timothy Birdsong, Robert McDonald, Gary Saul, Ken Kurzawski, allege as follows:
2. Plaintiff Jason Fregia (“Plaintiff”), for his complaint against Ann Bright, Carter Smith Timothy Birdsong, Robert McDonald, Gary Saul, Ken Kurzawski, allege as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983: The 1st Amendment, The 14th amendment Due Process.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…
4. This Court has “Federal Question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 to hear cases arising under the Constitution of the United States, under 28 U.S.C. §1343(3) to redress the deprivation under color of state law of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution, and under 28 U.S.C. §1343(4) to recover damages and secure other relief for the invasion of civil rights.
5. The Court has the authority to issue declaratory judgments and grant further relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, and Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P. This Court may enter an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
6. This Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent violations of the Plaintiff’s rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the United States of America and Title 42 U.S.C. §1983.
7. Venue is appropriate in this District under 28 USC 1391 (e) on the grounds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, and on the grounds that the named Federal Defendants violations accrued in this District.
3. This suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983: The 1st Amendment, The 14th amendment Due Process.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…
4. This Court has “Federal Question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 to hear cases arising under the Constitution of the United States, under 28 U.S.C. §1343(3) to redress the deprivation under color of state law of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution, and under 28 U.S.C. §1343(4) to recover damages and secure other relief for the invasion of civil rights.
5. The Court has the authority to issue declaratory judgments and grant further relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, and Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P. This Court may enter an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
6. This Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent violations of the Plaintiff’s rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the United States of America and Title 42 U.S.C. §1983.
7. Venue is appropriate in this District under 28 USC 1391 (e) on the grounds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, and on the grounds that the named Federal Defendants violations accrued in this District.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Jason Fregia is a citizen of the State of Texas.
2. Defendant Ann Bright Officer (General Counsel) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in her individual capacity.
3. Defendant Carter Smith is an Officer (Executive Director) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
4. Defendant Timothy Birdsong is an Officer (Ecosystem/Habitat Assessment Chief) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
5. Defendant Robert McDonald is an Officer (Regulations Coordinator) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
6. Defendant Gary Saul is an Officer (Inland Fisheries Director) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
7. Defendant Ken Kurzawski is an Officer (Regulations and Information Director for Inland Fisheries) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
1. Plaintiff Jason Fregia is a citizen of the State of Texas.
2. Defendant Ann Bright Officer (General Counsel) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in her individual capacity.
3. Defendant Carter Smith is an Officer (Executive Director) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
4. Defendant Timothy Birdsong is an Officer (Ecosystem/Habitat Assessment Chief) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
5. Defendant Robert McDonald is an Officer (Regulations Coordinator) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
6. Defendant Gary Saul is an Officer (Inland Fisheries Director) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
7. Defendant Ken Kurzawski is an Officer (Regulations and Information Director for Inland Fisheries) with the Texas Parks & Wildlife, and is being sued in his official capacity.
FACTS
On April 11 2014 Plaintiff Fregia asked Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) about putting the American Eel on the commercial fishing list and was instructed by Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries) that Plaintiff Fregia needed to collect all the biological data, population data estimates of stock size for a thesis (EXHIBIT 1). In April 2014 Plaintiff Fregia sent samples of American Eels as requested by Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) (EXHIBIT 2). A Texas Parks and Wildlife employee came to Plaintiff Fregia residence and picked up the samples to take to the lab for identification. In April Plaintiff Fregia also had NOAA agent come to Plaintiff Fregia residence and who identified the samples, “they were identified as the American Eel”. Plaintiff Fregia sent the last two samples to other people for identification who also confirmed it was the American Eel.
On May 1 2014 Plaintiff Fregia sent emails to the Ann Bright (General Counsel) Robert McDonald (Regulations Coordinator) and Timothy Birdsong (Ecosystem/Habitat Assessment Chief) of Texas Parks and Wildlife to find out how to do a Petition and bring to light Texas American Eel Association’s (TAEA) research to add the American Eel to the commercial fishing list and bring a 467.1 billion Dollars’ worth of industries to the Citizens of Texas (EXHIBIT 3). On May 13 2014 Plaintiff Fregia sent Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) an email asking, “if the biologist had identified the samples to Texas Parks and Wildlife yet?” Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) replied back that, Plaintiff Fregia “samples were not the American Eel but a different species being Shrimp Eels” a saltwater species that only lives in saltwater (EXHIBIT 4). In June 10th 2014 Plaintiff Fregia received an email from Lana Daniels (Executive Assistant) denying Plaintiff Fregia’s petition to have the American Eel add to the commercial fishing list in Texas. By Texas Parks and Wildlife although Plaintiff Fregia hadn’t submitted a registered petition yet. Ann Bright states in an email “let’s use this as the petition” (EXHIBIT 5) even before Plaintiff Fregia submitted his petition. Plaintiff Fregia believes the reason is to deter Plaintiff Fregia from bring the false statements to light made on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports by Texas Parks and Wildlife employees (EXHIBIT 6). On June 10th 2014 Plaintiff Fregia received a letter that Texas Parks and Wildlife ‘’has received his petition.” My petition was denied the day before they claimed to have received it On June 10 2014. Plaintiff Fregia sends an email to Robert McDonald (Regulations Coordinator), Ann Bright (General Counsel) Dee Halliburton stating “Plaintiff Fregia hasn’t filed a petition yet please wait.” On June 12 2014 Plaintiff Fregia receives an email from Robert McDonald Regulations Coordinator apologizing and stating “when ready to present your data and information the department will treat it as a new petition and the process will be exactly the same”. Plaintiff Fregia understands this as being denied. since Plaintiff Fregia never submitted a petition to be denied (EXHIBIT 7). which is clearly a Civil Rights violation. Plaintiff Fregia believes as an attempt to continue the cover up of the existing population of the Texas American Eel. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states. “The Petition Clause protects the Right to Petition all branches and agencies of Government for action or change or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.” This is also a violation of the Texas Administrative Code Title 31 Chapter 51 rule 51.2 (EXHIBIT 8)
(1) Clearly state or describe the complete text of the proposed rule or amendment, or describe the rule to be repealed together with the text to be repealed.
(2) Explain the reason or justification for the requested regulatory action.
(C) The department may request any additional information deemed necessary to adequately consider the proposal submitted.
Plaintiff Fregia’s original email asking how to do a petition is not a petition. Plaintiff Fregia never had the chance to do a real petition. Asking for instructions as how to submit a petition is not considered a petition by Texas Code. This was clearly an attempt to sweep everything under the rug and deter Plaintiff Fregia therefore continuing the cover-up of the Fraud on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports. The 14th amendment limits the action of state and local officials. In addition to equal protection under the law to all Citizens. The amendment also addresses what is called “Due Process”, which prevents Citizens from being illegally deprived of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the Federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that State Laws must satisfy. Plaintiff Fregia starts researching other aspects for his research paper and petition. Why did Texas Parks and Wildlife lie about the identification of the samples sent to Texas Parks and Wildlife? In October of 2014. Plaintiff Fregia came across the Neches River Federal Environmental Impact Report for the Saltwater Barrier to be constructed in Jefferson county in 1998. In that report Texas Parks and Wildlife stated that the American Eel had not been seen since 1955 in the Neches River and informed the fact to multiple employees at Texas Parks and Wildlife on October 16 2014 by email. The research done by the Texas American Eel Association (TAEA) for the last eight years on the population of the Texas American Eel proves this to be false (EXHIBIT 9).
In 2015 Plaintiff Fregia collects two more Federal Environmental Impact Reports that claim the American Eel does not exist or is uncommon (EXHIBIT 10). Plaintiff Fregia then found out about the legal battle to stop the Texas General Land Office from the filling in of Rollover Pass a Natural Migration Route of the American Eel to and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Spawning Grounds in the Sargasso Sea. Plaintiff Fregia received the Environmental Impact Report from Ted Vega the President of the Gilchrist Community Association and after reading the Impact Report Plaintiff Fregia found nothing again about the American Eel a migratory species protected under Federal migratory species laws and was also surprised that with all the Threatened and Endangered Species that use Rollover Pass as a feeding grounds, migration route to and from the Bays and Gulf of Mexico and being public navigable water how could the Federal Government be allowing the local government to Eminent Domain Federal waters and the filling in and closing of Rollover Pass. A Pass used by public and so many protected Threatened and Endangered Wildlife including the American Eel (EXHIBIT 11). Rollover, a Pass that has been in existence since beginning of time and only improved by digging deeper in 1954 by the Texas Wildlife Commission for the benefit of Texas wildlife.
On December 22 2015 Plaintiff Fregia files a F.O.I.A. request for records about himself and the American Eel with Texas Parks and Wildlife Open Records Department, On February 26 2016 Plaintiff Fregia received a CD in the mail with approximate one-hundred twenty-two documents on it from his F.O.I.A request to Texas Parks and Wildlife Open Records Department. Three documents pertain to Plaintiff Fregia asking how to do a petition for rule change on the American Eels in Texas. The first was an email to Robert MacDonald, Gary Saul, Timothy Birdsong from Ann Bright stating “let’s treat Plaintiff Fregia request as his petition” dated May 1 2014 (EXHIBIT 12).
The second letter between Gary Saul, Timothy Birdsong and Ken Kurzawski (EXHIBIT 13) is the most interesting Gary Saul is telling Timothy Birdsong and Ken Kurzawski. “To remove the sentences related to how many caught. I don’t think the number in collections is relevant and we haven’t done any sampling directed at eels.”
In an email Plaintiff Fregia got from Lance Robinson on February 25 2014 it states “That Texas Parks and Wildlife haven’t collected them in our sampling but know they exist in the Texas and use Texas Rivers for a migration route to saltwater to spawn (EXHIBIT 14).
CONCLUSION
Petition Definition: The formal, written document submitted to a court, government agency and which asks for the court to redress what is described in a petition as being an injustice of some kind. Petitions set out the facts, identifies the law under which the court is being asked to intervene, and ends with a suggested course of action for the court, government agency to consider. Plaintiff Fregia asking how to do a petition is clearly not a petition according to Texas Code. A petition has to have facts, data and reasons or justifications why a certain proposed rule or amendment should be changed. The Defendants were trying to make Plaintiff Fregia go away so Plaintiff Fregia would not discover their fraud on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports and fraud on Texas citizens according to Chapter 11 Inventory 11.103 (c) The department shall create a permanent database of the resources inventoried under subsection (a) At least once every 10 years, the department shall update the database as necessary to reflect changes in resources. The court has to wonder why the American eel doesn’t show up on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports. The reasons Plaintiff Fregia has come to understand is 1. Obstructions could not be built in Federal Water ways with a migratory fish being impeded without fish right a ways built around the obstructions. Plaintiff Fregia believes it was over before it started for his petition!
On April 11 2014 Plaintiff Fregia asked Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) about putting the American Eel on the commercial fishing list and was instructed by Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries) that Plaintiff Fregia needed to collect all the biological data, population data estimates of stock size for a thesis (EXHIBIT 1). In April 2014 Plaintiff Fregia sent samples of American Eels as requested by Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) (EXHIBIT 2). A Texas Parks and Wildlife employee came to Plaintiff Fregia residence and picked up the samples to take to the lab for identification. In April Plaintiff Fregia also had NOAA agent come to Plaintiff Fregia residence and who identified the samples, “they were identified as the American Eel”. Plaintiff Fregia sent the last two samples to other people for identification who also confirmed it was the American Eel.
On May 1 2014 Plaintiff Fregia sent emails to the Ann Bright (General Counsel) Robert McDonald (Regulations Coordinator) and Timothy Birdsong (Ecosystem/Habitat Assessment Chief) of Texas Parks and Wildlife to find out how to do a Petition and bring to light Texas American Eel Association’s (TAEA) research to add the American Eel to the commercial fishing list and bring a 467.1 billion Dollars’ worth of industries to the Citizens of Texas (EXHIBIT 3). On May 13 2014 Plaintiff Fregia sent Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) an email asking, “if the biologist had identified the samples to Texas Parks and Wildlife yet?” Lance Robinson (Regional Director of the Coastal Fisheries Division) replied back that, Plaintiff Fregia “samples were not the American Eel but a different species being Shrimp Eels” a saltwater species that only lives in saltwater (EXHIBIT 4). In June 10th 2014 Plaintiff Fregia received an email from Lana Daniels (Executive Assistant) denying Plaintiff Fregia’s petition to have the American Eel add to the commercial fishing list in Texas. By Texas Parks and Wildlife although Plaintiff Fregia hadn’t submitted a registered petition yet. Ann Bright states in an email “let’s use this as the petition” (EXHIBIT 5) even before Plaintiff Fregia submitted his petition. Plaintiff Fregia believes the reason is to deter Plaintiff Fregia from bring the false statements to light made on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports by Texas Parks and Wildlife employees (EXHIBIT 6). On June 10th 2014 Plaintiff Fregia received a letter that Texas Parks and Wildlife ‘’has received his petition.” My petition was denied the day before they claimed to have received it On June 10 2014. Plaintiff Fregia sends an email to Robert McDonald (Regulations Coordinator), Ann Bright (General Counsel) Dee Halliburton stating “Plaintiff Fregia hasn’t filed a petition yet please wait.” On June 12 2014 Plaintiff Fregia receives an email from Robert McDonald Regulations Coordinator apologizing and stating “when ready to present your data and information the department will treat it as a new petition and the process will be exactly the same”. Plaintiff Fregia understands this as being denied. since Plaintiff Fregia never submitted a petition to be denied (EXHIBIT 7). which is clearly a Civil Rights violation. Plaintiff Fregia believes as an attempt to continue the cover up of the existing population of the Texas American Eel. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states. “The Petition Clause protects the Right to Petition all branches and agencies of Government for action or change or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.” This is also a violation of the Texas Administrative Code Title 31 Chapter 51 rule 51.2 (EXHIBIT 8)
(1) Clearly state or describe the complete text of the proposed rule or amendment, or describe the rule to be repealed together with the text to be repealed.
(2) Explain the reason or justification for the requested regulatory action.
(C) The department may request any additional information deemed necessary to adequately consider the proposal submitted.
Plaintiff Fregia’s original email asking how to do a petition is not a petition. Plaintiff Fregia never had the chance to do a real petition. Asking for instructions as how to submit a petition is not considered a petition by Texas Code. This was clearly an attempt to sweep everything under the rug and deter Plaintiff Fregia therefore continuing the cover-up of the Fraud on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports. The 14th amendment limits the action of state and local officials. In addition to equal protection under the law to all Citizens. The amendment also addresses what is called “Due Process”, which prevents Citizens from being illegally deprived of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the Federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that State Laws must satisfy. Plaintiff Fregia starts researching other aspects for his research paper and petition. Why did Texas Parks and Wildlife lie about the identification of the samples sent to Texas Parks and Wildlife? In October of 2014. Plaintiff Fregia came across the Neches River Federal Environmental Impact Report for the Saltwater Barrier to be constructed in Jefferson county in 1998. In that report Texas Parks and Wildlife stated that the American Eel had not been seen since 1955 in the Neches River and informed the fact to multiple employees at Texas Parks and Wildlife on October 16 2014 by email. The research done by the Texas American Eel Association (TAEA) for the last eight years on the population of the Texas American Eel proves this to be false (EXHIBIT 9).
In 2015 Plaintiff Fregia collects two more Federal Environmental Impact Reports that claim the American Eel does not exist or is uncommon (EXHIBIT 10). Plaintiff Fregia then found out about the legal battle to stop the Texas General Land Office from the filling in of Rollover Pass a Natural Migration Route of the American Eel to and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Spawning Grounds in the Sargasso Sea. Plaintiff Fregia received the Environmental Impact Report from Ted Vega the President of the Gilchrist Community Association and after reading the Impact Report Plaintiff Fregia found nothing again about the American Eel a migratory species protected under Federal migratory species laws and was also surprised that with all the Threatened and Endangered Species that use Rollover Pass as a feeding grounds, migration route to and from the Bays and Gulf of Mexico and being public navigable water how could the Federal Government be allowing the local government to Eminent Domain Federal waters and the filling in and closing of Rollover Pass. A Pass used by public and so many protected Threatened and Endangered Wildlife including the American Eel (EXHIBIT 11). Rollover, a Pass that has been in existence since beginning of time and only improved by digging deeper in 1954 by the Texas Wildlife Commission for the benefit of Texas wildlife.
On December 22 2015 Plaintiff Fregia files a F.O.I.A. request for records about himself and the American Eel with Texas Parks and Wildlife Open Records Department, On February 26 2016 Plaintiff Fregia received a CD in the mail with approximate one-hundred twenty-two documents on it from his F.O.I.A request to Texas Parks and Wildlife Open Records Department. Three documents pertain to Plaintiff Fregia asking how to do a petition for rule change on the American Eels in Texas. The first was an email to Robert MacDonald, Gary Saul, Timothy Birdsong from Ann Bright stating “let’s treat Plaintiff Fregia request as his petition” dated May 1 2014 (EXHIBIT 12).
The second letter between Gary Saul, Timothy Birdsong and Ken Kurzawski (EXHIBIT 13) is the most interesting Gary Saul is telling Timothy Birdsong and Ken Kurzawski. “To remove the sentences related to how many caught. I don’t think the number in collections is relevant and we haven’t done any sampling directed at eels.”
In an email Plaintiff Fregia got from Lance Robinson on February 25 2014 it states “That Texas Parks and Wildlife haven’t collected them in our sampling but know they exist in the Texas and use Texas Rivers for a migration route to saltwater to spawn (EXHIBIT 14).
CONCLUSION
Petition Definition: The formal, written document submitted to a court, government agency and which asks for the court to redress what is described in a petition as being an injustice of some kind. Petitions set out the facts, identifies the law under which the court is being asked to intervene, and ends with a suggested course of action for the court, government agency to consider. Plaintiff Fregia asking how to do a petition is clearly not a petition according to Texas Code. A petition has to have facts, data and reasons or justifications why a certain proposed rule or amendment should be changed. The Defendants were trying to make Plaintiff Fregia go away so Plaintiff Fregia would not discover their fraud on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports and fraud on Texas citizens according to Chapter 11 Inventory 11.103 (c) The department shall create a permanent database of the resources inventoried under subsection (a) At least once every 10 years, the department shall update the database as necessary to reflect changes in resources. The court has to wonder why the American eel doesn’t show up on the Federal Environmental Impact Reports. The reasons Plaintiff Fregia has come to understand is 1. Obstructions could not be built in Federal Water ways with a migratory fish being impeded without fish right a ways built around the obstructions. Plaintiff Fregia believes it was over before it started for his petition!
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
1. Plaintiff Fregia has been deprived of his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of his grievances.
2. The 14th amendment limits the action of state and local officials. In addition to equal protection under the law to all Citizens. The amendment also addresses what is called “Due Process”, which prevents Citizens from being illegally deprived of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.
3. The acts of the defendants’ collectively pressuring Plaintiff Fregia on his research activities by falsely identifying the samples, despite having all the necessary information and legal documents was an attempt to chill his attempts to seek petition remedies.
1. Plaintiff Fregia has been deprived of his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of his grievances.
2. The 14th amendment limits the action of state and local officials. In addition to equal protection under the law to all Citizens. The amendment also addresses what is called “Due Process”, which prevents Citizens from being illegally deprived of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.
3. The acts of the defendants’ collectively pressuring Plaintiff Fregia on his research activities by falsely identifying the samples, despite having all the necessary information and legal documents was an attempt to chill his attempts to seek petition remedies.
4. The actions of the Defendants were done in concert with a knowing and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s Constitutional and Statutory rights. To protect and cover-up the false statements on Federal documents.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:
a. To issue a declaratory judgment that the fraudulent practices of the defendants are in violation of Plaintiff ‘s First Amendment rights;
b. To issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ actions are, on its face, unconstitutional and denies plaintiff his right to petition the government for redress of his grievances;
c. To issue a permanent and prohibitory injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, representatives, and employees from enforcing, threatening to enforce, or otherwise harassing or intimidating the Plaintiff;
d. Pain and Suffering in the past and future; Exemplary Damages since Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from Defendants’ gross unconstitutional retaliation and attempts to chill Plaintiff’s First Amendment activities;
e. Trial by jury on all triable issues;
f. Trial by Jury is demanded;
g. For costs of suit;
h. For reasonable attorney fees; and
I. Any such further legal and other relief this Court deems proper.
June 6, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Jason Fregia
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:
a. To issue a declaratory judgment that the fraudulent practices of the defendants are in violation of Plaintiff ‘s First Amendment rights;
b. To issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ actions are, on its face, unconstitutional and denies plaintiff his right to petition the government for redress of his grievances;
c. To issue a permanent and prohibitory injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, representatives, and employees from enforcing, threatening to enforce, or otherwise harassing or intimidating the Plaintiff;
d. Pain and Suffering in the past and future; Exemplary Damages since Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from Defendants’ gross unconstitutional retaliation and attempts to chill Plaintiff’s First Amendment activities;
e. Trial by jury on all triable issues;
f. Trial by Jury is demanded;
g. For costs of suit;
h. For reasonable attorney fees; and
I. Any such further legal and other relief this Court deems proper.
June 6, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Jason Fregia