This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
by Brian Puckett Table of Contents Before reading this article, I recommend reading "A Plan To Restore the
Second Amendment", which may be found at either of these two web pages: https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=132
http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/a_plan_to_restore_the_second_ame.htm
Although some parts of that article are repeated below, it may help to
clarify certain aspects of the purpose of filing suit in the matter of
violations of one's right to own, carry, and use firearms. There are two primary pieces I would give regarding filing such lawsuits. The first is that you use an attorney to file the actual suit. This will help
eliminate procedural or format errors that could result in having to re-file the
case. Some judges may overlook minor errors as irrelevant to the right of a
citizen to seek redress of grievances, but others may nit-pick, so it's best to
have everything in order at the outset. You can either hire an attorney to do the paperwork, or you can locate an
attorney who believes in the cause and will do it pro bono, or free of charge
"for the good" of society. It would be best if the lawyer were
experienced in state and/or federal level litigation, but it is not necessary. A
good attorney will learn as he goes along, just as the experienced attorneys did
before they got their experience. If you can't find an attorney, file the suit yourself. You will learn things
about law and about yourself, which is never a bad thing. In this country, you
do not have to use an attorney to file suit, and you certainly have the right to
ask the court for guidance, or for examples of lawsuits in order to get the
correct format and procedure for filing. The help you get will vary, but if you
keep at it, you'll get the answers you need. Look at the lawsuit as a
step-by-step process, not a one-shot event, and it will take a tremendous burden
off your shoulders. The important thing -- as in most matters in life -- is to
take the first step. The second piece of advice is, if possible, to file suit in a court with a
"friendly" judge or judges. That is, a judge who is likely to believe
in your cause, like a judge with "old-fashioned" values, or who is a
hunter or shooter. This is not always possible to do, depending on the situation
and the type of lawsuit you file, but it's worth a try to ask any attorney
friends, or friends of friends, for advice. If the above items are not possible, file the case anyway. First, no one can
predict how a particular case will develop. Second, the alternative is to do
nothing, which will get you nothing. The worst that can happen is that you will
end up before an unfriendly judge who will rule against you no matter how good a
case you place before him, in which case you appeal. Your appeal may end up
before a favorable appellate judge. In any event, lower court decisions mean
little these days in terms of setting a legal precedent. It is in the appeals
courts that the stakes are raised, and we are shooting for Supreme Court review,
which in our situation is the only one that really matters any more--win or
lose. If your case moves up the ladder, you'll find there are plenty of people
willing to invest time, money, and experience to help you. Those who wish to file suit may consider utilizing the text of the Emerson
case in Texas as a model for your claims. To view this case go to http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/
and click on "Notable Cases". It is easy to read and understand even
for a layman. For quicker access, use the following links: Three claims were made by the Second
Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Shooters
Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) in a 1999 lawsuit against mayors of
cities that were, or are, suing gun manufacturers. Aspects of these claims apply
to individuals and other sorts of gun rights cases, depending upon the
particular plaintiff's situation. Therefore, they are listed below. Count 1: Violation of lawful interstate commerce. The mayors' legal
challenges have already forced several gun makers to declare bankruptcy,
severely downsize their product lines, and/ or raise firearm prices, thus
hurting consumers-including taxpayer-funded federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies all across the country. Count 2: Violation of First Amendment rights. The mayors' lawsuits have
prevented the gun manufacturers from educating consumers about their products
out of fear of seeing ads in the courtrooms, not to mention that many of the
mayors' lawsuits are trying to eliminate or severely curtail the ability of
running ads on firearm products in general. Count 3: Violation of the Second and Ninth Amendment rights. The Second
Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms, according to the recent
United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 599 (N.D. Tex. 1999). The mayors' attempt
to abridge the right to keep and bear arms by putting gun makers out of business
causes a violation of the individual's means to self-defense which is recognized
in every courtroom and falls under the Ninth Amendment rights, which states
"The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. "A
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Virtually all citizens have standing regarding violation of their rights due
to the passage of the "Crime Bill of 1994" [ Title XI, Public Law
103-322, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (94F-022P) ].
This law violates the right to own militia firearms and magazines implicitly
referred to in Second Amendment (i.e., militia weapons are required by members
of the militia). ( Find above law at: US Constitution, Article of Amendment No. 2 ) Constitutional /
Civil Rights Violations US Code, Title 18, Ch. 13, Sec. 241. If two or
more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in
any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If
two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of
another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death. (Every state has a similar law under which this claim may be made.) Find the above law at: (1) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html
US Code Title 18, Ch. 13, Sec. 242.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or
by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of
citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year,
or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of
this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use
of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death. Find the above law at: (1) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html
US Code Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1983. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a
statute of the District of Columbia." Find the above law at: (1) http://www.savemilesquare.org/document/u42_1983.htm
Related Sup. Ct. decision: Hafer v. Melo, No. 90-681 (1991). US Code Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1985. (2) Obstructing
justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any
State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any
party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or
from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or
to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his
having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or
indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such
juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or
indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such
juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding,
hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice
in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal
protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing,
or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the
equal protection of the laws; (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any
State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises
of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any
person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or
hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or
securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of
the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation,
or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support
or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any
lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a
Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or
property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set
forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be
done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another
is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any
right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or
deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such
injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. (This law is potentially applicable if any persons connected with court of
law attempt to impede filing or pursuit of lawsuit.) Find the above law at: Related Sup. Ct. decisions: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388 (1971) and Carlson v. Green, 446 US 14 (1980). US Code Title 42, Ch 21, Subch. I, Sec.1986.
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done,
and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and
having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same,
neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable
to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by
such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have
prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any
number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as
defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such
wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have
such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for
the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no
widow then for the benefit of the next of in of the deceased. But no action
under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced
within one year after the cause of action has accrued. Find the above law at: US Code Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Sec. 1988. [Recovering compensation for attorney fees and
expert fees.] Find this law at: http://www.lrp.com/ed/freelib/free_stats/u42_1988.htm
Questions for
developing lawsuits regarding military rifle bans and buybacks (1) What part of the state constitution authorizes the state to declare
specific configurations of legal-caliber, standard-technology firearms illegal
to own? (2) What part of the state constitution authorizes the state to confiscate
any firearms? (3) What part of the state constitution authorizes the state to appropriate
state funds to pay for seized firearms? (4) Does the state's proposed confiscation of SKS Sporters, which prior to
the "assault weapon" registration deadline it previously declared
legal to own, and which after the registration deadline passed (rendering the
rifle unregisterable and therefore un-ownable), it declared illegal to own,
violate estoppel law? (6) Does the state confiscation of the SKS Sporter, which uses legal-caliber
ammunition and firearm technology common to hundreds of other firearms, violate
the rights of SKS Sporter owners vis-à-vis equal protection under the law? Model Lawsuit -- Traudt
Lawsuit BELOW: A recent lawsuit filed to end city gun buyback program, but which
includes many charges applicable to other anti-gun laws (includes RICO charge,
charges against a Congressman, BATF, and NBC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AGENTS JOHN DOES 1-4 OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND
FIREARMS, NATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION AND ITS AFFILIATE, WJAR-TV CHANNEL
10, EMPLOYEES JERRY AND JENNIFER DOES 1-4 OF WJAR-TV CHANNEL 10, REPRESENTATIVE
PATRICK KENNEDY, AND JAMES AND JOANNE DOES 1-4, Defendants, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Scott Traudt ("Traudt") brings this action for temporary
injunctive relief, permanent injunctive relief, nominal damages, compensatory
damages, and the costs of suit pursuant to 18 USCS 3, 18 USCS Section 4, 18 USCS
921 ("The Gun Control Act of 1968" and "The National Firearms Act
of 1934"), 18 USCS 922 ("The Brady Act of 1994"), 18 USCS 1961
("The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act"), 42 USCS 1983
("The Civil Rights Act of 1871"), 47 USCS 303 and 309
("Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs") and, via the assertion
of pendent Rhode Island State Law claims pursuant to Title 11-47 of the Rhode
Island General Laws. Common Law claims are also asserted. The Parties 1. Plaintiff Traudt is a citizen of the United States of America who did not
come by his citizenship pursuant to the 16th Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Traudt is a citizen of the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations ("Rhode Island"). Traudt is a resident of the City of
Warwick, Rhode Island. 2. Defendant Town of North Providence, 2000 Smith St., North Providence, RI
02911, is a municipality sued pursuant to Title 45 of the Rhode Island General
Laws. 3. Defendant John Does 1-4 of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
380 Westminister Mall, Providence, RI 02903, are sued in their official
capacities as being those agents of the United States Government who had a duty
to act to prevent the violations of federal law to be summarized in the
following, who omitted to act, and who are those individuals Traudt is under
obligation of the federal duty elucidated in 18 USCS Sections 3 and 4 to make
judicial notice of in the misprision of a felony(s). 4. Defendants Jerry and Jennifer Does 1-4 are as yet unknown employees of the
federally regulated (pursuant to the Federal Communications Commission) and
federally licensed television station WJAR-TV 10 operating out of transmission
sites in Cranston and Providence, Rhode Island, and who are conducting
interstate commerce across state lines via the "internet," (commonly
called "the web"), and who are conducting such business activities
through an as yet unknown internet service provider ("ISP"). WJAR-TV
is an affiliate of a New York Station, defendant National Broadcasting
Corporation ("NBC"), 30 Rockefeller Center, NY, NY 10112. 5. Representative Patrick Kennedy ("Kennedy"), 286 Main St.,
Providence, RI 02860, is a United States Congressman representing the 1st
Congressional District of Rhode Island. Kennedy is sued here in his official
capacity. 6. Defendants James and Joanne Does 1-4 are staffers of Kennedy and are sued
in their official capacities as federal employees. 7. Defendant NBC is a New York corporation. Jurisdiction 8. The violations of federal and state laws alleged by Traudt took place in
Rhode Island, and will take place in Rhode Island, on or about July 31st and at
dates as yet uncertain prior to July 31st. The acts and omissions to act by
defendants require immediate local federal remedy. NBC is a New York corporation
sued because of violations of federal and state law and also because of its
status as an out-of-state legal entity. Venue 9. There is only one United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island. There are no alternatives for Traudt, who is compelled pursuant to 18
USCS 3 and 4 to make judicial notice of the misprision of a felony occurring in
his presence or to which he has knowledge before the fact, and that he has
knowledge after the fact. Facts 10. On or about July 31st, 1999, defendants are seeking to hold an event
entitled a "gun buyback." At this event, which is being run under the
authority and management of uniformed, armed police officers of the Town of
North Providence, firearms subject to regulation under various federal and state
laws are to be surrendered by individuals in return for the payment of $25 in
cash or gift certificates. 11. Federal firearms regulations are listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFRs) in title 27. 12. The Town of North Providence does not hold a Federal Firearms license
pursuant to 27 CFR 178.21. 13. The Town of North Providence will not be doing background checks and
criminal records checks on individuals as mandated by federal law, nor will they
be doing the required NICS computer felony check as required by "The Brady
Act." 14. The Town of North Providence will not be filling out, nor keeping records
form 4473 "yellow sheets" as required under federal law 27 CFR
178.124. 15. The Town of North Providence will engage in the transport of stolen
weapons in violation of 27 USCS 33. 16. The Town of North Providence will, by and through its armed, uniformed
police officers, commit de facto larceny of a firearm in violation of 27 CFR
178.33(a) by failing to return stolen weapons to their rightful owners. 17. The Town of North Providence will take possession and maintain ownership
and control of automatic weapons in violation of "The National Firearms Act
of 1934."("NFA"). 18. The Town of North Providence will fail to make a $200 payment to the
government of the United States of America for each weapon so regulated under
the NFA and surrendered for monetary compensation to the Town of North
Providence, in violation of 27 CFR 178.81. 19. The Town of North Providence will take possession of automatic weapons
made illegal by their manufacture after May 19, 1986 pursuant to 27 CFR 178.36. 20. The Town of North Providence is engaging in the conduct of a firearms
enterprise as defined by 27 CFR 178.41 and in violations of same CFR. 21. The Town of North Providence is knowingly and recklessly disregarding the
record keeping requirements of 27 CFR 178.121 and in particular the guidelines
of section 922(m) in that it is knowingly making non-entries regarding its
firearms purchases. 22. The Town of North Providence is knowingly failing to make positive
identification of all sellers of a firearm to itself pursuant to 27 CFR 179.63. 23. The Town of North Providence is knowingly failing to identify each and
every armed and uniformed member of its police department taking possession of
weapons regulated under the NFA, Brady, GCA 1968, the CFRs, and Rhode Island
Law. 24. The Town of North Providence is failing to complete a federal "Form
5" as defined by 27 CFR 179.90 in the purchase of firearms. 25. The Town of North Providence is violating the record keeping provisions
of 27 CFR 179.131. 26. The Town of North Providence is in complete violation of 27 CFR 178.124
in that it cannot dispose of a firearm without completing a federal form 4473
form for each such weapon. 27. Defendants Town of North Providence, defendants Kennedy, defendants Jerry
and Jennifer Does 1-4, defendants James and Joanne Does 1-4, defendants John
Does 1-4, and defendants NBC and WJAR constitute a criminal conspiracy as
defined by the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (18 USCS 1 et.
seq.) in that, by incorporating all of the Facts Numbers 9 through 26 et. al.,
they obstructed federal criminal investigations (Section 1510) and state and
local criminal investigations (Section 1511) by virtue of Facts 30, and 31-35,
which are here incorporated by reference. 28. Defendant Town of North Providence will destroy evidence of crimes for
which there is federal punishment. Defendants Jerry, John, Jennifer, and Joanne,
and Kennedy all have knowingly and willingly participated and facilitated the
aforesaid acts and will continue to do so on or about July 31st. 29. Pursuant to 18 USCS 4, Traudt is making judicial notice of these acts. 30. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, Jennifer,
and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly and willingly participated
in the larceny of weapons regulated under federal and state law (11-47-22) and
the destruction of personal property made illegal by 11-47-22. 31. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, Jennifer,
and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly encouraged individuals to
commit felonies in violation of RIGL 11-47-5 in that they have facilitated the
intrastate transport of firearms by convicted felons. 32. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, Jennifer,
and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly facilitated the larceny of
firearms by creating and facilitating a conspiracy to avoid federal and state
firearms laws regarding the larceny of firearms and the return of stolen
firearms to their rightful owners, who have a state and Common Law property
interest in such weapons. Such actions are violative of RIGL 11-47-5.1 and
11-47-22. 33. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, Jennifer,
and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly facilitated the intrastate
transport of firearms in violation of 11-47-10 and 11-47-11 in that transport of
firearms is illegal in Rhode Island to anywhere but one's business, a bona fide
gun range, or a licensed gun dealer subject to 27 CFR et. seq. 34. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, Jennifer,
and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly facilitated violations of
11-47-35 and 11-47-35.2 in that there is a 7 day waiting period for the transfer
of firearms in the state of Rhode Island. 35. Defendant Town of North Providence is in violation of RIGL 11-47-58 in
that it has violated the state pre-emption regarding the regulation of firearms.
North Providence has no statutory right to create and maintain firearms
regulations or enforcement actions in contravention of state law. 36. Defendants NBC and WJAR and defendants Jerry and Jennifer Does 1-4 have
knowingly violated federal and state laws regarding the creation and continuance
of a criminal enterprise as defined by RICO and in contravention of the Federal
Communications Commission laws regarding the conduct of federal broadcast
license holders. 37. Defendants NBC and WJAR and John and Jane Does 1-4 have used interstate
commerce via the internet to aid and assist a criminal conspiracy in violation
of the aforementioned federal and state laws. In summary, they have aided and
abetted the destruction of firearms, the larceny of firearms, the intrastate
transport of firearms, the violation of numerous federal and state gun control
laws, and the obstruction of criminal investigations pursuant to 18 USCS 1510
and 1511. Defendants NBC and WJAR has violated FCC rules. 39. Defendant Kennedy has knowingly, pursuant to 18 UCSC 1510 and 1511,
organized and maintained the aforementioned criminal conspiracy in concert with
the other named defendants. He has also violated 18 USCS 4 ("Misprision of
a felony") in that he had knowledge of the commission of a felony. 40. The Town of North Providence's agents and armed, uniformed police
officers have, and will continue to have, knowledge of the actual commission of
a felony in violation of 18 USCS 4. Being armed in the commission of a felony is
in itself a felony pursuant to 18 USCS 921. 41. Defendants NBC and WJAR has knowledge of the actual commission of a
felony in violation of 18 USCS 4. 42. Defendants John and Jane Does 1-4 have actual knowledge of the commission
of a felony in violation of 18 USCS 4. 43. Defendants BATF agents John Does 1-4 have, and continue to have,
knowledge of the commission of multiple felonies at prior buybacks in violation
of 18 USCS 4. 44. Defendants BATF agents John Does 1-4 have actual knowledge of the
commission of the felony theft of firearms by uniformed, armed police officers
at prior buybacks in the state of Rhode Island, in violation of 18 USCS 4. 45. Defendants BATF agents John Does 1-4 refuse to take enforcement action
against the other defendants under the terms of their employment by the
government of the United States of America and in violation of their oath of
office and in contravention of the GCA 1968, the Brady Law, the NFA, and the
RICO Act. 46. Plaintiff Traudt has suffered the violation of civil rights pursuant to
42 USCS 1983, in that his civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States of America, have been violated under color of federal law, state
law, and usage by BATF agents James and Joanne Does 1-4, and by the Town of
North Providence, and by defendant Kennedy. 47. Defendant NBC knew, or should have known, that the actions of its
employees in Rhode Island violated federal and state laws, and as such is
violative of 18 USCS 3 in that it had knowledge of past prior acts and the
commission of felonies by defendants Jane and John Does 1-4. 48. Defendant NBC holds a broadcast license from the Federal Communications
Commission under the rules stipulated in 47 USCS 303 and 309, and must use its
license in the furtherance of the "public interest" or risk suspension
of its license. NBC, through its affiliate WJAR-TV, is not acting in the
"public interest" when it knowingly participates in the destruction of
criminal evidence, the creation of an unregulated black market in firearms, the
hindrance of criminal investigations, the interstate transport in automatic
weapons, the larceny of firearms, the destruction of Rhode Islanders' personal
property, and the participation in organized criminal activities made illegal
under 18 USCS 1510 and 1511. 49. Defendant NBC had, based on in-house investigative resources, superior
knowledge that the Providence Police Department (here not named as a defendant)
had not properly disposed of firearms at the last WJAR/NBC buyback in
Providence, RI, and had super knowledge that corruption in the Providence Police
Department was widespread, yet still facilitated a gun buyback where firearms
were surrendered to these same armed, uniform personnel largely responsible for
their own crime wave in Providence, and the subject of numerous investigations. 50. It is a fact that weapons from the last buyback in Providence were sold
by Providence Police officers in Coventry, RI. 51. It is a fact that at prior buybacks municipalities in this state have
violated the same laws cited above Plea for Relief 52. Traudt hereby request temporary injunctive relief from this court in the
form of an order barring the July 31st gun buyback from taking place. 53. Traudt hereby requests permanent injunctive relief barring any further
gun buybacks from taking places in this state. 54. Traudt hereby requests reasonable attorney's fees in his pro se capacity. 55. Traudt seeks compensate damages from the defendants. 56. Traudt seeks the suspension of the FCC broadcast license of WJAR-TV for
its numerous and repeated participation in the aforementioned criminal acts. JURY TRIAL Plaintiff a jury trial for issues so triable. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief where deemed appropriate by the court. Pro se, |
||||||||
