UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM J. FEDERER,

4346 South View Way

St. Louis, MO 63129

Plaintiff,

v. Case No._______________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

RICHARD A. GEPHARDT

1212 Cameo Court

Herndon, VA 22070

and

JOYCE A. ABOUSSIE

3933 Courtyard Place Drive

St. Louis, MO 63172

and

JAMES J. LARREW

11840 Cambridge Glen Court

Bridgeton, MO 63044

and

JOHN DOES,

Defendants.

____________________________________

CIVIL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, William J. Federer, through counsel, hereby sues Defendants Richard A. Gephardt, Joyce A. Aboussie, James J. Larrew, and John Does and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for unlawful conspiracy to interfere with Mr. Federer’s civil rights, in violation of the laws of the United States, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), as well as the torts of assault, abuse of process, prima facie tort, trespass, and for civil conspiracy to commit those torts, in violation of the laws of the State of Missouri.

PARTIES

2. William J. Federer is a citizen of Missouri and the proprietor of a small publishing company, Amerisearch, Inc. Mr. Federer resides at 4346 SouthView Way, St. Louis, Missouri 63129. Mr. Federer was the Republican candidate in the November 7, 2000, election to the United States Congress for Missouri’s Third Congressional District.

3. Richard A. Gephardt is a resident of the State of Virginia and the incumbent United States Representative for Missouri’s Third Congressional District. Mr. Gephardt was the Democratic candidate in the November 7, 2000, election to the United States Congress for Missouri’s Third Congressional District and narrowly defeated Mr. Federer in that election. Mr. Gephardt maintains his primary residence at 1212 Cameo Court, Herndon, Virginia 22070, although he also owns property in St. Louis, Missouri, and is a citizen of the State of Missouri.

4. Joyce A. Aboussie is a citizen of the State of Missouri. Ms. Aboussie is Defendant Gephardt’s national political advisor and a paid member of Defendant Gephardt’s congressional staff, currently earning approximately $130,000 per year in that capacity. Ms. Aboussie also acted as Defendant Gephardt’s principal political advisor during Defendant Gephardt’s 2000 campaign for reelection to the congressional seat for Missouri’s Third Congressional District. Ms. Aboussie maintains her primary residence at 3933 Courtyard Place Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63127.

5. James J. Larrew is a citizen of the State of Missouri. Mr. Larrew was a paid member of Defendant Gephardt’s campaign staff during Defendant Gephardt’s 2000 campaign for reelection to the congressional seat for Missouri’s Third Congressional District. Mr. Larrew currently resides at 11840 Cambridge Glen Court, Bridgeton, Missouri 63044.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has “federal question” jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

as Mr. Federer has asserted claims arising under the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, this cause of action involves a federal question under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

7. Because Mr. Federer has asserted various claims arising under state law that form part of the same “case or controversy” as Mr. Federer’s claim arising under federal law, this Court also has “supplemental jurisdiction” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2), because Defendants Larrew and Aboussie reside in this judicial district, Defendant Gephardt maintains a residential address in this judicial district, and all events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in this judicial district.

9. Divisional venue is appropriate in the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to E.D.Mo. L.R. 3-2.07(B)(2), because Defendants Larrew and Aboussie reside within the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, Defendant Gephardt maintains a residential address within the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, and all events giving rise to this cause of action occurred within the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri.

FACTS

10. Between May 2000 and September 2000, while Mr. Federer was campaigning against Defendant Gephardt for a U.S. congressional seat in Missouri’s Third Congressional District, Mr. Federer’s campaign head-quarters, located at 9705 Watson Road, St. Louis, MO, were unlawfully broken into and entered on two separate occasions by Defendants John Does. Upon information and belief, Defendants John Does were acting at the direction of Defendants Gephardt and /or Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt, in an effort to threaten and intimidate Mr. Federer and his primary supporters and to thereby unlawfully interfere with Mr. Federer’s campaign for election to the U.S. Congress.

11. The first time Mr. Federer’s campaign headquarters were unlawfully broken into and entered was on May 23, 2000. The intruders had gone through documents and files and scattered them about the office.

12. The second time Mr. Federer’s campaign headquarters were unlawfully broken into and entered was on or about September 23, 2000. On this second occasion, the wooden ventilation slats on the bottom part of the front door had been kicked in, and again, documents and files were scattered about the office.

13. In addition, the phone lines to Mr. Federer’s campaign headquarters were unlawfully tampered with on or about May 30, 2000. The telephone box on the third floor hallway serving Mr. Federer’s campaign office was pried open and Mr. Federer’s campaign phone-lines were tampered with.

14. As a result of the aforementioned illegal breaking and entering into Mr. Federer’s campaign headquarters, upon information and belief, listening and/or recording devices were installed around the office and in Mr. Federer’s telephones and the functioning of the telephones in the office was impaired, infringing on Mr. Federer’s ability to campaign effectively.

15. On or about June 23, 2000, Mr. Federer’s personal residence at 4346 SouthView Way, St. Louis, MO, was also unlawfully broken into and entered by Defendants John Does, and numerous financial records were stolen.

16. On June 29 or June 30, 2000, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Mr. Federer’s family real estate office at 2101 South Brentwood Blvd, St. Louis, MO, was also unlawfully broken into and entered by Defendants John Does. The back door of the real estate office had been pried open, damaging the door frame, and Mr. Federer’s brother, Ted Federer, who was acting as Mr. Federer’s campaign manager at the time, had his office door broken open.

17. On May 21 or May 22, 2000, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Mr. Federer’s other brother, Tom Federer, Esq., had his law office, Federer, Federer & Deihl, LLP, unlawfully broken into and entered at 201 South Fifth Street, St. Charles, MO, by Defendants John Does. All files concerning Mr. Federer and Mr. Federer’s publishing company, Amerisearch, Inc., were taken from the law office. In addition, the computer system at Federer, Federer & Deihl had been tampered with, requiring costly expert technical repair.

18. Upon information and belief, the above described breaking and entering incidents were planned and ordered by Defendants Gephardt and /or Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt, in an effort to threaten and intimidate Mr. Federer and his primary supporters and to thereby unlawfully interfere with Mr. Federer’s campaign for election to the U.S. Congress.

19. On Saturday, October 7, 2000, Mr. Federer was lawfully campaigning for his election to the United States Congress for Missouri’s Third Congressional District by participating in the “South County Days Parade” in St. Louis, Missouri.

20. Defendant Gephardt hired Defendant James J. Larrew as a paid campaign staff member to work for Defendant Gephardt’s 2000 U.S. congressional campaign.

21. While Defendant Larrew was working for Defendant Gephardt as a paid campaign staff member, upon information and belief, Defendant Larrew was instructed by Defendant Gephardt’s campaign, pursuant to instructions from Defendants Gephardt and/or Joyce A. Aboussie, to follow Mr. Federer during the South County Days Parade, on October 7, 2000, with a video camera and to video record Mr. Federer’s movements during the parade.

22. The video camera used by Defendant Larrew on October 7, 2000, was the property of Defendant Gephardt’s campaign.

23. While Defendant Larrew was filming Mr. Federer at the South County Days Parade on October 7, 2000, upon information and belief, Defendant Larrew was instructed by Defendant Gephardt’s campaign, pursuant to instructions from Defendant Gephardt and/or Defendant Aboussie, to attempt to provoke a physical altercation with Mr. Federer.

24. Upon information and belief, the purpose and intent of Defendant Gephardt and/or Defendant Aboussie in giving instructions for the Gephardt congressional campaign to provoke a physical altercation with Mr. Federer was to use the incident to discredit and thereby undermine Mr. Federer’s candidacy for the United States Congress in the November 7, 2000, congressional election, by exploiting the staged incident in the news media.

25. According to Defendant Larrew’s aforementioned instructions, and pursuant to Defendants Gephardt and Aboussie’s aforementioned intention, Defendant Larrew did follow and video record Mr. Federer’s movements in the South County Days Parade on October 7, 2000.

26. While Defendant Larrew was following and video recording Mr. Federer at the South County Days Parade on October 7, 2000, Defendant Larrew intentionally placed himself within the immediate walking path of Mr. Federer on two separate occasions and intentionally lunged toward Mr. Federer with his video camera. In both instances, Mr. Federer was immediately apprehensive that Defendant Larrew’s camera would strike Mr. Federer on the face because it reasonably appeared to Mr. Federer that Defendant Larrew had, at each of those moments, the physical ability to strike Mr. Federer with his video camera.

27. The first time Defendant Larrew willfully and physically lunged toward Mr. Federer with his video camera, he invaded Mr. Federer’s personal space and integrity and came within inches of striking Mr. Federer on the face.

28. Farther along the parade route, the second time Defendant Larrew lunged with his camera lense toward Mr. Federer, Defendant Larrew nearly struck Mr. Federer on his right shoulder with the video camera.

29. When Defendant Larrew lunged toward Mr. Federer with his video camera on this second occasion, Mr. Federer was immediately apprehensive that Defendant Larrew’s camera would physically strike Mr. Federer because it reasonably appeared to Mr. Federer that Defendant Larrew had, at that moment, the physical ability to strike Mr. Federer with his video camera.

30. Mr. Federer departed and continued walking along the parade route, promoting his campaign.

31. As Mr. Federer was walking away, Defendant Larrew began shouting that Mr. Federer had attacked him.

32. Immediately following this second confrontation between Mr. Federer and Defendant Larrew, Defendant Larrew used a cellular phone in his possession to call the Gephardt St. Louis County campaign office.

33. Talking on the cellular phone in his possession, Defendant Larrew spoke to Defendant Aboussie, among others at the Gephardt campaign headquarters, in order to get advice on what course of action to take at that point.

34. Acting as an agent of Defendant Gephardt, Defendant Aboussie instructed Defendant Larrew to contact the police and allege that he had been assaulted by Mr. Federer.

35. Pursuant to Defendant Aboussie’s instruction, Defendant Larrew immediately thereafter hailed a nearby police officer and complained that he had been assaulted by Mr. Federer. 36. At Defendant Larrew’s insistence, the police escorted Defendant Larrew to a St. Louis County precinct police office to file a police report alleging that Mr. Federer had assaulted Defendant Larrew.

37. On October 7, 2000, Defendant Larrew filed a police report with the St. Louis police department, falsely alleging that Mr. Federer had assaulted Defendant Larrew on that same date.

38. After having filed the aforementioned police report, Defendant Larrew spoke with various members of the local news media, who were waiting for him in the parking lot of the police station.

39. Upon information and belief, the news media had been contacted about the incident by Defendant Aboussie.

40. Immediately after having filed the false police report, Defendant Larrew was escorted back to Defendant Gephardt’s St. Louis County campaign office by other members of Defendant Gephardt’s campaign staff, where Defendant Larrew was debriefed by Defendant Aboussie.

41. That same day, October 7, 2000, upon information and belief, Defendant Aboussie directly contacted the St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Reddington in order to ensure that a complaint against Mr. Federer would be filed.

42. Patricia Reddington is a Democratic appointed County Counselor with close political ties to Defendant Aboussie.

43. St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Reddington officially filed a charge against Mr. Federer for assault in violation of St. Louis County Ordinance § 716.065 on Monday, October 9, 2000, despite the fact that it was Columbus Day, a national holiday, and the St. Louis County Counselor’s office was closed.

44. Upon information and belief, St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Reddington charged Mr. Federer with assault, citing violation of St. Louis County Ordinance § 716.065, at the insistence of Defendant Aboussie.

45. Upon information and belief, once Defendant Aboussie confirmed that Patricia Reddington would file charges against Mr. Federer, Defendant Aboussie again contacted the local news media regarding the charges.

46. In response, the local news media interviewed St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Reddington and an attorney who, upon information and belief, was hired by the Gephardt campaign to represent Defendant Larrew.

47. As a result of the aforementioned media coverage and the false allegation that Mr. Federer assaulted Defendant Larrew, both occurring within one month of the November 7, 2000, congressional elections in Missouri, Mr. Federer’s congressional campaign was irreparably harmed, and his good reputation within the St. Louis, Missouri, community suffered tremendous damage.

COUNT I

(Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) –

All Defendants)

48. Mr. Federer realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 as if fully set forth herein.

49. Upon information and belief, each of the illegal incidents described in paragraphs 1 - 47, above, were planned and ordered within the State of Missouri by Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt.

50. Upon information and belief, the purpose and intent of Defendant Gephardt’s and Defendant Aboussie’s aforementioned tactics, planning and organizing the aforementioned illegal break-ins and the aforementioned incident involving Defendant Larrew, was to prevent Mr. Federer from effectively advocating his own election to the U.S. Congress for Missouri’s Third Congressional District, and/or to injure Mr. Federer’s person and property on account of such advocacy for support. In other words, these tactics were designed to intimidate Mr. Federer from continuing to effectively advocate support for his own election to the U.S. Congress and to cause injury to Mr. Federer in retaliation for such advocacy.

51. Upon information and belief, Defendants agreed and conspired among themselves and with others to disrupt, harass, intimidate, and otherwise harm Mr. Federer in the exercise of his civil rights and to prevent Mr. Federer from continuing to effectively exercise his civil rights.

52. Upon information and belief, Defendants also conspired among themselves and with others to influence and utilize state and local officials to actively disrupt, harass, intimidate, and otherwise harm Mr. Federer in the exercise of his civil rights and to prevent Mr. Federer from continuing to effectively exercise his civil rights.

53. Mr. Federer ran for election to the U.S. Congress for Missouri’s Third Congressional District as a pro-life (anti-abortion), politically conservative, Christian candidate, in stark contrast to Defendant Gephardt’s campaign platform as a pro-abortion, politically liberal, secular candidate.

54. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ aforementioned conspiracy to prevent Mr. Federer from effectively exercising his civil rights was predicated upon animus toward Defendant because of his social, political, and religious views, his political party membership and his support of a candidacy in opposition to Defendant Gephardt.

55. Mr. Federer is a citizen of the United States of America, and he is legally entitled to vote in Missouri state elections and in federal elections.

56. Mr. Federer is constitutionally qualified to be a U.S. congressional representative from Missouri’s Third Congressional District.

57. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mr. Federer is legally entitled to advocate support regarding his candidacy for the U.S. Congress. This is a civil right.

58. Mr. Federer was prevented from effectively advocating his election to the U.S. Congress for Missouri’s Third Congressional District in the year 2000 by force, intimidation, and threat, perpetrated by Defendants in this action.

59. As a result of exercising his civil rights, Mr. Federer was injured in his person and property by Defendants in this action, as described in detail, below.

60. As a result of Defendants’ conspiracy to prevent Mr. Federer from exercising his civil rights, Mr. Federer suffered substantial damages to his personal property when his residence, campaign headquarters, and family real estate office (Fedco Properties) were illegally broken into, costing loss of valuable time and money for repair and clean-up expenses. Also, Mr. Federer suffered financial loss to his business, Amerisearch, Inc., when Amerisearch files and records were stolen when his brother’s law office was burglarized.

61. As a result of Defendants’ conspiracy to prevent Mr. Federer from exercising his civil rights, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial financial damages, including the money he has spent over the past year to defend himself against Defendants’ false accusation that he assaulted Defendant Larrew.

62. As a result of Defendants’ conspiracy to prevent Mr. Federer from exercising his civil rights, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages to his good reputation in the St. Louis community because his character has been severely and unjustifiably maligned.

63. As a result of Defendants’ conspiracy to prevent Mr. Federer from exercising his civil rights, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages in the form of mental anguish and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Federer demands judgment against Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and Larrew, jointly and severably, for actual and compensatory damages, interest, exemplary and punitive damages, costs of litigation and attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II

(Assault – Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and Larrew)

64. Mr. Federer realleges paragraphs 1 through 63 as if fully set forth herein.

65. At no time did Mr. Federer consent to or in any way provoke any of the acts of Defendant Larrew, as set forth in detail above.

66. On the first occasion when Defendant Larrew placed himself within the immediate walking path of Mr. Federer, Defendant Larrew intentionally and willfully lunged toward Mr. Federer with his video camera, directing the lense of the video camera precisely toward Mr. Federer’s face, and in so doing nearly struck Mr. Federer on the face with the video camera.

67. As Mr. Federer’s personal space and integrity were so suddenly invaded by Defendant Larrew, Defendant Larrew’s action caused Mr. Federer immediate apprehension that Defendant Larrew’s video camera would, in fact, strike Mr. Federer on the face.

68. It reasonably appeared to Mr. Federer that Defendant Larrew had the present and immediate physical ability to strike Mr. Federer on the face with his video camera.

69. By his actions, Defendant Larrew did unlawfully attempt to injure or commit an offensive contact with Mr. Federer.

70. Defendant Larrew assaulted Mr. Federer.

71. In assaulting Mr. Federer, upon information and belief, Defendant Larrew was acting upon direct orders from Defendant Gephardt and/or Defendant Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Federer demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severably, for exemplary and punitive damages, costs of litigation and attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III

(Assault – Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and Larrew)

72. Mr. Federer realleges paragraphs 1 through 71 as if fully set forth herein.

73. At no time did Mr. Federer consent to or in any way provoke any of the acts of Defendant Larrew, as set forth in detail above.

74. On the second occasion when Defendant Larrew placed himself within the immediate walking path of Mr. Federer, as set forth above, Defendant Larrew again intentionally and willfully lunged toward Mr. Federer with his video camera and nearly struck Mr. Federer on his right shoulder with the video camera.

75. On the second occasion when Defendant Larrew lunged toward Mr. Federer with his video camera, immediately prior to nearly striking Mr. Federer’s right shoulder with the video camera, Mr. Federer was imminently apprehensive that Defendant Larrew’s camera would physically strike Mr. Federer because it reasonably appeared to Mr. Federer that Defendant Larrew had, at that moment, the physical ability to strike Mr. Federer with his video camera.

76. After Defendant Larrew nearly struck Mr. Federer on the right shoulder with his video camera, Defendant Larrew swung the video camera around and quickly moved the video camera toward Mr. Federer’s face, causing Mr. Federer imminent apprehension that he would again be struck by Defendant Larrew’s video camera, because it reasonably appeared to Mr. Federer that Defendant Larrew had, at that moment, the physical ability to again strike Mr. Federer with his video camera.

77. Reacting in self defense to Defendant Larrew’s aggression, Mr. Federer blocked Defendant Larrew’s video camera from striking Mr. Federer on the face.

78. By his actions, Defendant Larrew did unlawfully attempt to injure or commit an offensive contact with Mr. Federer.

79. Defendant Larrew again assaulted Mr. Federer.

80. In assaulting Mr. Federer, upon information and belief, Defendant Larrew was acting upon direct orders from Defendant Gephardt and/or Defendant Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Federer demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for exemplary and punitive damages, costs of litigation and attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IV

(Abuse of Process - Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and Larrew)

81. Mr. Federer realleges paragraphs 1 through 80 as if fully set forth herein.

82. With respect to the events of October 7, 2000, Defendant Larrew contacted the police, a police report was filed, and St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Reddington was contacted by Defendant Aboussie to file charges falsely alleging that Mr. Federer assaulted Defendant Larrew, at the behest of Defendant Gephardt, all in an effort to help sabotage Mr. Federer’s congressional campaign and help Defendant Gephardt win the congressional election against Mr. Federer. This was the intent and purpose of Defendants in planning, ordering, and taking these actions.

83. There was never any real evidentiary basis upon which to substantiate prosecution of Mr. Federer for assault in violation of St. Louis County Ordinance § 716.065, which, upon information and belief, is precisely the reason that the County Prosecutor’s office did not file charges against Mr. Federer for assault in violation of state criminal statutes.

84. The intent and purpose of Defendants in this action was to use the legal process to gain political advantage for Defendant Gephardt in the November 7, 2000, U.S. congressional election for Missouri’s Third Congressional District, by contriving a fabricated incident involving a violation of law by Mr. Federer, which could then be exploited in the local news media, regardless of veracity.

85. As a result of Defendants’ illegal use of the legal process, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial financial damages, including the money he has spent over the past year to defend himself against Defendants’ false accusation that he assaulted Defendant Larrew.

86. As a result of Defendants’ illegal use of the legal process, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages to his good reputation in the St. Louis community because his character has been severely and unjustifiably maligned.

87. As a result of Defendants’ illegal use of the legal process, Mr. Federer’s congressional campaign was unfairly and unjustifiably undermined.

88. As a result of Defendants’ illegal use of the legal process, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages in the form of mental anguish and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Federer demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severably, for actual and compensatory damages, interest, exemplary and punitive damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V

(Prima Facie Tort – Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and Larrew)

89. Mr. Federer realleges paragraphs 1 through 88 as if fully set forth herein.

90. Mr. Federer pleads this Prima Facie Tort claim against all Defendants in this action, strictly in the alternative to Counts I - IV, recited above.

91. By following Mr. Federer with a video camera and filming Mr. Federer’s movements in the South County Days Parade on October 7, 2000, Defendant Larrew was acting intentionally and lawfully.

92. In following Mr. Federer and recording Mr. Federer’s movements in the South County Days Parade on October 7, 2000, upon information and belief, Defendant Larrew was acting upon orders from Defendant Gephardt and/or Defendant Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt.

93. By ordering that Defendant Larrew follow Mr. Federer with a video camera and film Mr. Federer’s movements on October 7, 2000, Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie acted intentionally and lawfully.

94. By following Mr. Federer with a video camera and filming Mr. Federer’s movements on October 7, 2000, Defendant Larrew intended to injure Mr. Federer, in that Defendant Larrew intended to contrive an incident by which Mr. Federer’s character and reputation could be maligned in the media in order to help undermine Mr. Federer’s chances of success in the November 7, 2000, congressional election in Missouri.

95. By ordering Defendant Larrew to follow Mr. Federer with a video camera and film Mr. Federer’s movements on October 7, 2000, Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie intended to injure Mr. Federer, in that they intended to contrive an incident by which Mr. Federer’s character and reputation could be maligned in the media in order to help undermine Mr. Federer’s chances of success in the November 7, 2000, congressional election in Missouri.

96. As a result of the acts perpetrated by Defendant Larrew at the behest of Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie on October 7, 2000, as described above, upon information and belief, Mr. Federer’s chances of success in the November 7, 2000, congressional election in Missouri were significantly and irreparably diminished.

97. As a result of the acts perpetrated by Defendant Larrew at the behest of Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie on October 7, 2000, as described above, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial financial damages, including the money he has spent over the past year to defend himself against Defendants’ false accusation that he assaulted Defendant Larrew.

98. As a result of the acts perpetrated by Defendant Larrew at the behest of Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie on October 7, 2000, as described above, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages to his good reputation in the St. Louis community because his character has been severely and unjustifiably maligned.

99. As a result of the acts perpetrated by Defendant Larrew at the behest of Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie on October 7, 2000, as described above, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages in the form of mental anguish and emotional distress.

100. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for Defendant Larrew to have followed Mr. Federer with a video camera and recorded Mr. Federer’s movements on October 7, 2000, nor is there any justification for any of the other acts perpetrated by Defendant Larrew at the behest of Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt, as described in detail, above.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Federer demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual and compensatory damages, interest, exemplary and punitive damages, costs of litigation and attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VI

(Civil Conspiracy – Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and Larrew)

101. Mr. Federer realleges paragraphs 1 through 100 as if fully set forth herein.

102. Upon information and belief, each Defendant named in this cause of action, Richard A. Gephardt, Joyce A. Aboussie, and James J. Larrew, worked in consensus to achieve a single objective: to contrive an incident, or incidents, that would result in Mr. Federer being harmed, publicly humiliated, and discredited prior to the November 7, 2000, U.S. congressional election, so that Defendant Gephardt would gain political advantage and stand a better chance of retaining his U.S. congressional seat for Missouri’s Third Congressional District.

103. Upon information and belief, in order to achieve Defendants’ aforementioned shared objective, Defendant Larrew committed the unlawful acts of assault and abuse of process against Mr. Federer at the behest of Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt, and for the benefit of Defendant Gephardt’s 2000 congressional campaign.

104. In the alternative, upon information and belief, in order to achieve Defendants’ aforementioned shared objective, Defendant Larrew committed a prima facie tort against Mr. Federer at the behest of Defendants Gephardt and/or Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt, and for the benefit of Defendant Gephardt’s 2000 congressional campaign.

105. As a result of the unlawful acts perpetrated by Defendants in concert, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial financial damages, including the money he has spent over the past year to defend himself against Defendants’ false accusation that he assaulted Defendant Larrew.

106. As a result of the unlawful acts perpetrated by Defendants in concert, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages to his good reputation in the St. Louis community because his character has been severely and unjustifiably maligned.

107. As a result of the unlawful acts perpetrated by Defendants in concert, Mr. Federer’s congressional campaign was unfairly and unjustifiably undermined.

108. As a result of the unlawful acts perpetrated by Defendants in concert, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages in the form of mental anguish and emotional distress.

COUNTS VII-IX

(Trespass – Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and John Does)

109. Mr. Federer realleges paragraphs 1 through 108 as if fully set forth herein.

110. On each of the two occasions alleged supra, the entry into Mr. Federer’s campaign headquarters was unlawfully done without consent, forcefully entering through locked doors, entering and disturbing confidential campaign files without consent, and causing damage to the premises. Mr. Federer was lawfully in possession of the premises at the time.

111. The occasion when the telephone lines to Mr. Federer’s campaign office were tampered with was an unlawful invasion of property of which Mr. Federer was lawfully in possession at the time. The tampering interfered with Mr. Federer’s use and enjoyment of the telephones in his campaign office.

112. Upon information and belief, Defendants John Does were acting at the direction of Defendants Gephardt and /or Aboussie, acting in her capacity as an agent of Defendant Gephardt, in an effort to threaten and intimidate Mr. Federer and his primary supporters and to thereby unlawfully interfere with Mr. Federer’s campaign for election to the U.S. Congress.

113. As a result of the unlawful acts perpetrated by Defendants in concert, Mr. Federer has suffered substantial damages in the form of mental anguish and emotional distress.

114. As a result of the unlawful acts perpetrated by Defendants Gephardt, Aboussie, and John Does in concert, Mr. Federer’s congressional campaign was unfairly and unjustifiably undermined.

115. As a result of these unlawful acts perpetrated by Defendants Gepahardt, Aboussie, and John Does, Mr. Federer has suffered significant financial damages for clean up and repairs and numerous other damages, such as loss of time and opportunity.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Federer demands judgment against Defendants John Does, jointly and severally, for actual and compensatory damages, interest, exemplary and punitive damages, costs of litigation and attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Mr. Federer demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

George Luberda, Esq.

E. Dist. of Mo Federal Bar No. 3711

Luberda & Carp

225 South Meramec Avenue

Suite 320

Saint Louis, MO 63105Phone: (314) 721-2223

Of Counsel:

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

Larry E. Klayman, Esq.

501 School Street, SW, 5th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20024

Phone: (202) 646-5172

Attorneys for Plaintiff