IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI
DIVISION
CASE
NO. 00-________________
RICARDO
RAMIREZ, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
JANET RENO, )
in her personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
DORIS MEISSNER, )
in her personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
ERIC HOLDER, )
in his personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
ROBERT WALLIS,
)
in his
personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
JOHN BULGER, )
in his
personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
JAMES GOLDMAN, )
in his
personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
GEORGE
WALDROUP, )
in his
personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
DANIEL VERA, )
in his
personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
ALAN HAZEN, )
in his personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
JAMES SPEARMAN, )
in his personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
MARIO CAVALLO, )
in his personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
MIGUEL DOMINGO, )
in his personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
JOHN WOOD, )
in his personal capacity, )
)
and )
)
Presently
Unknown Officials of the )
U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization )
Service, Nos.
I-X, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Ricardo Ramirez, through counsel,
for his complaint against the defendants, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
This is an
action for money damages as authorized by the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. §
1985(2) and for injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin the unlawful
deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fifth Amendments of
the United States Constitution.
PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff
Ricardo Ramirez (“Ramirez”) is a citizen of the State of Florida and resides in
Broward County, Florida. He is employed
by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) as a Special Agent
detailed to the Miami District Office of the INS (“Miami District”), working in
that office’s Alien Criminal Apprehension Program (“ACAP”).
3.
Defendant Janet
Reno (“Reno”) is a citizen of the State of Florida and currently resides at
11200 N. Kendall Drive, Miami, Florida 33176.
At all times relevant to the acts and occurrences complained of herein,
Reno was Attorney General of the United States. She is being sued in her personal capacity.
4.
Defendant Doris
Meissner (“Meissner”) is a citizen of the State of Maryland and resides at 4619
Derussey Parkway, Chevy Chase, Maryland, 20815. At all times relevant to the acts and occurrences complained of
herein, Meissner was Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“INS”). She is being sued in her
personal capacity.
5.
Defendant Eric
Holder (“Holder”) is a citizen of the District of Columbia, residing at 4246
50th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20016.
At all times relevant to the acts and occurrences complained of herein,
Holder was Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He is being sued in his personal capacity.
6.
Defendant
Robert Wallis (“Wallis”) is a citizen of the State of Texas. His business address is INS Dallas District,
8101 North Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247. At all times relevant to the acts and occurrences complained of
herein, Wallis was District Director of the Miami District. He is being sued in his personal capacity.
7.
Defendant John
Bulger (“Bulger”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami
District Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to the acts and
occurrences complained of herein, Bulger was Deputy District Director at the
Miami District. He is being sued in his
personal capacity.
8. Defendant
James Goldman (“Goldman”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami District
Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to the acts and
occurrences complained of herein, Goldman was Ramirez’s fourth line supervisor
at the Miami District. He is being sued
in his personal capacity.
9. Defendant
Daniel Waldroup (“Waldroup”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami District
Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to
the acts and occurrences complained of herein, Waldroup was Assistant District
Director of the Miami District. He is
being sued in his personal capacity.
10. Defendant
Daniel Vera (“Vera”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami District
Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to
the acts and occurrences complained of herein, Vera was supervisory District
Counsel of the Miami District. He is
being sued in his personal capacity.
11. Defendant
Alan Hazen (“Hazen”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is Special Agent in
Charge, Investigations, Office of Inspector General, 3800 Inverrary Blvd.,
Suite 312, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319. At
all times relevant to the acts and occurrences complained of herein, Hazen was
Special Agent in Charge, Investigations, of the Ft. Lauderdale office of the
Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General. He is being sued in his
personal capacity.
12. Defendant
James Spearman (“Spearman”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami District
Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to the acts and
occurrences complained of herein, Spearman was Ramirez’s third line supervisor
at the Miami District. He is being sued
in his personal capacity.
13. Defendant
Mario Cavallo (“Cavallo”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami District
Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to the acts and
occurrences complained of herein, Cavallo was a Section Chief at the Miami
District. He is being sued in his
personal capacity.
14. Defendant
Miguel Domingo (“Domingo”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami District
Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to the acts and
occurrences complained of herein, Domingo was Supervisory Special Agent of the
Fraud Unit at the Miami District. He is
being sued in his personal capacity.
15. Defendant
John Wood (“Wood”) is a citizen of the State of Florida. His business address is USINS Miami District
Office, 7880 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33138. At all times relevant to the acts and
occurrences complained of herein, Wood was the Section Chief, Investigations,
of the Miami District. He is being
sued in his personal capacity.
16. Defendants
Unknown Officials Nos. I-X (“Unknown Officials I-X”) are presently unknown
officials of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Their addresses are presently unknown. They are being sued in their personal
capacities.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. The
Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action
arises under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
18. Venue
is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as a substantial part of the events and
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district.
FACTS
19. The
claims alleged herein relate to and arise from the seizure (“the seizure”) by
the INS of the person of a minor Cuban national named Elian Gonzalez on April
22, 2000. The seizure, which was
organized and orchestrated by Defendants Reno, Meissner and Holder, received intense national media coverage, as
did events relating to Elian Gonzalez’s presence in the United States.
20. Ramirez
was a participant in the seizure to the extent that, as requested by his
supervisor on the afternoon of the day before the seizure, he participated on
the periphery of the INS’ seizure operation.
21. Ramirez,
who is of Mexican ancestry, is a
16-year employee of the INS, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. In July of 1999, he was assigned to work in
the Miami District’s Alien Criminal Apprehension Program (“ACAP”), a position
that required him to arrest immigrants who had been convicted of felonies.
22. Ramirez’s
job performance over the tenure of his career with the INS has been
superior. In October, 1999, his
superiors nominated him for a “Hero Award” after he had arrested 50 convicted
felons in three operations.
23. The
atmosphere in the Miami District, which has a reputation for deceit and
immigrant mistreatment, is one of open hostility, bias, and prejudice toward
individuals of Cuban and Hispanic ancestry.
24. This
atmosphere was fostered and encouraged by Ramirez’s superiors, including
Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo,
Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X. Their
hostility and bias were manifested in numerous ways, including but not limited
to the following:
a. Wallis, following the seizure of Elian Gonzalez, stated to
approximately 50 INS agents that one of the happiest moments during the whole
episode came when he saw a photograph taken during the seizure of a shotgun
pointed at the head of a Cuban-American national. b. Following
the seizure, several high-ranking INS officials circulated insulated cup
wrappers throughout the Miami District office depicting a Cuban flag with the
international “no” symbol surrounding the flag. Assistant District Director of
the Miami District, George Walroup, kept such a cup on a desk in his office.
This cup also had the number “154" printed on it, a reference to the
number of seconds taken to complete the seizure of Elian Gonzalez.
c. Prior to the seizure, Miguel Domingo, a supervising
Special Agent in the Fraud Unit of the Miami District office, sent several
Special Agents an e-mail in which Domingo referred to Elian Gonzalez as a
“little creep.”
d. Prior to the seizure, and until just recently, many
employees in the Miami District office of the INS, some of whom are
high-ranking INS officials, displayed banners in their offices stating “Banana
Republic - Miami Florida.” One such
banner was displayed by Assistant District Director Walroup. Another such banner
displayed in the Personnel Office expressed how “lazy, loud mouth, criminal
Cubans are, and they should all be sent back to Cuba on a banana boat.” Such
banners were known to be highly offensive to individuals of Cuban and Hispanic
ancestry.
e. One non-Hispanic agent who was a member of the seizure
team urged his co-workers who were not of Cuban ancestry not to speak with
their colleagues of Cuban and Hispanic ancestry because “they are spies.”
f. The same agent also asked “Who’s going to be the first one
up in a tree to shoot Elian?”
g. Section Chief, Investigations, of the Miami District, John
Wood, kept a cardboard box approximately two (2) feet wide and two (2) feet
high outside of his office for several weeks. This box had a picture of Elian
Gonzalez affixed to it, with the words “Kick Me” written on the box below the
picture of Gonzalez.
h. INS agents of Cuban and Hispanic ancestry were excluded
from the Elian Gonzalez seizure.
25. Following
the seizure, the Clinton-Gore Administration and Reno Justice Department were
sensitive to its possibly negative political and legal ramifications should
information relating to the Miami District’s reputation and the seizure became
public. Thus, on information and
belief, pursuant to Reno’s and Holder’s orders, Meissner ordered the Miami
District office to delete any e-mails and destroy any documents relating to the
Elian Gonzalez seizure. This order was
relayed to INS personnel at the Miami District through channels flowing down
all the way to Cavallo at the direction of Meissner.
26. Further,
INS agents who participated in the seizure were ordered to execute
non-disclosure agreements, a measure which is rare in the INS.
27.
On May 22, 2000, Donato Dalrymple and many Cuban-Americans and others
who were beaten and gassed during the INS’s April 22, 2000 seizure of Elian
Gonzalez, filed a lawsuit in this federal judicial district entitled Donato
Dalrymple, et al., v. Janet Reno, et al., Case No. 00-01773-CIV-Moore.
28. In
September of 2000, Lazaro Gonzalez, the uncle of Elian Gonzalez and from whose
home Elian Gonzalez had been seized by the INS, filed a lawsuit, together with
several others, in this federal judicial district entitled Lazaro Gonzalez,
et al. v. Janet Reno, et al., Case No. 00-3621-Civ-Highsmith.
29. The
U.S. Department of Justice assigned attorneys to represent Ramirez and several
other agents in the Miami District office in the Dalyrmple and Gonzalez
lawsuits.
30. Ramirez,
concerned that if he could be required to testify about the anti-Cuban bias and
destruction of evidence described above, approached INS Miami District counsel,
Daniel Vera, for advice. Ramirez
informed Vera that under no circumstances would he testify falsely about what
he knew. By the same token, Ramirez was
worried that information he revealed could be damaging to the INS and some of
his colleagues.
31. Vera
informed Ramirez, “Don’t worry about it.
If you have any kind of evidence that is detrimental toward the service,
the DOJ [Department of Justice] attorney will make sure you don’t take the
stand.”
32. On
information and belief, Ramirez’s concerns were relayed to Reno, Meissner and
Holder, who together, along with the other Defendants, agreed upon a scheme to
ensure that Ramirez and other INS agents with knowledge or information about
the seizure that could be damaging would not “take the stand” or testify
adversely regarding the Miami District, the INS and/or the DOJ. The scheme, which was to be executed by
their underlings at the DOJ and INS, called for, among other things, deterring
adverse testimony by explicit and tacit threats and intimidation directed at
agents. It also included retaliatory
action against those agents who did testify adversely in order to punish them
and discourage others from doing the same. Ramirez then relayed the allegations
to his attorney, Donald Appignani, who advised Ramirez to report the
allegations to the Office Inspector General. Ramirez refused due to legitimate
concerns that OIG would not properly investigate the allegations.
33. On
December 12, 2000, Ramirez’s counsel, Donald Appignani, under subpoena, gave
deposition testimony in the Gonzalez lawsuit.
34. Appignani,
without disclosing Ramirez’s identity, testified about what Ramirez had told
him about the matters set forth above, i.e., the anti-Cuban and Hispanic
bias at the Miami District office of the INS and the orders to obstruct justice
by destroying documentary and electronic evidence material and relevant to the
issues in the Dalrymple and Gonzalez litigation.
35. Appignani’s
deposition transcript was subsequently filed by Plaintiff’s attorneys in the Gonzalez
case with the Clerk of this Court.
36. On
January 6, 2001, stories began to emerge in the media regarding Appignani’s
deposition testimony pertaining to Ramirez’s revelations.
37. On
January 9, 2001, Ramirez was informed by his supervisor, Gwen Reed, that
Cavallo suspected that it was Ramirez who had disclosed the damaging
information to Appignani and that he was going to retaliate against Ramirez by
making it impossible for Ramirez to succeed with a performance work plan. This
would enable Cavallo to retaliate against Ramirez by falsely rating Ramirez’s
performance “unsatisfactory.” Ramirez was also told on that day that his work
performance was not up to par, even though a month earlier during a mid level
performance review, Reed told Ramirez
that he was doing a good job and to keep up the good work.
38. On
January 10, 2001, a co-worker told Ramirez that he should be careful and watch
himself because “upper management,” i.e., Wallis, Bulger and Unknown
Officials I-X believed it was Ramirez
who had made the disclosures to Appignani.
39. On
January 12, 2001, another co-worker informed Ramirez that other management
officials, including Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Wallis and Unknown Officials
I-X, had decided that it was Ramirez who made the disclosures to Appignani. The co-worker warned Ramirez to be careful
and watch himself as retaliation was forthcoming. Ramirez received similar statements from other co-workers on that
day.
40. On
January 16, 2001, Reed and Spearman, Ramirez’s third-line supervisor, ordered
Ramirez to limit the use of his government-issue cellular phone. Ramirez explained that the use of his cell
phone was necessary because many government officials, including attorneys with
the U.S. Attorney’s Office, would
contact him on that phone when he was in the field. Spearman’s reply was to order Ramirez not to associate or talk
with any co-worker during work hours except during the lunch
period. This order greatly impaired
Ramirez in the performance of his duties.
Spearman’s orders were either acquiesced to or ratified by Cavallo,
Goldman, Bulger and Unknown Officials I-X.
41. On
January 24, 2001, Reed spoke with Ramirez and told him that Cavallo, Spearman
and Goldman were watching his every move.
Reed related that these officials believed they knew that it was Ramirez
who was responsible for the disclosures to Appignani.
42. On
January 29, 2001, while Ramirez’s government-owned and issued vehicle was
parked in the INS-secured parking lot for the entire day, an unknown individual
or individuals had written on the rear passenger window of the vehicle, “We
know it’s you. Watch out traitor.” Ramirez discovered the writing on his
vehicle as he was leaving work for the day.
The writing had not been on the vehicle when he parked it in the
morning. Ramirez took this as a grave
threat to his employment and his physical well being.
43. Ramirez
subsequently spoke about the incident with Goldman, Spearman, Cavallo, and
Annette Rivera, his acting supervisor.
Goldman told Ramirez he was prohibited from further use of his
government-issued vehicle. He also
instructed Ramirez to ride with another agent at all times, and that he was
temporarily assigned to office work only.
Cavallo stated that it was his expectation that the new assignment
should not affect Ramirez’s performance or production. However, because of
Ramirez’s inability to use a vehicle and the restrictions placed upon
communication with other agents, Cavallo’s performance expectations were
impossible for Ramirez to meet, a fact known to Goldman, Bulger, Spearman and
Cavallo, Wallis and Unknown Officials I-X.
44. Upon
information and belief, all the restrictions placed upon Ramirez were
acquiesced to or ratified by Bulger, Wallis, Spearman, Goldman, Cavallo, Hazen,
Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X. These restrictions greatly impaired Ramirez
in the performance of his duties, a fact known to Bulger, Wallis, Spearman,
Goldman, Cavallo, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials
I-X.
45. On
February 1, 2001, the distress and anguish caused Ramirez by Goldman, Spearman,
Cavallo, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown
Officials I-X, by the acts and conduct aforesaid was of sufficient severity
that it was necessary for Ramirez to take sick leave. It was also necessary for him to take sick leave on February 16,
March 2, April 3, and April 9, 2001, for the same reason, and to meet with an
Employee Assistance Counselor.
46. On
February 2, 2001, Spearman, with the acquiescence of Wallis, Bulger, Goldman,
Cavallo and Unknown Officials I-X,
requested that Ramirez write a memorandum stating that he did not feel
threatened by the writing on the vehicle window. When Ramirez responded that the opposite was true, not only for
himself but also for his wife and family, Spearman replied that until the
required memorandum was written, Ramirez would not be allowed to resume his
normal duties and could not have a government-issued vehicle to perform them.
Spearman also stated that Ramirez would not be allowed to perform field work
unless the memorandum was written, even though Ramirez told Spearman that he
was having a difficult time performing his duties under restrictions already
existing.
47. On
February 5, 2001, Ramirez was again told by Spearman, again with the approval
of Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo,
Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X, that unless the required memorandum was
written, Ramirez would not be allowed to perform field work and would not be
allowed the use of a government-issued vehicle. Ramirez was unable to perform his duties if he was not allowed to
do field work, a fact known to Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen,
Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood and Unknown Officials I-X.
48. On
February 6, 2001, Appignani sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft requesting his assistance in having Ramirez transferred out of the
Miami District, to investigate the allegations properly, to assign this matter
to someone on your staff who has the integrity and authority to handle this
situation properly, and not to inform the officials at the Miami District
Office of the INS about the letter, for fear that the situation would only
become worse.
49. Subsequently,
Attorney General Ashcroft transmitted Appignani’s February 6, 2001 letter to
the Inspector General’s office in Washington, D.C. That office then forwarded the letter to Special Agent in Charge,
Investigations, of the Ft. Lauderdale office of the Department of Justice’s
Office of Inspector General, Alan Hazen. Hazen then contacted Appignani, who at
that time informed Appignani that Hazen knew who Appignani’s client was because
Hazen had also received the charge about the threat on Ramirez’s government issued
vehicle. Hazen requested a meeting with Ramirez who at first declined to meet
with Hazen because Ramirez knew Hazen was a close friend and associate of
Goldman. Only after Hazen assured Appignani that any meeting with Ramirez would
be held in confidence, did Ramirez agree to meet with Hazen.
51. On
March 15, 2001, Ramirez and Appignani met with Special Agent in Charge Hazen in
Hazen’s office in Ft. Lauderdale. When
asked about his relationship with Goldman, Hazen acknowledged that he was a
good friend of Goldman. Ramirez then informed Hazen that Ramirez felt Hazen’s
office investigating the allegations would be a conflict of interest, and Hazen
assured Ramirez that the meeting would be kept confidential, and the allegation
would be properly investigated.
52. On
Friday, March 16, 2001, the very next
day after meeting with Hazen, Ramirez was informed by his supervisors that he
was going to be put on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) the following
Monday.
53. On
March 19, 2001, Ramirez was served with
a PIP. A PIP warns that an
employee has ninety (90) days to raise his or her performance level or else the
employee is subject to being demoted or discharged if their performance is not
improved in the ninety day period. In
the Miami District, a PIP is commonly used by management as a retaliation tool
against employees. It was impossible
for Ramirez to successfully complete the PIP due to the restrictions placed
upon Ramirez’s ability to perform his duties.
These facts were known by Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis,
Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X.
54. The
PIP served upon Ramirez was intended as retaliation resulting from the
disclosures made by Appignani in his deposition and to deter Ramirez from
testifying in the Dalrymple and Gonzalez litigation. It was served upon Ramirez at the direction
or with the acquiescence of Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen,
Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X and in furtherance of
the scheme previously agreed upon by Reno, Meissner and Holder.
55. On
April 4, 2001, Ramirez was told that as a result of the issuance of the PIP, he
would be denied a “step increase” in pay that had been scheduled for May 6,
2001.
56. Earlier,
in March of 2001, Ramirez had applied for a transfer to the Houston seaport as
a Senior Inspector. In spite of being
highly recommended by Reed for the position, the transfer was denied, an act
intended as retaliation against Ramirez and as a deterrent to his testifying in
the Dalrymple and Gonzalez litigation.
57. As
intended by Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup,
Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X, the progressive disintegration and
impending loss of Ramirez’s career with the INS, described above, has caused
him severe emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of reputation, and loss of
pay. Further, the continuing threats
directed at him by INS agents have caused him to fear not only for his own
personal safety but the safety of his wife and their children.
COUNT
I
(Conspiracy
Declared Unlawful Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2))
58. Plaintiff
hereby realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 57 hereof.
59. The
intimidating and threatening acts described above against Ramirez were
undertaken by Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera,
Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X in furtherance and
continuation of the agreement between themselves and Defendants Reno, Meissner
and Holder to engage in an unlawful scheme intended to deter, by threats and
intimidation, Ramirez and other agents similarly situated from testifying in litigation
currently pending before this Court, as well as to retaliate against Ramirez
for the deposition testimony of his counsel.
60. Such
conspiratorial acts and conduct violate 18 U.S.C. § 1512, as well as 18 U.S.C.
§ 371.
61. As
a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy between Reno, Meissner and
Holder, and the other Defendants, as well as the acts done in furtherance of
the objective of the conspiracy by those under their authority, i.e., Cavallo,
Spearman, Goldman, Bulger and Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood,
Ramirez suffered damage to his person and property, including but not limited
to damage to his employment, loss of income, loss of reputation, emotional
distress and mental anguish.
WHEREFORE, Ramirez demands that judgment be
entered against Reno, Meissner and Holder, as well as the other Defendants,
jointly and severally, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount in excess
of $25,000,000, punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and such further and necessary relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
COUNT
II
(Injunctive
Relief Restraining Continuing Violation of First Amendment Rights)
62. Ramirez
hereby realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 61 hereof.
63. Ramirez
enjoys the right of freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. This right
includes the right to engage in privileged and confidential communications with
his counsel, as well as to testify in proceedings before the district courts of
the United States, without fear of retaliation or intimidation.
64. Under
the color of federal authority, Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis,
Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials I-X, acting
individually and in concert with the other Defendants, have and are continuing,
to intentionally, wilfully and maliciously, violate Ramirez’s right to freedom
of speech by retaliating against him in his employment, threatening him with
the loss of his employment due to his having communicated with his counsel, and
by tacitly threatening further damage to his employment and/or his person
should he testify in proceedings currently pending before this Court.
65. Ramirez
has suffered and shall continue to suffer irreparable harm and injury as a
result of such acts, for which he has no adequate remedy at law or otherwise.
WHEREFORE, Ramirez requests preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining Defendants Cavallo,
Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and
Unknown Officials I-X, as well as the other Defendants, from the retaliatory
and threatening acts and conduct described above, an award of the costs and
attorney’s fees as allowed by law, as
well as such further and necessary relief as the Court may deem just and
equitable.
COUNT
III
(Injunctive
Relief Restraining Continuing Violation of Fifth Amendment Rights)
66. Ramirez
hereby realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 65 hereof.
67. Ramirez
enjoys the right to be secure in his person, a right to liberty secured by the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
68. Under
the color of federal authority, Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and
Unknown Officials I-X, as well as the other Defendants, have and continue to
deprive Ramirez of his right to liberty by making and/or encouraging threats to
Ramirez’s person and by refusing to take any action to protect Ramirez from the
threats to his personal safety described above.
69. Such
conduct by Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup,
Domingo, Wood, and Unknown Officials
I-X, as well as the other Defendants, has been undertaken wilfully,
intentionally, maliciously and is of such a nature as to shock the conscience
and offend basic notions or fairness.
70. As
a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct described above, Ramirez
has been and continues to be deprived of rights secured him by the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
71. Ramirez
has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm and injury as a result of
such acts, for which he has no adequate remedy at law or otherwise.
72. Such
irreparable harm and injury shall continue unless and until Cavallo, Spearman,
Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, and Unknown
Officials I-X, the other Defendants, and those acting in aid of or concert with
them are ordered by this Court to take those steps necessary to remove the
continuing threat to the person of Ramirez and his family posited by employees
and officials of the INS, as well as themselves refraining from such conduct.
WHEREFORE, Ramirez requests preliminary and
permanent mandatory injunctive relief commanding Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman,
Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood, Unknown Officials I-X,
and the other Defendants, to take such steps as are necessary to protect
Ramirez from the threats directed at him, as well as preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief restraining and enjoining these defendants, or any one acting
in aid or concert with them, from engaging in such threatening activity, an
award of the costs and attorney’s fees as
allowed by law, and such further and necessary relief as the Court may deem
just and equitable.
Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial
on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
__________________________
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0246220
Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.
(Not a Member of the Florida Bar)
Suite 725
501 School Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
Tel.:
(202) 646-5172
Fax.: (202) 646-5199
__________________________
Donald Appignani, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Florida Bar No. 0115071
10489 N.W. 10th Court
Coral Springs, FL 33071
Tel: (954) 752-8478
Fax: (954) 755-1420
Attorneys for Plaintiff