ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
MANHATTAN V UNTERBURGER
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 99-8164-CIV-WPB-Hurley

MANHATTAN MAGNOLIA CORP., a Florida corporation, t/a AWARE WOMAN MEDICAL CENTER; AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation; EDWARD W. (TODD) WINDLE, III, individually, and on behalf of the classes of patients, staff, physicians, invitees, guests, and independent contractors damaged by defendants,
Plaintiffs,

-versus-

COMPUSERVE, INCORPORATED, a corporation doing business in Florida, TML INFORMATION SERVICES, INC, a corporation doing business in Florida, RAYMOND UNTERBURGER, ERIC OLSON, CHERYL UNTERBURGER, MEREDITH TROTTER RANEY, JR, PATRICIA McEWEN, JOHN & JANE DOES & MOES I-X, DOE CORPORATIONS I-X, their agents, assigns, collaborators, accomplices, confederates, aiders & abettors, successors in interest, those acting in concert or participating with them, and the class of individuals and entities similarly situated as to the named defendants,
Defendants.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for leave to file the appended second amended complaint. In support of this motion, plaintiffs state:

1. This action may now move forward promptly against all named defendants, following the favorable unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Reno v Condon (US 1/12/2000)(Rehnquist, CJ), which overturned the adverse Eleventh Circuit case of Pryor v Reno, 171 F3d 1281 (11th Cir 1999). As a result, privacy protections are reinforced, and the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC §2721 (1994) has been upheld, and may be applied against both corporate and individual defendants.

2. In light of Reno v Condon, and in anticipation of further clarification from Hill v Colorado (US No 98-1856)(arEued, decision pending), plaintiffs respectfully ask leave to file this further complaint and to go forward with this action. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Roy Lucas
DC # 153957
Trial Counsel
PO Box 141064
Orlando, FL 32814-1064
TEL: (407) 898-3249
FAX: (407) 898-5268

Richard & Richard, PA
725 Colorado Avenue
Stuart, FL 34994
TEL: 1-561-223-9600
FAX: 1-561-223-0859

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: The foregoing Motion of Plaintiffs has been served by the undersigned by First Class mail, postage prepaid, sent this Wednesday, February. 23, 2000, to the following who are counsel for all defendants:

Charles P. Scheeler, Esq
Piper & Marbury
38 So Charles St
Baltimore, MD 21201-3018
TEL: 1-410-539-2530
FAX: 1-410-539-0489
[for CompuServe, Inc]

John P. Marino, Esq
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae
50 N Laura St, Ste 2800
Jacksonville, FL 32202
TEL: 1-904-354-8000
FAX: 1-904-353-1673
[for TML Services, Inc]

Frederick Nelson, Esq
PO Box 547503
Orlando, FL 32854-7503
TEL: 1-407-786-7007
FAX: 1-407-786-2705
[for Raymond & Cheryl Unterberger, Eric Olson, Meredith Raney, Pat McEwen, defendants]

BY: Roy Lucas (signed)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 99-8164-CIV-WPB-Hurley

MANHATTAN MAGNOLIA CORP., a Florida corporation, t/a AWARE WOMAN MEDICAL CENTER; AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC.,
a Florida corporation; EDWARD W. (TODD) WINDLE, III, individually, and on behalf of the classes of patients, staff, physicians, invitees, guests, and independent contractors damaged by defendants,
Plaintiffs,

-versus-

COMPUSERVE, INCORPORATED, a corporation doing business in Florida,
TML INFORMATION SERVICES, INC, a corporation doing business in Florida,
RAYMOND UNTERBURGER, ERIC OLSON, CHERYL UNTERBURGER, MEREDITH TROTTER RANEY, JR, PATRICIA McEWEN, JOHN & JANE DOES & MOES I-X, DOE CORPORATIONS I-X, their agents, assigns, collaborators, accomplices, confederates, aiders & abettors, successors in interest, those acting in concert or participating with them, and the class of individuals and entities similarly situated as to the named defendants,
Defendants.

CLASS RELIEF SOUGHT TRIAL BY JURY REQUESTED

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DAMAGES, ASSET FORFEITURE, AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, UNDER FACE, 18 USC §248, FDPPA, 18 USC §2721, SUPPLEMENTAL FEDERAL & STATE LAW GROUNDS, & OTHER NECESSARY AND PROPER RELIEF

Plaintiffs Manhattan Magnolia Corp., et al [ "MAGNOLIA" may hereafter designate all plaintiffs and classes for brevity], bring this civil action for declaratory relief, statutory and actual personal, property, and business damages, exemplary damages, physical and emotional damage and suffering, forfeiture of assets, vehicles, buildings & things used in defendants' crimes and torts, costs and fees, and other necessary & appropriate relief & compensation, and respectfully state their complaint as follows:

I. JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This federal district court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction under the U.S. Constitution and FACE, 18 USC §248(a)&(c).

2. There is further jurisdiction under the Federal Question Statute, 28 USC §1331, including federal common law based on the Fourteenth Amendment, and FDPPA, 18 USC §2721.

3. Supplemental and pendent jurisdiction lie under federal common law and the Federal Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, 28 USC §1367, over interrelated state law claims arising from the same factual background.

4. Any pendent state law claims arise from the same and similar factual matrixes as the federal claims, such as state constitutional privacy rights, trespass, invasion of privacy, damage to business & professional relationships & good will, stalking laws, and civil conspiracy. (As in similar case of Tompkins v Cyr, 995 F Supp 664 (ND Tex 1998) (Dallas jury verdict against similar clinic harassment).

5. Plaintiffs are the reproductive health care facility, and clinic staff who were going to and doing their jobs, in this federal district the 4th day of March, 1995.

6. Several of the principal tortious incidents in question took place that day, including the clinic blockade leading to United States v Unterburger, 97 F3d 1413 (11th Cir Oct 23, 1996)(Hatchett, CJ, Dubina, J, & Cohill, SDJ), aff'g No 95-8025- CR-JAG)(SD Fla)(Gonzalez, J}.

7. Plaintiffs also include other individuals and classes who have all been damaged and injured, in person and property, by the same, similar, and numerous additional acts and omissions of the same defendants which form the underlying basis for this complaint.

8. All plaintiffs have the capacity to sue and bring this civil action in this District and Division.

9. The corporate plaintiffs regularly did business in this Southern District of Florida, at the time of the occurrences in question, and have been damaged in their person and property, directly and indirectly, by defendants.

10. A majority of the individual plaintiffs reside in the Southern District of Florida, were present in this District at the time of the several principal negligent, reckless, wanton, and otherwise tortious occurrences, and were damaged thereby.

11. Plaintiffs have standing to assert the jus tertii liberty and privacy rights of other third parties involved in seeking and providing reproductive health care services, such as patients, companions, staff, invitees, vendors, independent contractors, and physicians.

12. All named defendants have engaged in principal acts and omissions damaging and impacting harmfully against plaintiffs and plaintiff classes in the Southern District of Florida.

13. All defendants are jointly and severally responsible for numerous negligent, reckless, wanton, and otherwise tortious acts and omissions in this District.

14. Said acts and omissions have been the proximate and contributing causes of substantial personal, bodily, emotional, professional, and business injuries and damages to the plaintiffs herein.

15. Numerous individual defendants arose before sunrise on March 4, 1995, to blockade and obstruct the plaintiff clinic, acting in concert with numerous others similarly inspired, and to provide support, aid, abet, and hinder investigation.

16. One defendant Mr Meredith Trotter Raney, Jr, rose as early as 4:30 AM, with a pre-arranged rental or loaner car already at hand.

17. The same legal standards in this Eleventh Circuit on conspiracy, accomplices, accessories before and after the fact, and obstruction apply here as they would to persons who rise early to watch, videotape, and cheer at a bank robbery, drug transaction, or federal crime.

18. Defendants Eric Olson, Raymond & Cheryl Unterburger, Meredith Raney, and Patricia McEwen are adult residents and citizens of Florida. Defendants CompuServe Incorporated and TML Information Services, Inc, are domestic internet companies doing substantial business in Florida.

19. All said defendants negligently, recklessly, and wantonly engaged in numerous incidents, occurrences, acts and omissions damaging to plaintiffs. Said incidents have further damaged the plaintiff classes, said damage impacting in this District.

II. FACTS

20. For a substantial proportion of the 1990s, the individual defendants have engaged, negligently, recklessly, wantonly, and with varying levels of intent, in numerous activities, conspiracies, and in association with an unlawful enterprise to harass, obstruct, threaten, and intimidate clinics, reproductive health care facilities, physicians, patients, and staff who provide women's health care services in Florida.

21. Defendants' activities have been conducted in interstate commerce and across state lines, as they participated in a nationwide network, and extremist underground, involving training in numerous kinds of harassment and intimidation techniques.

22. Defendants' negligent, reckless, wanton, outrageous, and sometimes intentional activities have been conducted in substantial part using their own and loaned or rented vehicles, and from their homes and places of residence, the residences of others - particularly Meredith Raney and one John Rogers - and at the sites of professional activity of their victims, both in this Southern District and elsewhere.

23. Each individual defendant has engaged in numerous predicate acts, and had numerous predicate arrests and/or convictions pertaining to negligent and intentional activities directed toward harassing, intimidating, threatening, and obstructing the victim plaintiffs.

24. The damages and physical & emotional injuries to plaintiffs' persons, property, and relationships caused by defendants have been a combination of multiple accidental, negligent, reckless, wanton, intentional, and malicious incidents and occurrences.

25. Some of the damages have been the accidental result in part of mental illness and/or defect in one or more defendants.

26. On or about March 4, 1995 defendants Unterburger, Olson, and others negligently, recklessly, wantonly and intentionally attempted to and did obstruct, intimidate, threaten, and interfere with plaintiffs and others involved in providing reproductive health care services in this federal Southern District, at "AWMC" the Aware Woman Medical Center, 1497 Forest Hill Boulevard, Lake Clarke Shores, Palm Beach County, Florida, then owned by "Magnolia."

27. Said actions were both tortious and in violation of FACE, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 USC §248 (a), and other laws.

28. This episode began shortly after 7 AM on Saturday morning, March 4, 1995, and was joined in by the other individuals who came as joint trespassers, accomplices, accessories, witnesses, scribes, videographers, harassers, and intimidators of patients, staff, physicians, and others.

29. Olson and Unterburger, for a first incident and occurrence or Count, physically blocked the main entrance to the AWMC building with their bodies, for a period of some several hours.

Webmaster Note, See: The myth of "safe access" laws
Check out: The ACLU and Pro-lifers
(Hold cursor on picture for description)

30. Olson and Unterburger, for a second incident or Count, further physically blocked the main entrance to AWMC with a large and heavy concrete block they had previously obtained or fabricated with the aid of other unnamed defendants.

31. Olson and Unterburger, for a third incident or Count, Physically blocked the main entrance to AWMC with a series of locks and connecting chains, which were run into, through, and around their bodies and the concrete block, in order to complicate, obstruct, and delay their removal from the premises.

32. Olson and Unterburger, for a fourth incident or Count, arranged to physically block a secondary entrance to AWMC by "gluing" the door shut with a fast-acting polymer sealant glue which rendered normal use of the door improbable, and required intervention by a moderately expensive locksmith later that day. On good information and belief, Cheryl Unterburger or another female defendant Unknown, or a disguised Meredith Raney committed that tort or crime, and did not know that she was observed and identified.

33. Olson and Unterburger, for a fifth Count, arranged to physically block an additional secondary entrance door to AWMC by again and additionally "gluing" said door shut with similar glue, which rendered normal use of the door improbable, and also required intervention and partial replacement by a locksmith.

34. Olson and Unterburger, for a sixth Count, harassed, threatened, and intimidated AWMC staff and patients by haranguing them with "fighting words," and calling them ""assassins" and "murderers," rather than lawful participants in constitutionally, Congressionally, and state law protected health care services.

35. Olson and Unterburger, for a seventh Count, physically trespassed at the said AWMC clinic entrance on this, and on previous occasions, in that the entrance and parking areas are private, only for invitees, which those individuals and their accomplices have never been.

36. Olson and Unterburger, for an eighth Count, obstructed plaintiffs and police officers' attempts to remove them, by not providing the keys to the locks, but leaving said keys with an accomplice, whom they would not identify, but who was known to them and tortiously lurking nearby.

37. 01son and Unterburger, for an tenth Count, did negligently, recklessly, wantonly, outrageously, and in part intentionally conspire civilly and confederate with each other and other persons to obstruct, intimidate, threaten, and interfere with the provision of reproductive health care services, as to each and every foregoing Count and instance set forth.

46. Defendants Raney, LeStourgeon, Cheryl Unterburger, McEwen, the Vanderbilts, Herzog, and others as yet unknown, had prior reasonably foreseeable and culpable knowledge of the foregoing plans and conduct by Olson and Unterburger, and did arise as early as 4:30 AM in order to travel along the interstate highways to arrive at the AWMC reproductive health care facility around 7 AM, and participate in the occurrences about which they had been foretold, and/or reasonably could and should have foreseen, but for careless and reckless dysfunctional miscomprehension.

47. Defendant Raney participated actively as organizer of anti-abortion support and harassment forces on that day, and others, and selectively videotaped patients, staff, and the principal perpetrators of the March 4, 1995, event, in part to attempt to influence and manipulate subsequent civil and criminal proceedings by misleading editing, omissions, and misrepresentations.

48. Mr Raney obtained no consent or authorization to come onto the private clinic area premises that day, and no consent to videotape any clinic patient, staff, invitee, or vehicle license plate, which he nonetheless proceeded to do, with carelessness throughout a number of incidents and occurrences.

49. Mr Raney did negligently, recklessly, wantonly, and intentionally trespass on the premises, not singularly but repeatedly, ignoring at least four warnings to leave the private premises, then still sneaking back and suggesting to others that they play at being "dumb" about whether they were trespassing.

50. Defendants Raney, McEwen, and others presently unknown, also went around to the back of the AWMC facility. There they proceeded loudly to yell and scream "fighting words," and make unreasonable and disturbing high decibel level noise in close proximity to the medical and surgical facility, thereby carelessly, recklessly, outrageously, and wantonly creating a hazard to the health, safety, and well-being of those persons inside, who could hear them well, and were put at foreseeable risk of dangerous distraction by the incessant racket.

51. Defendants Raney, McEwen, and other confederates not presently known, have particularly loud, grating, and disturbing voices which they project to disrupt, threaten, intimidate, and distract others from a distance, particularly others engaged in seeking or providing lawful, needed, private reproductive health care services.

52. The occurrence of each and every act and omission of Olson and Unterburger set out in the foregoing Counts was reasonably foreseeable to each other named and unnamed individual defendant, but carelessly and negligently disregarded by them.

53. No other individual defendants intervened to stop, but instead they traveled, convened, and conspired to support and participate in the actions of Olson and Unterburger, making them liable jointly and severally for all counts and for all damages proximately caused or contributed to and for each and every count.

54. Defendants Raney and others have further, after the fact, endeavored to hide, conceal, and cover up the foregoing events and their involvement therein.

55. The activities and events set out above were not isolated incidents, but were part of a continuing and ongoing enterprise, pattern, and practice engaged in by each and every individual defendant over a number of years against reproductive health care providers, starting from 1988-1989.

56. Said activities and enterprise have had the result, purpose and effect of harassing, obstructing, threatening, and intimidating reproductive health care providers, including AWMC and the sister facility in Melbourne, AWCC, and causing numerous forms of damages and injuries to persons and property, negligently, recklessly, wantonly, and in part intentionally.

57. The acts and omissions of defendants have no colorable First Amendment claim to protection, but involve stalking, harassment, intimidation, obstruction, fighting words, insidious insults, and threatening conduct of the nature against which the FACE statute, 18 USC §248, was passed, and the FDPPA statute, 18 USC §2721, enacted.

58. The background of FACE and FDPPA are described in the legislative history found in the pertinent and contemporaneous U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News, as well as legislative hearings and reports, and refer specifically to the need to stop the kinds of harassment engaged in by these kinds of individual defendants against reproductive health care facilities across America.

III. THE UNTERBURGER-OLSON F.A.C.E PROSECUTION

59. Defendants Olson and Unterburger alone were federally prosecuted, tried, convicted, and sentenced on only one FACE count for their activities on March 4, 1995, although evidence existed for numerous counts and additional perpetrators.

60. Olson and Unterburger have individually and collectively shown no remorse nor comprehension of the extortionate, anti-social, security threatening, intimidating, delusional, and damaging nature of their acts and pattern of behavior against the lawful activities of others exercising their legal and constitutional rights.

61. Accessories before and after the fact, and co-conspirators of Olson and Unterburger, have not yet been brought to justice under FACE and other laws for their negligent, reckless, wanton, and otherwise wrongful acts and omissions.

62. The FACE criminal information against defendants Olson and Unterburger was dated March 15, 1995.

63. Defendants Olson and Unterburger were both convicted after a bench trial on September 18, 1995, where Meredith Raney testified, and attempted to mislead the Court on one or more material matters.

64. The convictions of both were upheld by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v Unterburger, 97 F3d 1413 (11th Cir Oct. 23, 1996)(Hatchett, CJ, Dubina, J & Cohill, SDJ), aff'g Gonzalez, J, No. 958025-CR-JAG {SD Fla).

65. The Olson/Unterburger convictions were final and filed in this District Court January 8, 1997.

66. Civil actions for remedial relief, statutory & actual damages, exemplary damages, property forfeiture, voiding of fraudulent property transfers, and work orders for defendants to pay off judgments and damages, are now ripe and timely for filing.

IV. THE COMPUSERVE CONNECTION: THE MASSIVE PRIVACY INVASION - INFORMATION FOR STALKERS

67. These plaintiffs proffer further closely related, and jurisprudentially important, claims against these individual defendants, and jointly against the named corporate defendants.

68. The joint Individual/Corporate claims arise from a large number of continuing incidents and activities causing serious damage to a very significant and substantial class of women seeking reproductive health care services, many of whom reside in the Southern District.

69. Preliminarily, nearly all of the AWMC patients reside in the Southern District. A substantial number were damaged in several ways by the bizarre Olson/Unterburger incidents on March 4, 1995.

70. A significant proportion of plaintiff AWCC patients in Melbourne also come from the Southern District, which includes the counties enumerated in 28 USC §89(c). This class includes hundreds of women and companions annually who came to Melbourne from more southern cities and counties, seeking private medical care in a private & safe reproductive health care facility protected from harassment by the Constitution and Acts of Congress.

71. Defendants Raney, Unterburger(s), McEwen, and others not yet known, have during the past several years worked covertly for extremist causes as "spies" and "scribes." They and others surveil the aforesaid private citizens of the Southern District .from the John "Jay" Rogers' "Spy House" across the street from the former AWCC clinic in Melbourne.

72. This stalking-like surveillance has been for no motor vehicle or traffic safety purpose, for no purpose allowed by FACE or FDPPA, and utterly without the consent of any such persons, who are in fact outraged, violated, and seriously damaged by these intrusions.

73. The surveillance has been to threaten, obstruct, and intimidate persons engaged in providing and seeking reproductive health care services, a purpose forbidden by FACE.

74. These defendants, led by Messrs Raney, and others, are now known covertly to have used binoculars and videotapes to note on log sheets the license plates of vehicles entering and leaving AWCC premises.

75. These individual defendants, and others, have built a "blackmail database" since around 1990 of personal information about patients and their companions, for use inter alia in some future, delusional Holocaust Trial of women who have had abortions, and their doctors, and staff, as well as certain Supreme Court Justices specified on a very unusual "Nuremberg" Internet Website. http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/aborts.html.

76. Certain individual defendants are contributors of personal & private information to said Website. The site scribes strike through the names of individuals who have been killed to keep up to date. Neither the Website nor the contributing individuals has consent or authorization of any kind to utilize the names of the people on the "Hit Lists."

77. Mr Raney in fact has designed and revised highly detailed, almost obsessive- compulsive "spy sheets" for daily use which encourage the "scribes" to make extensive notes on the class of patients, staff, and especially doctors, who have been harassed and threatened thereafter into quitting. These notes keep track of staff, whether the doctor is wearing a bulletproof vest, and when a staff nurse is alone in the clinic.

78. Defendant Raney has kept the daily "spy sheets" and used his own or one Jay Rogers' computer at the "Spy House" to obtain from defendants CompuServe, TML Services, and/or other spy database services, enough unconsented personal information on a patient that he could visit that night unexpectedly, or write, or call, or harass, intimidate, or threaten at will.

79. The data provided by the corporate defendants is sufficient for any stalker or shooter to find, threaten, and assault any member of the plaintiff class. It is negligently, recklessly, and wantonly released for money, without prudent safeguards to protect human security and privacy.

80. Raney and others since the early 1990s have copied the license plates of thousands of women, almost the entire class of patients of AWCC in Melbourne. Raney has obtained private personal identifying information on said persons from CompuServe, TML, and other services, with no consent of any kind ever.

81. Raney then has attempted to contact these women through letters and telephone calls to them. The unwanted letters have numbered in the hundreds, perhaps thousandse and go to the registered owner of the vehicle, who may or may not be the patient, a factor which increases and aggravates the privacy and security invasion, as well as the physical and emotional damage to each patient.

82. The occurrence of such unsolicited and unwanted calls and letters creates havoc, and is negligent, reckless, wanton, outrageous, intentional, malicious, and an insidious invasion of security, privacy, and well-being of the unconsenting victim individuals affected.

83. Such calls and letters cause a reasonable fear, and intimidation in the unsuspecting recipients, who compare that sudden shock to being stalked raped or attacked by a delusional stranger. This stranger has surveilled them and found out very private, intimate details about their medical care, utterly without any consent or legitimate legal justification.

84. Each such letter and call could be found by a reasonable factfinder to be a separate incident and occurrence, and a per se violation of FACE, as well as a per se violation of FDPPA, with a varying level of intent from mere negligence through recklessness to general intent, even malicious delight.

85. Because of this surveillance by the individual defendants, prospective AWCC patients were often intimidated and threatened into using disguises and rental cars to protect their security from stalking, and their lives from unwanted, unpredictable intrusions.

86. Many other patients felt compelled to travel to other, distant cities for medical care, to avoid harassment, intimidation, surveillance, and unwanted contact with the Raney-led group of loud, unpredictable extremists.

87. The individual defendant "scribes," COMPUSERVE, TML, and others cooperated to make the "blackmail database" all come together in the computers of Meredith Raney and unknown others, where they are stored, then sent to distant secret places and computers in the extremist underground, for future harassment, blackmail and delusional Holocaust Trial preparation.

88. Each and every incident in the stages of compilation of the "blackmail database" negligently, recklessly, and wantonly caused serious personal and property damage to the plaintiffs and their classes.

89. Declaratory and injunctive relief, asset seizures, property forfeitures, and substantial actual and exemplary damages are necessary to redress this massive theft of privacy and security by defendants.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

90. The class of plaintiffs damaged by defendants is so numerous that joinder of all members individually would not be feasible, but unduly cumbersome and intrusive upon security, safety, and privacy.

91. The license plates of about two-to-three thousand class members are known to have been covertly copied by defendants, and personal information accessed without any consent or legal justification.

92. Numerous questions of law and fact are common to these claims, and predominate over individual questions. The claims are likely to be opposed by common defenses from the individual and corporate defendants.

93. The claims of these plaintiffs are typical of the class, and will be fairly presented by the named plaintiffs, who will fully and adequately protect the interests of the class.

94. The pursuit of hundreds of separate actions in different courts by individual members of the class would be impossibly burdensome, and would create a risk of varying determinations on multiple interrelated issues, that could establish incompatible criteria of conduct for defendants, who have acted on grounds generally applicable to their classes in any event.

95. A unified class action in this Court for all victims of these individual and corporate defendants is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the overall interrelated controversy.

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

96. PLAINTIFFS REITERATE AND INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS AND PARAGRAPHS, AND FURTHER STATE THE FOLLOWING AS COUNTS AND CLAIMS ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED:

COUNT I: MULTIPLE CIVIL FACE VIOLATIONS

97. The individual Defendants and each one of them are jointly and severally responsible and liable for each and every one of the multiple FACE violations set out, for actual or statutory damages of a minimum $5,000 each per count, multiplied by each individual, and a corporate plaintiff, and for punitive damages, to the extent that one or more contributing incidents, occurrences, acts or omissions was reckless, wanton, malicious, or willful, and for forfeiture of property and assets used in the violations, and other relief.

COUNT II: MULTIPLE INVASIONS OF SECURITY & PRIVACY RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL & STATE LAW

98. The negligent, reckless, wanton, intended, and otherwise tortious acts and omissions of defendants have caused and contributed to multiple irreparable and severely damaging invasions of the federal and state security, safety, liberty, and privacy rights of the plaintiffs and each member of each class.

COUNT III: CIVIL TRESPASS

99. The individual Defendants and each one of them are jointly and severally responsible and liable for multiple civil trespasses on the AWMC premises and parking area.

100. Said civil trespasses were negligent, reckless, wanton, and otherwise tortious, and caused and contributed to foreseeable damages to each plaintiff and their classes.

COUNT IV: NUISANCE

101. The individual Defendants and each one of them are jointly and severally responsible and liable as nuisances in law and fact, for the conduct and omissions heretofore alleged.

COUNT V: INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

102. The negligent, reckless, wanton, intended, and otherwise tortious acts and omissions of defendants have unreasonably interfered with numerous business and professional relationships among AWCC, AWMC, physicians, staff, patients, invitees, and others.

103. Said interferences have caused serious, substantial, painful, and irreparable injury and damages.

COUNT VI: INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION/GOOD WILL

104. The negligent, reckless, wanton, intended, and otherwise tortious acts and omissions of defendants have unreasonably interfered in numerous ways with, and caused immeasurable damage to, the business and professional activities and reputations of AWCC and AWMC.

COUNT VII: CIVIL CONSPIRACY

105. Defendants and each one of them are jointly and severally responsible and liable for civil conspiracy to obstruct, intimidate, threaten, and interfere with the provision of reproductive health care services by plaintiffs.

106. Said civil conspiracy has caused and contributed to immeasurable, irreparable, and substantial personal and property damages to the plaintiffs and their classes.

COUNT VIII: MULTIPLE FDPPA VIOLATIONS BY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

107. The negligent, reckless, wanton, intended, and otherwise tortious acts and omissions of the defendants threaten unreasonably, unnecessarily, and recklessly to disclose, and have disclosed, personal information that can and has been derived from motor vehicle and/or drivers license records based on surreptitious copying of plates by the individual defendants, and unconsented, invasive use by their confederates.

108. Said disclosures were not necessary for, nor related to, motor vehicle or public safety, nor were they based on knowing and informed written consent of drivers, passengers, or invitees associated with Magnolia, who strongly object to and are seriously damaged by such unconsented and unwanted invasions Of security and privacy.

109. Nor are such disclosures and dissemination allowable under any excepting provision of FDPPA, 18 USC §2721(b)(1)-(14), nor for any other lawful purpose.

110. The disclosures and disseminations complained of and anticipated occur in part because of careless and reckless state agency practices in making unconsented open sales of private informational details on vehicle driver lists, without providing adequate notice or opt out for vehicle owners, and without providing any protection whatever for non-owner drivers and passengers.

111. Individuals in Florida are required to register their vehicles and become licensed to drive, but no individuals consent thereby to have their names, addresses, and other personal information splashed in effect across a public billboard that can be viewed and copied by any voyeur, stalker, rapist, burglar, potential killer, shooter, prison inmate, or other dangerous person.

112. Magnolia associates and threatened individuals who drive in and out of the Magnolia parking areas were irreparably injured and damaged by the foregoing acts and omissions. None of these individuals had an adequate opportunity, means, or notice to prevent release and unlawful use of this information against them, nor to stop the compilation and reckless use of a "blackmail database" by Mr Raney and his confederates against them.

113. The public interest favors protection of private personal information from potential stalkers and abusers, over the practice by State DMVs and computer database entities of profiting from the unrestrained sale of such information to individuals such as Mr Raney and his confederates.

COUNT IX: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, FORFEITURE, WORK

114. Certain reckless misconduct and omissions by defendants have been sufficiently reckless, wanton, outrageous, inhumane, and malicious to warrant substantial exemplary damages awards against each and every defendant on behalf of each and every plaintiff and class member.

115. Said exemplary damage awards should be made sufficient to deter each defendant forever, and punish and prevent each said defendant from continuing the misconduct at issue, directly or indirectly, in any form, long into the future.

116. Defendants such as Mr Raney, who have worked primarily at harassing women and terrorizing health care facilities for these many years, should have their harassment-related assets, property and buildings forfeited, and be ordered to work using any real world skills they may have to satisfy the foregoing requested judgments, and to break loose from their patterns of unlawful, tortious behavior.

TRIAL BY JURY REQUESTED

117. Plaintiffs request trial by jury on each issue of fact and damages as would be required under the common law and the usual practice of this Court.

JUDGMENT AND RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT

(1) to enter judgment against each defendant, jointly and severally, for full actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as proven,

(2) to forfeit sufficient and relevant assets and real & personal property of the defendants used in their unlawful activities,

(3) to award pre- and post-judgment interest on appropriate items,

(4) to enter appropriate work orders requiring certain individual defendants to engage in lawful employment pursuits to pay off these damages and judgment debts,

(5) to set aside property transfers made by defendants in recent years which were made to avoid responsibility for unlawful conduct such as involved here,

{6) to award reasonable costs, expenses, expert witness fees & expenses, and attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as any other relief that appears to be necessary and appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Roy Lucas (signed)
DC #153957
Trial Counsel
PO Box 141064
Orlando, FL 32814-1064
TEL: (407) 898-3249
FAX: (407) 898-5268

Richard & Richard, PA
725 Colorado Avenue
Stuart, FL 34994
TEL: 1-561-223-9600
FAX: 1-561-223-0859

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.

|TOP OF PAGE| |HOME| |DISCLAIMER| |SEARCH| |LINKS| |NEWS|
|EMAIL US| |SUNTREE| |AWARE WOMAN| |ABORTIONISTS| |LAWSUITS|
|VICTIMS OF CHOICE| |SURVIVORS| |INVESTIGATIONS|