| Cryptome DVDs. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of 47,000 files from June 1996 to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,100 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.

20 May 1999. Thanks to J. Slinkman.

SLINKMAN VS. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND ET AL

> 1. Case Introduction

> 2. Initial Complaint

> 3. First Amended Complaint

> 4. Second Amended Complaint

Joseph Slinkman

Slinkman vs. Prince George’s County, Maryland

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

99-CV-847, HON. JUDGE MOTZ

__________________________

Mail contact: slinky@erols.com

__________________________

In this civil suit the plaintiff, Joseph Slinkman, sues his wife and brother-in-law for accessing his electronic mail account. The brother-in-law, a senior police official for Prince George’s County, Maryland, is alleged to have accessed the plaintiff's electronic mail account in violation of Maryland state law and the privacy inferences of the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiff establishes jurisdiction with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 to 1985; sometimes referred to as the Klu Klux Klan law as it was passed after the Civil War to prevent private conspiracies to deny individuals their civil rights.

The plaintiff cites in an amended complaint:

The State of Maryland has enacted an all-party consent "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance" law Sec. 10-402.

". . . The State of Maryland makes it a crime to (1) "wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication"; (2) wilfully disclose . . . to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication"; or (3) "wilfully use . . . the content of any wire, oral or electronic communication."

If one violates this statute, she is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.. . ."

Coincidence: the Howard County, Maryland prosecutor used this same law to investigate Linda Tripp during the Monica-Gate debacle. Plaintiff Slinkman is also located in Howard County.

[Initial Complaint]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISTRICT OF MARYLAND [BALTIMORE]

JOSEPH SLINKMAN

Plaintiff

Vs.

PRINCE GEORGES’
COUNTY, MARYLAND

And

JOSEPH E. COX, LT.
PRINCE GEORGE’S
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

And

LOUISE COX SLINKMAN

Defendants

INITIAL COMPLAINT
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND DAMAGES

Joseph Slinkman, a PRO SE PLAINTIFF, now comes to seek this court’s consideration to remedy damages inflicted upon him by the Defendants. For his complaint against the defendants Lt. Joseph E. Cox of the Prince Georges County Police Department, his sister Louise Cox Slinkman and the Prince George’s County Police Department [Maryland] Joseph Slinkman states as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

This is an action for compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages and for injunctive relief to grant a temporary restraining order [herein TRO] against the Defendants and to seek all remedies that this court may grant to restore the PRO SE Plaintiff from the damages he has suffered by the actions of the Defendants.

Plaintiff has undergone extraordinary harassment, intimidation and threats by county officials and other defendants. Plaintiff has suffered extreme mental anguish in pursuit of redress for a lengthy pattern of deprivations of his Constitutional rights and liberties by the Defendants.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF. PRO SE PLAINTIFF Joseph Slinkman is a citizen of Columbia, Maryland within Howard County, Maryland.

This court should not hold this litigant’s pleadings to the same high standards of perfection of lawyers. If faced with a motion to dismiss, the court should give Plaintiff’s pleadings especially lenient treatment so that before the court dismisses the complaint of this In Propria Persona Plaintiff he can be given an opportunity to offer evidence or further particularize his claim. The Federal courts have related that In Propria Persona Civil Rights pleadings are to be liberally construed [Dominque v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673, 676 (6th Cir. 1987)].

DEFENDANTS. At all times pertinent to this complaint, the defendants, each of them, while acting in their capacities described and in doing the things hereafter set forth, were acting under color of alleged state and municipal laws, rules and practices. Further, all Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of a constitutional right [Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923-24, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980)].

Defendant Lt. Joseph Cox is a police officer that works with the Prince George’s County Police Department. Lt. Cox is an avowed enthusiastic of the martial arts, deadly combat tactics, undercover operations and police surveillance. Lt. Cox has used deadly force in the pursuant of his job responsibilities on numerous occasions. Lt. Cox is currently assigned to duties at the Bowie County Police Post at 14524 Elm Street, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 and home address of 15006 Northsire Place, Bowie, Maryland 20716.

Defendant Louise Cox Slinkman is the wife of the plaintiff and sister of Lt. Cox. The plaintiff married Louise Cox Slinkman on May 1, 1982 in Riverdale, Maryland. On October 25, 1997 Louise Cox Slinkman abandoned the family home at 7067 Old Columbia Road, Columbia, Maryland 21046 and took up residence at 3743 Edmond Way, Bowie, Maryland 20716.

Defendant Prince George’s County is a governmental unit organized under the State of Maryland and maintains government offices at County Administration Building, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050. Prince George’s County is sued in cause for its willful participation in the deprivation of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States wherein it is alleged that "under color of law" and selective application and/or omission of state and local laws, rules and regulations [ see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2255, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988)]. Defendant Prince George’s County was the direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury and causes for relief.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is hereby granted the Plaintiff by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. All events described herein took place in Howard County, Maryland.

FACTS

Defendant Lt. Cox is a manslayer who practices the martial arts and the use of deadly force. On November 16th, 1997 Lt. Cox was present at the death of his own brother in Prince Georges’ County. The Plaintiff has reason to belief that Defendant Cox’s brother died as a result of wounds and injuries inflicted by Defendant Lt. Cox.

That on several dozen occasions Defendant Lt. Cox visited the home of the plaintiff at 7067 Old Columbia Road in Howard County. During these visits the Defendant would often brag about his skills at using deadly combat and deadly force.

On or about October 25, 1997 Defendant Slinkman abandoned the home at 7067 Old Columbia Road with her brother, Lt. Cox present.

On November 17, 1997 Defendant Lt. Cox entered the home of the plaintiff and confronted the plaintiff with veiled threats of violence, ruining his credit, putting him under police surveilence, etc.

Several days later on the two Defendants returned to the home to retrieve material possessions from the premises. Items that were taken from the home include a microcomputer used by the plaintiff to operate his business. The microcomputer contained hundreds of computer files containing financial information, tax records, etc. related to the plaintiff’s business enterprises.

The plaintiff has request that both Defendant’s return the microcomputer equipment on dozens of occasions; however, the pair of Defendants has refused to do so.

On March 9, 1998 the plaintiff received complaints from his neighbors that Defendant L. Cox Slinkman has been seen in the neighborhood on March 7, 1998 and was questioning the neighbors about activities at the 7067 Old Columbia Road home.

Other neighbors have reported a man matching the physical description of the Defendant Cox in the neighborhood observing the home during this same period.

The plaintiff has received dozens of "hang-up" telephone calls in the early hours of the morning that have disrupted his sleep and rest.

ALLEGATIONS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S
CIVIL RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION

1. That Maryland state law has conferred upon the Plaintiff a property-right and liberty-interest in employment and pursuit of economic opportunities that was protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The Defendant’s violated the Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due process rights by violating Maryland state law by engaging in a conspiracy to restrict, restrain, hamper and destroy the plaintiff’s business operations.

3. That the Plaintiff had a property right and interest in maintaining employment and to pursue business interests in the local community of Howard County, Maryland. The Plaintiff’s freedom to purse employment opportunities was significantly reduced by the spread of false rumors and false charges throughout the community by Defendants Cox and Slinkman. The reckless action of the Defendants Cox and Slinkman have foreclosed the Plaintiff’s rights to pursue economic employment opportunities in Howard County, Maryland. Connelly v. Comptroller of Currency, 876 F2d 1209 (5th Cir. Tex. 1989).

4. That the Plaintiff was injured when his property rights to pursue economic opportunities and employment were damaged by the reckless defamation of the Plaintiff’s character via the conduct and conspiracy of Defendants Cox and Slinkman.

5. Both Defendants Cox and Slinkman knew the Plaintiff had a clearly established right to pursue employment and economic opportunities in an environment free from untrue and malicious stories that injured the Plaintiff’s reputation. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 LE2d 523 (1987).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
[BIVENS CLAIM]

6. The Plaintiff has been injured by the following actions of the Defendant Lt. J. Cox and L. Cox Slinkman: both of the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to ruin the reputation, business opportunities, standing in the community and pursuit of economic stability by the plaintiff. Defendant Lt. J. Cox has used his official police capacity to intimidate the plaintiff and illegal seize private property and conduct an illegal search of business and financial records – which are confidential to the Plaintiff. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388, 91 SCt 1999, 29 LE2d 619 (1971).

7. Plaintiff hereby alleges that Lt. J. Cox conspired with L. Cox Slinkman to create a scheme to get seize a joint retirement account that was martial property of the plaintiff and L. Cox Slinkman. That this retirement account is valued at $500,000.00 [US]. That both Defendants plotted the financial ruin of the plaintiff by creating a sour business environment for the plaintiff in the community and by seizing the plaintiff’s master financial computer system.

8. The plaintiff also alleges that Lt. J. Cox and his employer – Prince Georges County Police Department -- knew that the Plaintiff had a property-right in the master financial computer system and a right to privavcy and confidentiality. Nevertheless, Lt. J. Cox proceeded ahead in a reckless manner to seize the plaintiff’s business computer equipment in a unilateral manner without affording the plaintiff an opportunity for hearing, response or any other acceptable manner of due process, violating the plaintiff’s rights to due process and privacy.

9. Further, it is believed that Lt. J. Cox commenced an unauthorized investigation of the plaintiff using the illegally seized financial records from the microcomputer system. It is believed that Lt. J. Cox used the resources of the Prince Georges County Police Department to file false accusations against the plaintiff, conduct an illegal background investigation and report the plaintiff’s private and confidential information to unauthorized third parties.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Pursuant to Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) the Plaintiff seeks PUNITIVE DAMAGES against the individual Defendants Lt. Joseph Cox and L. Cox Slinkman in the amounts of $50,000.00 [US] per each individual.

Pursuant to Heritage Homes of Attleboro, Inc. v. Seekonk Waster District, 648 F.2d 761 (1st Cir., 1981) and Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 746 F.2d 1437, 1440 n. 2 (11th Cir.1984) the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $200,000.00 [US].

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

I. Immediate, Irreparable Harm to the Plaintiff

For nearly five years the Plaintiff has operated a business enterprises within his home at 7067 Old Columbia Road. The Plaintiff maintained city and state licenses in good standing during that period. The Plaintiff complied with city inspections and health requirements during that time. On November 17, 1997 the Plaintiff’s business enterprise was constructively shut-down by the actions of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff averaged gross receipts that averaged between $1,000.00 and $2,000.00 on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff estimates that gross income from operations was approximately $500.00 a day at the time of the forced seizure of the computer equipment by the Defendants. Since November 17, 1997 the Plaintiff has received reduced income from his enterprise and the long term effect of loss in clientele is permanently damaging his business reputation, long term business opportunities, long term business growth, long term financial security and long term ability to maintain business relationships in the community.

Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from the continuance of their arbitrary and capricious seizure and of his business computer equipment.

II. Plaintiff Has a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Here, the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights were clearly violated by the rapid seizure of his property without notice, opportunity for appeal, administrative hearing, or opportunity to correct the dubious taking. The forced entry into the home by the Defendants is clearly a reprehensible act that turn the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights on their ear.

III. Possible Harm to the Plaintiff, Far Outweighs Potential Harm to the Defendants

Every day the Defendants possess the plaintiff’s property the Plaintiff suffers an economic loss that is impossible to calculate with precision; however, estimated to be between $200.00 and $300.00 daily. The Plaintiff continues to suffer daily economic loss, while the Defendants suffer no economic harm whatsoever.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, J. Slinkman, prays:

> (a) that he be granted injunctions, temporary, preliminary and permanent, ordering the Defendants, and their attorneys, officers, employees, agents and all other persons acting on their behalf to (1) immediately restore the plaintiff’s microcomputer equipment and return the equipment at once, (2) to cease, desist and refrain from taking actions which would cause further harm to the Plaintiff via reckless rumors and false stories spread in the community, (3) to cease, desist and refrain from harassing contact with the Plaintiff or any employee, agent, officer or person acting on behalf of the Plaintiff at the property location.

> (b) that Plaintiff be granted his fees and costs herein and such ancillary and further relief at law or in equity, beneficial to the Plaintiff, as is deemed proper by the Court.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff understands that certain allegations contained in the foregoing complaint may not be heard by a jury. However, for those claims that may be heard by a jury the Plaintiff hereby demands a trail by a jury of his peers.

Plaintiff demands a trial by his peers.

Respectfully submitted:

J. Slinkman
7067 Old Columbia Road
Columbia, Maryland 21046

[First Amended Complaint]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
[BALTIMORE]

JOSEPH SLINKMAN

Plaintiff

Vs.

PRINCE GEORGES’
COUNTY, MARYLAND

And

JOSEPH E. COX, LT.
PRINCE GEORGE’S
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

And

LOUISE COX SLINKMAN

Defendants

AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND DAMAGES

Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and WARTH v. SELDIN, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)1 , Joseph Slinkman, a PRO SE PLAINTIFF, now comes AMEND the initial complaint and to further seek remedy from the damages inflicted upon him by the Defendants. For his complaint against the defendants Lt. Joseph E. Cox of the Prince Georges County Police Department, his sister Louise Cox Slinkman and the Prince George’s County Police Department [Maryland] Joseph Slinkman states as follows:

_________________

> 1 ". . .One further preliminary matter requires discussion. For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party. E. g., Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421-422 (1969). At the same time, it is within the trial court's power to allow or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits, further particularised allegations of fact deemed supportive of plaintiff's standing. If, after this opportunity, [422 U.S. 490, 502] the plaintiff's standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed.. ."

Plaintiff Slinkman seeks the court’s consideration to preserve the Plaintiff’s rights under the U.S. Constitution; namely the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and to seek protection under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 through 1988.

ALLEGATIONS

To clarify all allegations against the Defendants, allegations from the original complaint are restated by sub-title and given a COUNT heading and COUNT number. This is done for the purposes of clarity and efficient administration of the courts and justice.

COUNT ONE

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S
CIVIL RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION

This section is hereby cited from the original complaint and inserted as if entirely restated herein.

COUNT TWO

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
[BIVENS CLAIM]

This section is hereby cited from the original complaint and inserted as if entirely restated herein.

The following paragraphs are hereby added and amended to the original complaint.

COUNT THREE

PRIVATE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
TWO PARTIES TO INVADE PLAINTIFF’S
PRIVACY AND THEREBY BREAK
MARYLAND STATE LAW

The State of Maryland has enacted an all-party consent "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance" law Sec. 10-402.2

_________________

> 2
> - The State of Maryland makes it a crime to (l) "wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication"; (2) wilfully disclose . . . to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication"; or (3) "wilfully use . . . the content of any wire, oral or electronic communication."
> - If one violates this statute, she is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
> - There is also an exception for law enforcement officers or people acting at the prior direction and under supervision of such officers, to intercept communications in order to provide evidence for certain crimes: "murder, kidnaping, rape, a sexual offense in the first or second degree, child abuse, gambling, robbery, any felony punishable by Maryland's arson laws, bribery, extortion, controlled dangerous substance crimes, fraudulent insurance acts, offenses related to destructive devices, or any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of these offenses ...."

That Defendant Lt. Cox is a police officer that has been trained in investigative techniques and is a state official, as defined within 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 – 1985.

That on several dozen occasions Defendant Lt. Cox visited the home of the plaintiff at 7067 Old Columbia Road in Howard County.

That on or about October 25, 1997 Defendant Slinkman abandoned the home at 7067 Old Columbia Road with her brother, Lt. Cox present.

That several days later on the two Defendants returned to the Old Columbia Road home to retrieve material possessions from the premises. Items that were taken from the home include a microcomputer used by the plaintiff to operate his business. The microcomputer contained hundreds of computer files containing financial information, tax records, etc. related to the plaintiff’s business enterprises.

That the plaintiff has requested that both Defendant’s return the microcomputer equipment on dozens of occasions; however, the pair of Defendants has refused to do so.

That on April 12th, 1999 the legal counsel for Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman forwarded via first class mail to the Plaintiff transcripts of four electronic messages from the Plaintiff’s personal electronic messaging account.

That these message transcripts were obtained by the Defendants Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox by illegally accessing the Plaintiff’s secure electronic messaging mailbox and by rifling through hundreds of confidential and highly sensitive files and electronic messages stored on the master financial microcomputer.

That both Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox acted in concert and created a conspiracy to obtain these confidential and highly sensitive messages.

That this private conspiracy between Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox was designed to invade the Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

That the Plaintiff had a liberty-interest to certain privacy of his electronic messages and electronic files stored on the master financial business microcomputer, and that these interests are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

That private defendant Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman entered into a private conspiracy with state official Lt. J. Cox to invade the Plaintiff’s privacy. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-29 (1980).

That both Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox reached a "meeting of minds" to take actions in order to deprive the Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights. Manis v. Sterling, 862 F.2d 679, 681 (8th. Cir. 1988).

That 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) does not require that targets of conspiracy be members of a particular race group, and it is agreement vel non among alleged conspirators to interference with constitutional rights that define class for purposes of Sec. 1985(3). Hobson v. Wilson (1982, DC Dist Col) 556 F Supp 1157, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds 237 App DC 219, 737 F2d 1, cert. Den. 470 U.S. 1084, 85 L Ed 2d 142, 105 S. Ct. 1843.

That provisions of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) are not restricted to protecting victims of racial discrimination and reaches conspiracies founded upon discriminatory animus directed against classes by other characteristics than race. Scott v. Moore (1981, CA5 Tex) 640 F2d 708, 106 BNA LRRM 2870, 91 CCH LC para. 12677.

That both Defendants Mrs. J. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox did plan, scheme and execute a conspiracy to obtain confidential and highly sensitive electronic messages from the Plaintiff’s secure electronic messaging mailbox and thereby committed a felony in the State of Maryland.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, J. Slinkman, prays:

> (a) that he be granted injunctions, temporary, preliminary and permanent, ordering the Defendants, and their attorneys, officers, employees, agents and all other persons acting on their behalf to (1) immediately restore the plaintiff’s microcomputer equipment and return the equipment at once, (2) to cease, desist and refrain from taking actions which would cause further harm to the Plaintiff via reckless rumors and false stories spread in the community, (3) to cease, desist and refrain from harassing contact with the Plaintiff or any employee, agent, officer or person acting on behalf of the Plaintiff at the property location.

> (b) that Plaintiff be granted his fees and costs herein and such ancillary and further relief at law or in equity, beneficial to the Plaintiff, as is deemed proper by the Court.

Respectfully submitted:

J. Slinkman
7067 Old Columbia Road
Columbia, Maryland 21046

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby attest that on the 20th day of April, 1999 a copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed via First Class mail to the following parties:

Ms. Laura Gwinn, esq., Ass’t County Attorney, Room 5121, Office of Law, County Administration Building, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050; and,

Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman, 3743 Edmond Way, Bowie, Maryland 20716; and,

Lt. Joseph Cox, Bowie County Police Post, 14524 Elm Street, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772.

Certified by:

Joseph Slinkman

[Second Amended Complaint]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISTRICT OF MARYLAND [BALTIMORE]

JOSEPH SLINKMAN

Plaintiff

Vs.

PRINCE GEORGES’
COUNTY, MARYLAND

And

JOSEPH E. COX, LT.
PRINCE GEORGE’S
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

And

LOUISE COX SLINKMAN

Defendants

AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND DAMAGES

Joseph Slinkman, a PRO SE PLAINTIFF, now comes to seek this court’s consideration to remedy damages inflicted upon him by the Defendants. For his complaint against the defendants Lt. Joseph E. Cox of the Prince Georges County Police Department, his sister Louise Cox Slinkman and the Prince George’s County Police Department [Maryland] Joseph Slinkman states as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

This is an action for compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages and for injunctive relief to grant a temporary restraining order [herein TRO] against the Defendants and to seek all remedies that this court may grant to restore the PRO SE Plaintiff from the damages he has suffered by the actions of the Defendants.

Plaintiff has undergone extraordinary harassment, intimidation and threats by county officials and other defendants. Plaintiff has suffered extreme mental anguish in pursuit of redress for a lengthy pattern of deprivations of his Constitutional rights and liberties by the Defendants.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF. PRO SE PLAINTIFF Joseph Slinkman is a citizen of Columbia, Maryland within Howard County, Maryland.

This court should not hold this litigant’s pleadings to the same high standards of perfection of lawyers. If faced with a motion to dismiss, the court should give Plaintiff’s pleadings especially lenient treatment so that before the court dismisses the complaint of this In Propria Persona Plaintiff he can be given an opportunity to offer evidence or further particularize his claim. The Federal courts have related that In Propria Persona Civil Rights pleadings are to be liberally construed [Dominque v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673, 676 (6th Cir. 1987)].

DEFENDANTS. At all times pertinent to this complaint, the defendants, each of them, while acting in their capacities described and in doing the things hereafter set forth, were acting under color of alleged state and municipal laws, rules and practices. Further, all Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of a constitutional right [Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923-24, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980)].

Defendant Lt. Joseph Cox is a police officer that works with the Prince George’s County Police Department. Lt. Cox is an avowed enthusiastic of the martial arts, deadly combat tactics, undercover operations and police surveillance. Lt. Cox has used deadly force in the pursuant of his job responsibilities on numerous occasions. Lt. Cox is currently assigned to duties at the Bowie County Police Post at 14524 Elm Street, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 and home address of 15006 Northsire Place, Bowie, Maryland 20716.

Defendant Louise Cox Slinkman is the wife of the plaintiff and sister of Lt. Cox. The plaintiff married Louise Cox Slinkman on May 1, 1982 in Riverdale, Maryland. On October 25, 1997 Louise Cox Slinkman abandoned the family home at 7067 Old Columbia Road, Columbia, Maryland 21046 and took up residence at 3743 Edmond Way, Bowie, Maryland 20716.

Defendant Prince George’s County is a governmental unit organized under the State of Maryland and maintains government offices at County Administration Building, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050. Prince George’s County is sued in cause for its willful participation in the deprivation of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States wherein it is alleged that "under color of law" and selective application and/or omission of state and local laws, rules and regulations [ see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2255, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988)]. Defendant Prince George’s County was the direct or proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury and causes for relief.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is hereby granted the Plaintiff by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. All events described herein took place in Howard County, Maryland.

FACTS

Defendant Lt. Cox is a manslayer who practices the martial arts and the use of deadly force. On November 16th, 1997 Lt. Cox was present at the death of his own brother in Prince Georges’ County. The Plaintiff has reason to belief that Defendant Cox’s brother died as a result of wounds and injuries inflicted by Defendant Lt. Cox.

That on several dozen occasions Defendant Lt. Cox visited the home of the plaintiff at 7067 Old Columbia Road in Howard County. During these visits the Defendant would often brag about his skills at using deadly combat and deadly force.

On or about October 25, 1997 Defendant Slinkman abandoned the home at 7067 Old Columbia Road with her brother, Lt. Cox present.

On November 17, 1997 Defendant Lt. Cox entered the home of the plaintiff and confronted the plaintiff with veiled threats of violence, ruining his credit, putting him under police surveillance, etc.

Several days later on the two Defendants returned to the home to retrieve material possessions from the premises. Items that were taken from the home include a microcomputer used by the plaintiff to operate his business. The microcomputer contained hundreds of computer files containing financial information, tax records, etc. related to the plaintiff’s business enterprises.

The plaintiff has request that both Defendant’s return the microcomputer equipment on dozens of occasions; however, the pair of Defendants has refused to do so.

On March 9, 1998 the plaintiff received complaints from his neighbors that Defendant L. Cox Slinkman has been seen in the neighborhood on March 7, 1998 and was questioning the neighbors about activities at the 7067 Old Columbia Road home.

Other neighbors have reported a man matching the physical description of the Defendant Cox in the neighborhood observing the home during this same period.

The plaintiff has received dozens of "hang-up" telephone calls in the early hours of the morning that have disrupted his sleep and rest.

ALLEGATIONS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S
CIVIL RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION

1. That Maryland state law has conferred upon the Plaintiff a property-right and liberty-interest in employment and pursuit of economic opportunities that was protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The Defendant’s violated the Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due process rights by violating Maryland state law by engaging in a conspiracy to restrict, restrain, hamper and destroy the plaintiff’s business operations.

3. That the Plaintiff had a property right and interest in maintaining employment and to pursue business interests in the local community of Howard County, Maryland. The Plaintiff’s freedom to purse employment opportunities was significantly reduced by the spread of false rumors and false charges throughout the community by Defendants Cox and Slinkman. The reckless action of the Defendants Cox and Slinkman have foreclosed the Plaintiff’s rights to pursue economic employment opportunities in Howard County, Maryland. Connelly v. Comptroller of Currency, 876 F2d 1209 (5th Cir. Tex. 1989).

4. That the Plaintiff was injured when his property rights to pursue economic opportunities and employment were damaged by the reckless defamation of the Plaintiff’s character via the conduct and conspiracy of Defendants Cox and Slinkman.

5. Both Defendants Cox and Slinkman knew the Plaintiff had a clearly established right to pursue employment and economic opportunities in an environment free from untrue and malicious stories that injured the Plaintiff’s reputation. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 LE2d 523 (1987).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
[BIVENS CLAIM]

6. The Plaintiff has been injured by the following actions of the Defendant Lt. J. Cox and L. Cox Slinkman: both of the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to ruin the reputation, business opportunities, standing in the community and pursuit of economic stability by the plaintiff. Defendant Lt. J. Cox has used his official police capacity to intimidate the plaintiff and illegal seize private property and conduct an illegal search of business and financial records – which are confidential to the Plaintiff. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388, 91 SCt 1999, 29 LE2d 619 (1971).

7. Plaintiff hereby alleges that Lt. J. Cox conspired with L. Cox Slinkman to create a scheme to get seize a joint retirement account that was martial property of the plaintiff and L. Cox Slinkman. That this retirement account is valued at $500,000.00 [US]. That both Defendants plotted the financial ruin of the plaintiff by creating a sour business environment for the plaintiff in the community and by seizing the plaintiff’s master financial computer system.

8. The plaintiff also alleges that Lt. J. Cox and his employer – Prince Georges County Police Department -- knew that the Plaintiff had a property-right in the master financial computer system and a right to privacy and confidentiality. Nevertheless, Lt. J. Cox proceeded ahead in a reckless manner to seize the plaintiff’s business computer equipment in a unilateral manner without affording the plaintiff an opportunity for hearing, response or any other acceptable manner of due process, violating the plaintiff’s rights to due process and privacy.

9. Further, it is believed that Lt. J. Cox commenced an unauthorized investigation of the plaintiff using the illegally seized financial records from the microcomputer system. It is believed that Lt. J. Cox used the resources of the Prince Georges County Police Department to file false accusations against the plaintiff, conduct an illegal background investigation and report the plaintiff’s private and confidential information to unauthorized third parties.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

CONSPIRACY OF PRIVATE PERSONS
TO INTERFERE WITH RIGHTS SECURED
BY FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, NINTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS1

10. Shortly after the Defendant L. Cox Slinkman abandoned the home at 7067 Old Columbia Road, Howard County, the Plaintiff contacted the Internal Affairs Division of the Prince Georges’ County Police Department. The Plaintiff lodged a complaint against Lt. Joseph Cox for fear of potential retaliation against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff had subjective belief that Defendant L. Cox Slinkman would encourage Lt. J. Cox to physically harm the Plaintiff. Following the lodging of the Plaintiff’s complaint the brother and sister pair – L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox – invaded the Plaintiff’s home and removed a business financial computer [which was not marital property of the Plaintiff and Defendant L. Cox Slinkman].

11. After the Plaintiff lodged this official complaint with the Internal Affairs Division of the Prince Georges County Police Department, it is believed by the Plaintiff that both private parties – L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox – had a meeting of minds to engage in a private conspiracy to violate the Plaintiff’s civil rights. See Mullarkey v. Borglum (1970, S.D. NY) 323 F. Supp. 1218.

_________________

> 1 Amendment XIV

> Section 1. all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprice any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

12. It is alleged that Lt. J. Cox, clothed in authority of state law, conspired with his sister L. Cox Slinkman to steal the Plaintiff’s business microcomputer. Title 42, Section 1983 has been held to provide a civil action to protect persons against misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law. "Was clothed with authority of the state." Davis v. Johnson, 1955 DC Ill. 138 F. Supp., 572; Jobson v. Henne, 1966 Ca. 2 NY 355 F. 2d 129.

13. It is alleged that the U.S. Constitution provides a right to privacy to the Plaintiff. In Roe [v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)], the Supreme Court pointed out that the personal rights found in this guarantee of personal privacy must be limited to those which are "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" as described in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937).

14. It is alleged that either (1) L. Cox Slinkman and/or (2) Lt. J. Cox accessed the personal electronic mailbox of the Plaintiff to retrieve the Plaintiff electronic messages and then provided copies of these messages to an attorney representing L. Cox Slinkman in a civil domestic relations case.

15. It is instructive for this Court to note an excerpt from the Opinions Issued by The D.C. Bar's Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion No. 281: "Electronic mail" or "e-mail" is a message sent from one user's computer to another user's computer via a host computer on a network, or via a private or local area network (which we defined to mean a network wholly owned by one company or person which is available only to those persons employed by the owners or to whom the owner has granted legal access) or via an electronic mail service such as America Online (a public network), via the Internet, or by a combination of these methods.. . . This legal background has given rise to several opinions in which, for purposes of search and seizure law under the Fourth Amendment, persons transmitting electronic messages are held to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. See United States v. Keystone Sanitation Company, 903 F. Supp. 803 (M.D.Pa. 1995); United States v. Maxwell, 43 Fed. R. Serv. 24 (U.S.A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1995).

16. Plaintiff expected that his electronic mail or electronic messages would be safe and protected by his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. In a direct, overt, premeditated and reckless manner the Defendants – L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox – accessed the personal electronic mail box of the Plaintiff.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

PRIVATE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
TWO PARTIES TO INVADE PLAINTIFF’S
PRIVACY AND THEREBY BREAK
MARYLAND STATE LAW

17. The State of Maryland has enacted an all-party consent "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance" law Sec. 10-402.2

_________________

> 2
> - The State of Maryland makes it a crime to (l) "wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication"; (2) wilfully disclose . . . to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication"; or (3) "wilfully use . . . the content of any wire, oral or electronic communication."
> - If one violates this statute, she is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
> - There is also an exception for law enforcement officers or people acting at the prior direction and under supervision of such officers, to intercept communications in order to provide evidence for certain crimes: "murder, kidnaping, rape, a sexual offense in the first or second degree, child abuse, gambling, robbery, any felony punishable by Maryland's arson laws, bribery, extortion, controlled dangerous substance crimes, fraudulent insurance acts, offenses related to destructive devices, or any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of these offenses ...."

18. That Defendant Lt. Cox is a police officer that has been trained in investigative techniques and is a state official, as defined within 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 – 1985.

19. That on several dozen occasions Defendant Lt. Cox visited the home of the plaintiff at 7067 Old Columbia Road in Howard County.

20. That on or about October 25, 1997 Defendant Slinkman abandoned the home at 7067 Old Columbia Road with her brother, Lt. Cox present.

21. That several days later on the two Defendants returned to the Old Columbia Road home to retrieve material possessions from the premises. Items that were taken from the home include a microcomputer used by the plaintiff to operate his business. The microcomputer contained hundreds of computer files containing financial information, tax records, etc. related to the plaintiff’s business enterprises.

22. That the plaintiff has requested that both Defendant’s return the microcomputer equipment on dozens of occasions; however, the pair of Defendants has refused to do so.

23. That on April 12th, 1999 the legal counsel for Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman forwarded via first class mail to the Plaintiff transcripts of four electronic messages from the Plaintiff’s personal electronic messaging account.

24. That these message transcripts were obtained by the Defendants Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox by illegally accessing the Plaintiff’s secure electronic messaging mailbox and by rifling through hundreds of confidential and highly sensitive files and electronic messages stored on the master financial microcomputer.

25. That both Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox acted in concert and created a conspiracy to obtain these confidential and highly sensitive messages.

26. That this private conspiracy between Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox was designed to invade the Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

27. That the Plaintiff had a liberty-interest to certain privacy of his electronic messages and electronic files stored on the master financial business microcomputer, and that these interests are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

28. That private defendant Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman entered into a private conspiracy with state official Lt. J. Cox to invade the Plaintiff’s privacy. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-29 (1980).

29. That both Mrs. L. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox reached a "meeting of minds" to take actions in order to deprive the Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights. Manis v. Sterling, 862 F.2d 679, 681 (8th. Cir. 1988).

30. That 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) does not require that targets of conspiracy be members of a particular race group, and it is agreement vel non among alleged conspirators to interference with constitutional rights that define class for purposes of Sec. 1985(3). Hobson v. Wilson (1982, DC Dist Col) 556 F Supp 1157, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds 237 App DC 219, 737 F2d 1, cert. Den. 470 U.S. 1084, 85 L Ed 2d 142, 105 S. Ct. 1843.

31. That provisions of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) are not restricted to protecting victims of racial discrimination and reaches conspiracies founded upon discriminatory animus directed against classes by other characteristics than race. Scott v. Moore (1981, CA5 Tex) 640 F2d 708, 106 BNA LRRM 2870, 91 CCH LC para. 12677.

32. That both Defendants Mrs. J. Cox Slinkman and Lt. J. Cox did plan, scheme and execute a conspiracy to obtain confidential and highly sensitive electronic messages from the Plaintiff’s secure electronic messaging mailbox and thereby committed a felony in the State of Maryland.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Pursuant to Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) the Plaintiff seeks PUNITIVE DAMAGES against the individual Defendants Lt. Joseph Cox and L. Cox Slinkman in the amounts of $50,000.00 [US] per each individual.

Pursuant to Heritage Homes of Attleboro, Inc. v. Seekonk Waster District, 648 F.2d 761 (1st Cir., 1981) and Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 746 F.2d 1437, 1440 n. 2 (11th Cir.1984) the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $200,000.00 [US].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, J. Slinkman, prays:

> (a) that he be granted $200,000.00 in remedial damages and to remedy the Plaintiff’s injuries.

> (B) that Plaintiff be granted his fees and costs herein and such ancillary and further relief at law or in equity, beneficial to the Plaintiff, as is deemed proper by the Court.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff understands that certain allegations contained in the foregoing complaint may not be heard by a jury. However, for those claims that may be heard by a jury the Plaintiff hereby demands a trail by a jury of his peers.

Plaintiff demands a trial by his peers.

Respectfully submitted:

J. Slinkman
7067 Old Columbia Road
Columbia, Maryland 21046

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT a copy of the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT was mailed, postage prepaid, this 28th day of April, 1999 to Laura J. Gwinn, Associate County Attorney, 14741 Gov. Oden Bowie Drive, Room 5121, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 and G. Arthur Robbins, esq, McNamee, Hosea, Jernigan and Kim, PA, 6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 200, Greenbelt, MD 20770.

Joseph P. Slinkman

Conversion to HTML by JYA/Urban Deadline.