Michael Donovan's
Court Case

Introduction:

Mind contol used to stop knowledge of the real motive behind both WACO and flight 800. Because this came from childhood training at the very top of naval intelligence (Time Magazine-media), it is hard for the general public to understand.
A civil Rico (2:98cv762) has been filed in Norfolk, VA. The case follows.
The plaintiff can be contacted at michaeldonovan@ddaccess.com
His web site: The Geometry of Robert Pavlita

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Michael Donovan
1508 Maury Crescent
Norfolk, Virginia 23509
Phone (757) 623 7222
vs.
Civil No._________________
Michael Burke
116 Long Pond Road
Plymouth, MA 02360
District Attorney Phillip A. Rollins
Barnstable District Attorney's Office
Main Street and Box 455
Barnstable, MA 02630
Brian Faunce, Trustee
Main and Winter Realty Trust
448 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Assistant US Attorney John Griffin
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
1003 J.W. McCormack
PO & Court House
Boston, MA 02109
Attorney General Scott Harshburger
Office of the Mass Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

I, Michael Donovan, the plaintiff bring this action under the United States Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. These defendants are but the end tip of an organized pattern of racketeering going back 14 years from April 13th 1984 to present. This action alleges multiple extortion, multiple arson, multiple threats of murder, and multiple murders, multiple acts of misfeasance, multiple acts of conspiracy to commit misfeasance, multiple collections of unlawful debt, conspiracy to collect unlawful debt, multiple acts of nonfeasance, multiple acts of conspiracy to commit nonfeasance, all in pattern of criminal activity which has infiltrated the most legitimate of organizations: government itself. The pattern of racketeering was to suppress knowledge of, and own resulting rights to the work of a Czech, Robert Pavlita. The resulting amounts of money are large, an example being one European who has become a multi billionaire. It is the Department of Commerce Patent information, giving classifications to this plaintiff of 128, subclass(es) 734- surgery (Department of Commerce entry date May 10 1996) and a prior classification of Education and Demonstration which ipso facto demonstrate the enormous sums of money involved. The beneficiary of these acts at the onset ultimately would be the tightly organized corporations of ATT and allied Government Security. The specific end beneficiary at present being the newly formed Lucent Technologies. The above defendants were associated both with legitimate machinery and associated in fact. Participants in the racketeering expected financial reward. Though indirect beneficiaries, and most with no knowledge of the true financial motive, they had financial motive and as indirect beneficiaries, were associated (some legitimately and some loosely in fact).

This racketeering pattern started shortly after correspondence between Shelby T. Brewer, Department of Energy to the Honorable Senator Kennedy copied to the plaintiff, correspondence from the Honorable Senator Moynihan, Senate Intelligence Committee to both the Honorable Senator Kennedy and the plaintiff, and the Offices of Naval Research in Arlington to the plaintiff copied to the Honorable Senator Edward M. Kennedy. This resulted in further correspondence, from the plaintiff, as directed, to Commander Troutman, Underwater Systems Command, Groton Sub Base. In that correspondence security concerns resulting from knowledge from the plaintiff's family (then deceased Father) were included. This resulted in written accusations in many printed accusations both published and unpublished to Senators Kennedy and Moynihan and Coast Guard Command concerning the validity of an order. Pursuant to US Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4 (small I) (C) plaintiff will send copy of this summons and complaint to The present Secretary of the Navy. This plaintiff accused and still accuses former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman of treason. Pursuant to US Rules of Civil Procedure just stated, plaintiff will also send copy of summons and complaint to Special Agent in Charge, John Malone, Internal Investigations, BATF Office of Inspection, Arlington.
The aforesaid correspondence resulted in a copy of an order from head of Naval Investigative Services in Washington to Captain Ransom of Groton sub base, ordering the Commander to explain to both Senator Kennedy and the plaintiff the events in Groton on the night of April 13, 1984, copy of order sent to both Senator Kennedy and Plaintiff.
This order, (naval reference, 'in reply refer to 5800, ser 02-0490') directed from the head of Naval Investigative Service in Washington, to Capt. Ransom, was either countermanded or ignored. Emily Winterson, head of Senator Kennedy's Boston office stated, in reference to this order, that it was, in her words, "highly unusual for congressional mail not to be responded to in (a number inserted) days." This conversation was far after the 30, or 60, or 90, figure in Emily Winterson's statement. This statement was made in a phone conversation following the plaintiff's receipt of a letter with Senator Kennedy's franking seal that, was worded very strangely, that Emily Winterson was upset about because she claimed it was not sent by the Senator. (Someone was using the mails and the Senator's franking seal fraudulently in some joke that I never understood- "The Senator has interesting information for you."; odd wording for congressional mail.)
The security issues raised blinded this plaintiff for some time to the real underlying motive for the pattern of racketeering continued from that date in 1984. Though legitimate security issues were unarguably involved, as time went on, and as the patent classifications ipso facto prove, the initial subject, changes in geometry, particularly as they initially were used algorithmically, effected communications particularly as they relate to interstate commerce. And as time went on, and the pattern of racketeering continued, the possibility of security issues being the reason for the pattern diminished to nil.

The Plaintiff retained one of the defendants named above, Attorney Michael Burke, late in these series of events: 1995. The plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted in a manner that would indicate the use of a drug or psycotronic device the night of April 13, 1984 in Groton, Conn. This assault and battery occurred after a taped interrogation, by the navy on the sub base, during which the agents interrogating the plaintiff received a phone call that they were obviously confused over. The NIS agents then stopped the interrogation concerning the work of Robert Pavlita, and escorted the plaintiff off the base to a location where two civilian dressed men shortly thereafter assaulted the plaintiff. Thinking that he would not be believed, the plaintiff kept quiet. Subsequently, the New York Times published an account of TASS accusations concerning the treatment of Soviet Mathematician, Koslov. In the aforementioned taped naval interrogation the plaintiff referred to the Soviet Koserev. TASS alleged, greatly risking its credibility, that the mathematician Koslov was assaulted in the same incredulous manner as the plaintiff, first in Pasadena, then in Dullas Airport, Washington. The plaintiff reasoned both that the two similar names were confused, and that with a file his allegations might be believed. The plaintiff then took the file to the State Police on Martha's Vineyard. Returning one week later to find if progress had been made, this plaintiff alleges that his life was then threatened by a Mass State Trooper. Completely confused, the plaintiff did nothing for some months, but subsequently spoke with the Commander of the Mass State Police who advised him that for certain reason known only to the Commander, but not related to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff should speak only to a Charles Barry, Office of Public Safety. All attempts to communicate with Secretary Barry were intercepted, and massive amounts of written and phone attempts to lodge complaint were curtailed The Plaintiff was in no manner allowed to petition his complaint. Algorithmic implications that were never considered by the plaintiff, and far above the plaintiffs areas of expertise, were subsequently demonstrated to be of importance to the Soviets were with witness pointed to both in written form and in interview in the Offices of United States Representative Gerry Studds. The plaintiff then published a small newspaper, which failed to make money, the Sour Grape, and subsequent to that, for a period of five years, a very lucrative newspaper on Martha's Vineyard, The Vineyard Map In this general period the plaintiff's life was threatened again. Though the assaulting parties identified themselves as members of the Aguello Crime Family, there were others involved that wanted the plaintiff to know were some form of security, though the plaintiff could not identify which branch, Naval Intelligence, BATF, or other. Though the direct threat could not be proved, surrounding misfeasance on the part of local authorities following the complaint lodged by the plaintiffs employer, and with provable conspiratorial help on the part of the publisher of the Vineyard Gazette, Richard Reston, can be. The Mafia instructed the plaintiff not to speak on certain subjects. The plaintiff was at that time dating a lady with political connections, having run the Boston office of a United States Senator, Senator Tsongas. This lady advised the plaintiff, that the pointedly obvious presence of security meant that the message was that, "They are playing for keeps...", that no official recourse or complaint would help. The plaintiff complied with the Mafia's extortion.
In this general time period again, the plaintiff's path was crossed by a lady who had self-professed 'mob contacts'. Finding this lady attractive, and reasoning that there was nothing to hide, that some security was just using contacts to check on the plaintiff, the plaintiff had a long relationship with this lady. The lady's limited intelligence, and comments ("they know you are not a commie") and technical descriptions of how the plaintiff's house was wired, with information transferred to Naval Intelligence Office across the waters in Newport, RI, by a radio in a boat in the Vineyard Haven harbor, and other such information, far above the lady's head, tended to confirm the plaintiffs understanding of the situation. Again, the plaintiff had nothing to hide. This lady gave the plaintiff knowledge of information that the plaintiff thought could relate to a crime in Martha's Vineyard. The plaintiff, feeling it his duty, wrote that information down and mailed it to the Edgartown Police Chief. The plaintiff was then told by an Edgartown merchant, Mr. Richard Fligor, that just a short period subsequent to the mailing, officers of the Edgartown Police Department were walking around to the Edgartown merchants stating that there might be some 'terrorism' afoot. This made no sense, and for years was put out of the plaintiff's mind. In this general period also, the plaintiff was questioned at an Oak Bluff's hotel by a Michael Lawrence, Special Agent, Office of Naval Intelligence, Newport, Rhode Island. Special Agent Michael Lawrence adamantly refused to take from this plaintiff a xerox of a strange letter from Jacksonville Florida, mailed to the plaintiff, and reasoned by the plaintiff to relate to a case under investigation by the navy (John Walker's and his son, Michael Walker's connections to events in Jacksonville). The plaintiff assumed that this is what the Special Agent was there for. Continuing to refuse to take the letter, Special Agent Lawrence took two other tacks:

Agent Lawrence, reading from a printout, asked, again and again, though entwined through other questions, the same question again and again. Each time this question was worded differently: "Did you ever visit a Soviet Embassy?" Each time the plaintiff would answer, "Of course I have, you know all about it." To which Special Agent Michael Lawrence would add each time, "No, not that occasion, on any occasion before that?" Each time this plaintiff would state 'no'. Each time Special Agent Lawrence would mark it down. The prior and only visit (actually three visits on three consecutive days) referred to by this plaintiff, and acknowledged as known of by Special Agent Lawrence, was over a year prior to the interrogation, and was to the offices of Soviet Life, technically on Soviet Embassy property in Georgetown, Washington, DC. The visit was innocuous enough: the plaintiff went in the capacity of a journalist. The editor of Soviet Life, Mr. Shipko, suggested that the plaintiff could find employment with the Soviet Information Agency. Mr. Shipko wrote out and gave the plaintiff the name Oleg Benugh, head of the Soviet Information Agency, and suggested that the plaintiff contact Mr. Benugh at the Soviet Embassy in New York. The plaintiff envisioned himself as sort of a reverse Vladimir Posner, and reasoned that this would be very helpful all around as the iron curtain was coming down. Upon return, the plaintiff attempted to call the offices of Mr. Benugh in New York. ATT continually refused to let the call go through despite many arguments with supervisors. Here started five full years of telephone harassment upon the plaintiff. Five full years! At a point near the end of this harassment (1991) the plaintiff was impaneled on a grand jury for Dukes County, Mass. A small phone harassment case was brought before the panel. Directly afterwards the plaintiff had strong words with Barnstable Judge Joe Carpenter, then Assistant District Attorney Carpenter as to why the plaintiff's many complaints to the District Attorney's Office were never acted upon. Judge Carpenter then stated he would do something, He never did. During the three day visit to Washington DC, and the plaintiff's contacts with Soviet Life, attempts were made by a young lady to get the plaintiff in some sort of 'bisexual tryst'. The plaintiff had other things on his mind, and there seemed to be some logistics problems incurred by the young lady in setting this up, (here noted for an indirect connection with ATT).

Special Agent Lawrence, Naval Intelligence, also asked the plaintiff if ever in his life had he seen a psychiatrist. The plaintiff, wanting to be very open and cooperate in every way, stated that he in fact had, one visit over 16 years prior to this interrogation. In that one visit the plaintiff saw he had a drinking problem, and from that time in 1970 has been, except for a few small 'slips', sober in Alcoholics Anonymous. The plaintiff also then stated to Special Agent Lawrence that he had been in no trouble with authorities of any kind. Agent Lawrence suddenly stated, "Fine, then this is over.", again refusing to take the letter.

Subsequently the plaintiff learned from his boss that Special Agent Lawrence visited him, tried to get the plaintiffs boss to state that the plaintiff acted strangely. The plaintiff's boss refused to do so, and further, told the plaintiff that Special Agent Lawrence, instructed the plaintiff's boss to say nothing about Special Agent Lawrence's visit to the plaintiff's boss. The plaintiff's boss found Special Agent Lawrence "rude" and did not follow the instructions.
Many months after Special Agent Lawrence's visit to the Vineyard the plaintiff met, in the same manner and through the same source as the young lady in Washington DC, another young lady. The plaintiff fell in love with this second lady. This second lady, with help of others in the AA program, surrounding the plaintiff emotionally, stated that she would leave him if he did not make a visit to a psychiatrist to 'reassure' her. This young lady could never say who told her what to cause these 'concerns'. This young lady cited 'Anonymity of the AA program' as the reason she could not disclose the source. The plaintiff was a bit suspicious, wrote it off as 'paranoia' but after a continual onslaught of pressure, agreed. The plaintiff went for two visits to Dr. Gretchen Jacobs, in Vineyard Haven. The plaintiff, being honest, told the psychiatrist quite a strange story (things recounted here and more). Dr. Jacob's concluded that it was a strange story indeed but did not see any psycopathology on the part of the plaintiff involved. Thinking the young lady would be pleased the plaintiff returned the report to this second young lady. A second onslaught ensued on the part of the young lady with surrounding AA friends stated that the plaintiff saw "the wrong psychiatrist". (The plaintiff had insisted that he pick the first one, Dr. Jacobs). After about a month of pressure the plaintiff gave in and saw a second psychiatrist (Dr. Agasim) who commuted to the Vineyard from Boston, who had previously worked for an organization that the aforesaid Richard Reston was on the board of, and who subsequently seemed to have disappeared into thin air. This Dr. Agasim stated to the patient that there was nothing wrong with him, but that he thought he could improve his biochemistry, giving a very intricate story. A tad suspicious, but still wanting the second young lady, the plaintiff gave in. Once the drug was taken, exceedingly high doses of triliphon that were continually increased, the plaintiff was completely helpless, loosing lucrative business, a home half paid for, and everything he owned in short painful order. The plaintiff admits he acted naively and can only state, like Bernard Shaw's Captain of Calatravos, "I was a man in love, not a lawyer." The plaintiff then ended up as a bagger in a supermarket in the State of Maine, and could not even handle this, twitching all over, and sleeping on the job. The plaintiff ended up on social security, full disability, for reasons he can hardly remember, as he was 'walked through it'. The plaintiff then saw another psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Violette in Bangor, ME. Dr. Violette, after a few visits concluded that there was no psycopathology on the part of the plaintiff that would warrant the drug, that the drug was of unusually high dosage, and that the drug had given the plaintiff a permanent twitching disorder. The plaintiff, in horror, realized that there was no such use of the drug that Dr. Agaism described. Here the plaintiff began to realize that he had been set up. Upon this knowledge the plaintiff contacted a national organization called Wounded Eagle. These are military men, large group with 600 members, who had psychiatry used upon them inappropriately and illegally in the military. Many were simply whistleblowers. An active duty Air Force Col. and a retired Air Force Lt. did an 'intake' of the plaintiff at a Holiday Inn in Bangor, ME. They then turned the plaintiff's situation over to The Association of National Security Alumni in Silver Springs, MD. The Association of National Security Alumni, and in particular Julianne McKinney, formally in Army Intelligence, educated the plaintiff to his situation, frankly saving the plaintiffs life.

<! -- 4 --> It was with this history in the fall of 1992 that the plaintiff first met the first defendant, Michael Burke, at Michael Burke's Offices in Plymouth, MA where the plaintiff was renting a cheap room. The plaintiff related to a sympathetic Attorney, Michael Burke, a very brief description, and asked him how much he would charge just to hold a small file of records. An exceedingly small fee was settled upon, ($.45.00), and the plaintiff took Mr. Burke's card, and later gave him the file and a check for $45. Following this, still in the fall of 92, the plaintiff understood that his first order of business would be to remake to the State Police of Mass the original complaint of death threat by a State Trooper and called the State Police. The previous State Police Commander had retired. The plaintiff had little problem in speaking directly to the then present commander, Col. Charles Henderson. Col. Henderson was cognizant of the entire situation of the original complaint being head of Internal Investigations in 1985. Although they were never specifically expressed, Col. Henderson appeared to know of some reason why complaint could not be made in 1985 stating (in this phone conversation in the fall of 92) that , (in Col. Henderson's words), "...the politics (of the situation) had changed..." and that he felt that the situation could now be dealt with encouraging the plaintiff to write the situation up again and get it to him personally. The plaintiff is embarrassed to say he did not act upon Col. Henderson's suggestion at that time.
Instead the plaintiff rented another room in Onset, Buzzards Bay and attempted to get on his feet and start a tourist publication, such as he had on the Vineyard. The plaintiff admits that it was pure ego, embarrassment concerning his situation, that he wanted to get on his feet first. In the early winter of 1993, the plaintiff made such an attempt, and only in retrospect did he see himself and the attempt at employment interfered with. This successful interference was brought about by a person introduced to the plaintiff by a lady with admitted security connections (boyfriend- ex Turkish Secret Service then presently high in UN Security). This wrecked the plaintiffs first attempt at self support. The evidence, is scant to none, the operation was exceeding slick, and understood by the plaintiff only in retrospect. For that reason, fearing countersuit for slander, the plaintiff will not name names.
It was then in the spring of 93 that the full reason for the assaults began to dawn on the plaintiff. The plaintiff recognized in media, both print and televised a person who was variously a resident of Wareham and New Bedford, MA, when the plaintiff lived on Martha's Vineyard. They had met briefly at sea on the motor vessel Schamonchi that ran between New Bedford and Vineyard Haven. The plaintiff had only one meeting with the person shown on the media, a Mr. Vernon Howell, but the plaintiff at this meeting passed to Mr. Howell copies of the Sour Grape, published by the plaintiff in 1984, and had a discussion with Mr. Howell concerning the geometry. The Sour Grape contained the Department of Energy's letter to Senator and the plaintiff's response to Assistant Secretary for Nuclear energy and diagrams concerning the geometry. Other hand made diagrams were given to Mr. Howell as well. The plaintiff made, during that particular period very few trips off island. This was also following the period where ATT did not allow the plaintiff to contact Mr. Oleg Benugh by phone. The plaintiff did realize that he could simply travel to New York and walk into the Soviet Embassy.
It did cross the plaintiff's mind, but was rejected. The plaintiff noticed, upon docking in New Bedford, that there seemed to be plain clothes security, a good number, watching only him in New Bedford. It occurs to the plaintiff in retrospect that security thought also that the plaintiff might make, for reason stated, a visit to New York.
Mr. Howell was quite interested in the plaintiff's description of the new advances in geometry and in conversation with Mr. Howell, for some period, the trip usually taking one and one half hours, the plaintiff gave the description of the new geometry and with the Sour Grape, and with further hand devised diagrams conversed with Mr. Howell concerning the odd highly coincidental connections between the last chapter of the Bible and the new geometry, of a little interest to the plaintiff, but of excited and keen interest to Mr. Howell. But now, as the plaintiff recognized Mr. Howell in the media, and learned then that Mr. Howell was indeed a resident of New Bedford, and saw that Mr. Howell was using the name David Koresh and surrounded by BATF agents someplace outside of Waco, Texas.

<! -- 5 --> So that the charges of racketeering be more clearly understood, and that the events preceding the actions of the defendants be seen more clearly by motive, inserted is a short history of the plaintiff's relationship to the new geometry.
1968 (early winter): The plaintiff became interested in, while in college, aspects of the binomial theorem, both as they related to similar statements that could be made about the more common sine curve, and particularly how they both in the creation of the 'curves' themselves must always relate to some measurement of time, wrote a short paper,
Plastic Elastic Rulers and Ping Pong Clocks.
1974 Plaintiff read the work of Robert Pavlita. Mr. Pavlita, in Czechoslovakia, had the ability to demonstrate anomalies of physics with 100% validity in testing. These were done by sequencing various materials, both metallic and non metallic, each shape having a very specific geometric form. When the sequence was correct, Mr. Pavlita could produce a machine that would produce the effects normally associated with ESP. For example, Mr. Pavlita had one machine that had no moving parts except a balanced directional needle on top. Standard ESP testing cards would be placed around the machine. When a person in another room thought of a card, the needle would point to it. This would occur in 100% of tries, through walls, but only over short distances. Of more interest to the plaintiff was a 'pen shaped' device with no moving parts. It would create magnetism in non magnetic materials, and even worked under water, proving that it was no form of static electricity. Mr. Pavlita stated over and over that the secret was in the form, the exact shape. Around the same period the Cheops pyramid shape made out of cardboard was issued a patent in Czechoslovakia, it sharpened razor blades. The man who received the patent had no idea how it worked. Mr. Pavlita stated that he did know, but would not hand out the secret, which was, again, hidden in the form. Mr. Pavlita stated also that some "old maps" held the secret, meaning old diagrams. The plaintiff thought that he knew which diagram Mr. Pavlita was working on.
1974-1975: The plaintiff saw that he had the right diagram and proceeded to build three dimensional forms in a manner similar to Kepler, and was sure that he had initial key. The plaintiff then wrote IBM and had a written correspondence with IBM with a Dr. Maltonbrot (later to become famous for fractals) who was doing math intake for IBM at the time. The plaintiff did no work that could be considered in any way proprietary. Discoveries in pure math, laws of nature, cannot be owned. Nor did the plaintiff in any way consider developing anything proprietary at the time. The plaintiff's interest was simply science. The plaintiff divulged everything he knew at the time. Not much, but a good start into the problem. IBM wrote back stating that the plaintiff demonstrated nothing proprietary and ended with the suggestion that the plaintiff "call your (his) lawyers". The plaintiff was completely naive about the business aspects at the time, and ceased the communication.
1979: The plaintiff contacted the United States Navy, and received a reply from the then head of Naval Operations that they were not investigating into that field. This surprised the plaintiff as he wrote the navy after reading that Representative Charlie Rose of North Carolina on the House Intelligence Committee was in public stating that this is exactly the area that should be looked into.
1979-1980: The plaintiff continued to work with the models. This time the plaintiff thought he found a way of demonstrating a use for what he had. The plaintiff set up a demonstration with Hewlett Packard and a company called Law Engineering with headquarters in Stanford, Conn. Strangely, though both Hewlett Packard and Law Engineering after both showing keen interest, and confirming the day before the time and location of the demonstration, failed to show up. Only in retrospect, and only recently, did the plaintiff see that someone high in the phone company made themselves privy to all the material beforehand.
Fall 1983: on Martha's Vineyard, with an Attorney retired from the Arthur D Little Research Co, in Cambridge, Mass, the plaintiff again contacted the navy which resulted in the correspondence referred to in the first paragraph of Section 2 of this complaint. At that time also, there was no proprietary work done, nothing that could be claimed either under copyright or patent protection.

As news of Mr. Howell's situation in Texas gained greater media attention, and the plaintiff certain that he recognized Mr. Howell, the plaintiff wondered if it was possible that stopping the knowledge of the geometry had something to do with it. While the standoff was still in place in the spring of 1993, Mr. Howell gave a strange message to the negotiators that was used by the media to demonstrate that Mr. Howell was not of sound mind. Mr. Howell's message was that he was waiting for an "Astrological sign" before he would give up and come out of the compound. This message was very specifically an 'astrological sign' that he was waiting for, not an 'astronomical sign'. Mr. Howell would certainly know the difference, certainly knew that the statement did in fact make him look weird at a time when Mr. Howell was justifiably concerned about his image. Mr. Howell was attempting to signal the real reason for the assault, and reasoned correctly that an explanation to the public would make him look weirder, but the signal to anyone studying the work of Pavlita (very few) some might see what was happening. The basis of the new geometry is the interrelationship of equal sized balls, a sphere (and lines and points) becoming an impossibility in the geometry itself. Central is a 'core shape' of 12 balls arranged around one. One of the possible arrangements of 12 around one has been closely studied in fields such as 'sphere packing'. The other arrangement seems to be on an interface, and was not studied. This is the shape that now explains the 230-232 limit of crystal symmetries, one of the strongest limits in nature, and relates directly to the ultimate limit of 12 quarks (conditions of energy matter relationships), the last, twelfth, or T-top quark being the last demonstrated with calculus. Coincidentally, this arraignment also shows itself to be. hidden in three dimensions, the common 'zodiac' widely known in the public and associated with things superstitious and unscientific. In the plaintiff's notation it has been easier to use the common zodiac symbols than to make up either another symbol, or something like one through ten plus star, pound, or something else. This was the notation the plaintiff used to explain the basis of the geometry to Mr. Howell, showing also the curious coincidental connections to many passages to the last section of the Bible, again of far more interest to Mr. Howell than the plaintiff.

On one hand the plaintiff thought that curtailing knowledge of the geometry might be the underlying motive for the assault, hidden from the public, and much of government. On the other hand the plaintiff saw the situation as surreal, preposterous.
However, the plaintiff reasoned that some forces, (racketeering inside of government, associated in fact), were concerned about was that Mr. Howell's interest in, and knowledge of, the Bible, might be the vehicle to launch knowledge of the new geometry into the public's mind. Every once in a while self published books on the Bible become best sellers, (Hal Lindsey an example) and with the new twist of the new geometry could catch the publics attention. With this, and some high end CAD programs, inventors could be reproducing Pavlita's work in their garages. Still, it seemed preposterous. However, the plaintiff noticed deliberate lies and misinformation on the part of the media in the coverage of the final assault. Incidents referred to in initial coverage, for example by New York Times reporters, were never referred to again or explained. Preposterous as it was, then, directly following the April 19, 1993 final assault, where Mr. Howell and most of his associates were killed, the plaintiff wrote Sheriff Harwell of Waco County Texas and flatly accused the policing forces of deliberate murder. The plaintiff reasoned also that the racketeering perpetrators would realize that if Mr. Howell was in production of such a document, (he stated he was) then merely killing him would not stop publication, and might even give the publication greater notoriety. To stop this Mr. Howell's organization had to be completely and utterly destroyed.

At that time, in the spring of 1993, the plaintiff felt as if he was 'reaching the end of his rope', was as a sober alcoholic even afraid of picking up drink again, ceased to attempt self support and decided to receive the psychological counseling that would be due him. But he knew then that he must be careful both with documenting his dilemma and be honest as he could. The plaintiff found a psychotherapist at Cape Cod Human Services in Hyannis. Over months he slowly and carefully documented his situation with this therapist, a Ms Cynthia Klein. The plaintiff signed a 'contract' (part of the organization's normal procedure) with the therapist in which the goal of being able to remake his initial complaint to the State Police was stated as a goal. Ms Klein wrote the Association of National Security Alumni in Silver Springs, Md. The diagnosis used was PTSD, a catchall for general trauma. During this period, Ms Klein saw no reason for the plaintiff to see a psychiatrist. The plaintiff even suggested that she do this anyway to 'cover her own ass'. Ms Klein still saw no reason for this. The plaintiff wrote up a short history of his situation (fifty pages), with supporting documents, and produced a number (50 copies) calling it 'Wrench'.
During this time also the plaintiff became a member of Nam Vets, a veteran group with offices on Main Street, Hyannis. Members of this group became knowledgeable of the plaintiff's situation and many were sympathetic.
On the morning of September 23, 1993, the plaintiff mailed a good number of copies of the Wrench out through the United States Postal Service. One copy was mailed to Mr. William Hough, Publisher of the Falmouth Enterprise. The Cape Cod Times also received a copy, the plaintiff reasoning that the more people who had their hands on this the better.
On Oct. 2, 1993 a headline "Rash of Fires Sweeps through Falmouth Area" appeared in the Cape Cod Times. BATF agents were there immediately, first thing in the morning, when they were still suspicious fires, not even listed as arson yet. Many quotes in the Cape Cod Times suggested that some parties were deliberately spreading a pattern of terrorism. One was set almost on the doorstep of the Falmouth Enterprise. Mr. Hough was known to the plaintiff for some years, and was, at times the printer of the plaintiff's newspaper published on Martha's Vineyard. A few months prior to the start of the plaintiff's relationship with Cape Cod Human Services, and Ms Cynthia Klein, the plaintiff saw Mr. William Hough in his offices in the Falmouth Enterprise. The plaintiff described to Mr. Hough how security messages are sometimes posted in major papers and inserted, (hidden in the open) in major newspapers. This sounds like an outrageous statement. The plaintiff's Father was the chief mapmaker for Time Magazine. In that position the plaintiff's Father came in contact with a Hedley Donovan, who prior to his position as Editor and Chief of Time, was considered the best in naval intelligence. Hedley Donovan taught the use of these messages to the plaintiff's Father who taught them to the plaintiff as a child. Mr. William Hough came from a newspaper publishing family who had owned, prior to the Falmouth paper, newspapers in New Bedford. Mr. Hough was astounded at this strange intelligence, stating that he had often noticed these strange headlines in major publications and that the plaintiff was now explaining them. The plaintiff used this interchange as an example in the Wrench of how someone with even a heavy newspaper background would not understand these messages used in the media by top security unless someone showed and explained them. (There were examples in Wrench).
The plaintiff remembering the strange incident when 'terrorism' was passed around the Edgartown merchants a few years earlier. This time the plaintiff reasoned that if someone wanted to 'put an arm around' Mr. William Hough, the publisher of the Falmouth Enterprise, a little example of 'terrorism' might be handy. Mr. Bill Hough, with the knowledge given to him by the plaintiff, and knowledge gained by the Wrench could become a major loose cannon to parties racketeering inside the cover of legitimate government for the purpose of controlling knowledge of, and the implications of the work of Robert Pavlita. One copy of Wrench mailed on the same date Sept. 23, 93, never arrived at the Association of National Security Alumni in Silver Springs, MD. The plaintiff's mail was tampered with on many many occasions. One occasion the Vineyard Haven Post Office said that there would be a big investigation. There never was. The plaintiff wrote a letter to the State Police arson investigator, Trooper Handlin, but kept the letter on his computer, did not mail it, as he thought his story to wild, there was not enough evidence.

During the period from Oct. 93 through December 93 The plaintiff's therapist at Cape Cod Human Services, was strong armed by her supervisors to write a letter to the plaintiff stating, in effect, that the plaintiff was now considered crazy and must see the psychiatrist and be 'medicated'. This directly contradicted all her notes and reports, and Ms Klein admitted that she was strongly pressed by her supervisors, and frankly terrified. This directly followed, and was the result of, the plaintiff's request for records, and decision that he should now, having sent out Wrench, go to the police and make the original complaint. The plaintiff went to the State Police station in Yarmouth. He was met at the door by a trooper, (who should have had no knowledge of the plaintiff's history), who stated that the plaintiff is not allowed to make any complaints without Cape Cod Human Services. How did the police have this information? The plaintiff went back to Cape Cod Human Services and had a civil but strong conversation with Cynthia Klein. Ms Klein then stated that she was greatly fearful of her supervisors, but agreed to call the police. The plaintiff again called the State Police Station in Yarmouth and insisted that he would come back, naming a time. This time the plaintiff was interviewed by a Lt. James Cummings who worked directly for, and reported to, the District Attorney, Phillip Rollins. The plaintiff gave Lt. Cummings a copy of Wrench and other xeroxes of other documents. These seemed to have disappeared, and there is no record of this meeting whatsoever. The plaintiff was always stopped in his attempts to recontact Col. Henderson. Phone calls always went to Intelligence instead.
Mid December 1993 the plaintiff was to see the psychiatrist, the diagnosis of crazy given before hand, in order to continue with Ms Klein. The plaintiff always played by the rules. Where no person would probably continue under these conditions, the plaintiff did, but wrote memos stating that he should be allowed to make a police complaint under all conditions, even if labeled now 'crazy' and stated in writing that he would tape record the interview with the psychiatrist. The plaintiff had the interview, did tape the psychiatrist, and refused to take a dose of the same drug, triliphon, because it was 1- counter indicated with the twitching. 2- counter indicated by Dr. Violette. 3- had completely debilitated the plaintiff.
The plaintiff had strong reason to believe that the communications that interfered with the plaintiff's decision to go to the police came also from a source in Nam Vets.
Cynthia Klein, on the sly and unknown to her supervisors, wrote the plaintiff stating that Cape Cod Human Services was working (alone?) to get the law changed so that no person could get records from their psychotherapists. She informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff could get records if he acted soon, but, under law, would need an attorney.

A few months later, (Early spring of 94), the plaintiff again made another effort at self support. The starting getting enough clients to start a tourist publication called the Cape Cod MAP, most signing contracts to pay after publication. The plaintiff raised enough money to print it. During this period the plaintiff tried to make complaint to the State Police, but was always interfered with, no contact with Col. Henderson was allowed. Many letters and phone calls from the plaintiff were directed to the Mass Commonwealth Office of Public Safety. They were ignored.
Following the rash of fires in Falmouth, where the plaintiff suspected that 'terrorism' was deliberately created, three brothers were found together with bullets in their brains on the porch of a deserted hotel in Buzzards Bay. The paper stated that houses were far from the hotel, they were not. Three shots in succession should have certainly been heard. The DA's Office, (Phillip Rollins) with Lt. James Cummings, mentioned above, came in and ruled the killings suicide, and closed the case in seventy two hours. Seventy two hours! The plaintiff drove over to the Buzzard/s Bay police station. One of the clerks (female) allowed privately that this was murder. The plaintiff reasoned that this could be the link, the person who paid the perpetrators of the rash of fires in money or drugs. The plaintiff also requested the police log of the Falmouth Police department from where the perpetrators were caught. One of the perps, wacked out on booze and cocaine, (the police were called by his parents) stated when arrested that indeed they meant to spread terrorism. This never came out in the Cape Cod Times, the same paper that was alleging terrorism a few hours after suspicious fires! All were caught, given exceedingly light sentences, and the only person at all the fires given the lightest sentence. Only the Falmouth Police (Sgt. Gonzalves) would listen or take any complaint on the matter. There was known published bad blood between Sgt Gonzalves and Lt. James Cummings of the DA's office, Sgt Gonzalves even published in the Cape Cod Times as stating that he would "Lock Lt. Cumming's up if he did not leave the Falmouth Police Station when ordered". Although the usually public police reports concerning the killing of the three Smith brothers, (a triple suicide of three brothers highly unlikely in itself and again ruled suicide and closed after seventy two hours after being investigated as murder by the local police), was not make available to the plaintiff, the log eventually was. 'Murder' typed in was crossed of with a hand written 'suicides'. The clerk at the Buzzard's Bay Police Station wrote "Thank you" to the plaintiff underneath!
Further, discovered later, one of the fires (the one closest to the Enterprise) was set under difficult circumstances. (A high barbed fence needed to be crossed). And in the yard where set (Battle's Body Shop), was a previous fire, insurance collected. This previous fire was of a car, of the same make that concerned both the robbery on the Vineyard (Airport Motors) and the same make recounted by the 'mob contact' lady referred to above, being the subject of the letter to the Edgartown Police Chief and the merchant's (Richard Fligor's) odd statement concerning 'terrorism'!

Early summer, 1994, while the plaintiff was still renting a room at 300 Sea Street, Hyannis, the clients for the as yet unpublished Cape Cod MAP were sold and the plaintiff was in the process of the final 'paste up'. The plaintiff had begun to argue with a person on the staff of Nam Vets, who the plaintiff knew to have been involved in warning the State Police that the plaintiff would make complaint. Arguments ensued. Nam Vets was just down the street from the plaintiff's furnished room. Arguments also ensued concerning the finances of Nam Vets, as the plaintiff pointed out that the money that they said came into the organization could in no way cover the unusually short term mortgage (three years) on the Nam Vet substantial real estate holdings.
The night the plaintiff was doing the final paste up, Nam Vets burned to the ground. In a highly unusual scenario, the local fire department (Barnstable) was holding up traffic all day practicing right down the street. (Usually done in parking lots). A few days before, the plaintiff found out that Nam Vets were beginning to extort his clients, calling them with heavy threats. The plaintiff had planned a 'cutsie' non serious tourist publication. Knowing now that the 'fight was in the open', the plaintiff decided to instead publish some of the material concerning the suspicious handling of the fires in Falmouth and the suspicious deaths of the three Smith brothers. The plaintiff did, publishing and distributing the Cape Cod MAP all over the mid Cape including the Offices of the District Attorney, Phillip Rollins. The plaintiff, who under the circumstances should have been at least a suspect, not only was never questioned, but his calls to the State Police Arson investigators was never returned, and mail, correctly addressed to the State Police arson investigator were returned as undeliverable. The plaintiff spoke to Detective Robert Corry of the State Fire Marshal's Office by phone. Dect. Lt. Robert Corey asked the plaintiff who he thought might be involved. The plaintiff said the actions of the BATF in the Falmouth was, in itself, suspicious. The Fire Marshal then in shock allowed that the BATF was also, at some sort of convention, right down the street of the Nam Vets fire, and one of the first on the scene!! Again, the plaintiff, who should have at least been a suspect, (widely known that there were heavy arguments between the plaintiff and Nam Vets, and the plaintiff lived just down the street!) was never questioned, nor were his many written queries concerning the matter replied to. The plaintiff's records at Nam Vets went up in flames. In fact State Police officers in Buzzards Bay gave the 'barracks' address to the plaintiff, not the proper one, and refused the letters at the improper address given.
The plaintiff continued to write the Office of Public Safety, and could never get a written response. One occasion as secretary at the Office of Public Safety (Lauren) started to say, "This case is sooo big......", and then cut herself off, this 1994! A tremendous amount of written information was mailed to a Dale Jenkings, Mass Office of Public Safety by the plaintiff, the plaintiff receiving only put-offs by phone and no written replies.

Of the clients extorted, all but one were completely terrified. One hid in his home for three days (Clint Flagg- Nightengales). One however was not. He was, is, and always has been ready to testify. All authorities contacted refused to investigate. This included the local DA's office, many letters, the Mass Office of public safety, many letters and phone calls, the FBI, and many many letters the Criminal Division, US Attorney's office in Boston. The plaintiff even wrote the Office of Inspection of the BATF. And recently talked to Agent-in-Charge of the Office of Inspection in Arlington, Jan, 20, 98.
Special Agent allowed that the complaints brought forth by the plaintiff, only as they related to the BATF, have been under investigation by his office for eight months, and that that was the reason that the plaintiff's letters were never answered. Agent Malone stated that a letter would be sent to the plaintiff in 'a few weeks'. Plaintiff still does not understand how Agent in Charge John Malone of the BATF could do any sort of full investigation without questioning the plaintiff.

In the spring-winter of 95 the plaintiff, still trying every avenue open to him went to Mass Rehab, 60 Park Street, Hyannis. Plaintiff understood free computer training could be made available. This State organization tried to get the plaintiff to state that he , in sneaky manner, tape recorded the psychiatrist interview at Cape Cod Human Services. First, the plaintiff had no idea how Mass Rehab came by this information. Secondly, the plaintiff denied that he acted in any sneaky way, a memo was written to Cynthia Klein stating that the plaintiff would tape, the recorder was in plain sight. Mass Rehab wrote down the opposite. Mass Rehab then suggested that, to get the training the plaintiff must get alcohol counseling, (plaintiff had been sober for 9 years, in AA 24 years) plaintiff reluctantly and suspiciously agreed. Agreed to go to Center for Human Services upstairs at same address on Park Street. Plaintiff was pleasantly surprised when intake psychiatrist found no severe mental aberrations, suggested alcohol counseling. Therapist Lynn Pasko desired not to know of any police problems and plaintiff went along. At one point the plaintiff asked to see the psychiatrist again on a specific point, again psychiatrist saw no deep problem, etc., most certainly seeing no need for medication. At one point early spring of 95 the plaintiff asked for a copy of his records. Sign said clinic records due patient on demand. Clinic supervisor (Mr. Nello Nesbaum) refused. Plaintiff stated that he would not continue until he was given copy of records.

At that time, spring of 95 the plaintiff received a few thousand dollars as a residual from an inheritance. The plaintiff went directly to the first defendant above, Attorney Michael Burke and gave him a retainer of $500.00 dollars. Attorney Michael Burke took a copy of Wrench, and other written material. Attorney Burke spent a number of hours with the plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted Mr. Burke to simply get the psychotherapy records due him by law, giving the name of the agencies, Cape Cod Human Services, Center for Human Services, Mass Rehab, and also Dr. Gretchen Jabobs seen first by the plaintiff on the Vineyard. The plaintiff called Dr Jacobs who stated that the plaintiff records were strangely missing in her office, but did agree to write a general letter as she was very angry that the State (presumably Mass Rehab) called her and tried to intimidate her into saying that the plaintiff was crazy. Dr Jacobs was very upset on the phone, a female psychiatrist using a string of profanities so great was her anger at the attempt to intimidate her. The plaintiff expected that when Attorney Burke, as sympathetic as he was, saw the records; that Attorney Burke would easily take a suit against the agencies on contingency. The fee was only for obtaining the records.
At the same time, (Spring 95), the Plaintiff decided to rent a small cellar storefront to live in, attempt the newspaper once again, and sell some books as he had an old relationship with a book distributor. When the plaintiff moved in the store was rewired so that all apartments, stores, and offices in the building were put on the plaintiff's meter, The plaintiff was forced to pay over ten times what the bill should be, and because of rate discounts, was being charged for over twenty times the normal store usage. Shortly after the plaintiff moved into this cellar storefront, the owner, Brian Faunce, a defendant named above, asked the plaintiff who his attorney was. Mr. Faunce gave no reason for this query. The plaintiff stated that he had used a Plymouth attorney and named him, Attorney Michael Burke. The plaintiff thought the exchange odd, but shrugged it off. This occurred before the plaintiff noticed that all the electric in the building was rewired to his meter.

The plaintiff saw that he could not possibly pay all the electric, now 250 dollars per month, and that his store would not make it. He argued with Brian Faunce.
The daughter of Mr. Faunce in front of witnesses related that there was "concern upstairs" relating to the plaintiff's newspaper in which he out and out accused the District Attorney of misfeasance in the murder of the three Smith brothers and accused the local publisher of the Dow Jones owned Cape Cod Times, Mr. Scott Himstead of 'holding hands' with the DA in a blatant cover up. As the plaintiff could now not make a go of it, an arrangement was made with a Mr. Bonelli where as Mr. Bonelli would take over the cellar storefront for a business that Mr. Bonelli was operating and pay Mr. Faunce month by month. At that time the electric was switched to a friend of Mr. Bonelli, Ms Sara Zimmerman. Mr. Bonelli, Ms Zimmerman, the plaintiff and another witness went to Com Electric on Cape Cod to switch the electric. The plaintiff and Mr. Bonelli and Ms Zimmerman asked that the meter be checked, describing the situation. Supervisors were called in. Com Electric refused to check the meter, which was noted as odd at the time. Subsequently in a phone call made by the plaintiff to Attorney Michael Burke, Attorney Burke told the plaintiff that a Mr. Brian Faunce had called him (Attorney Michael Burke) and spoke to him for "about 20 minutes". The plaintiff was concerned that he would be charged for this time. The plaintiff asked Attorney Burke what it was about. Attorney Michael Burke responded that Mr. Faunce just went on and on about things - didn't seen to have any point to the call. Attorney Michael Burke never mentioned talking about any electric problem with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a bit confused, but as Attorney Burke did not mention any charge for this, shrugged it off, slightly perplexed.

The plaintiff was now for the third time stopped by first immoral, second illegal, and third illegal means of any self support. Massive complaints had been made in writing. There was no further recourse. The plaintiff queried Mr. Burke on the request for records. Attorney Burke stated that the agencies were "not responding", that there was nothing he could do. This sounded a bit strange to the plaintiff, it was, after all the law, but the plaintiff has had little to do with the law in any way.

The summer of 94 the plaintiff, while the cellar storefront was put out of business, met a Ms Jean Miller and moved in with her on her families property on Waquoit Bay, Cape Cod. After all these years the plaintiff started to get very inspired regarding the geometry and came up, with the first item that relates to Pavlita's geometry that is proprietary. This is a symbol set that helps navigate the geometry. This work was taken up where the plaintiff had hurriedly put down parts of the system to give to the authorities regarding the situation in Texas with Mr. Howell. It was put aside in disgust, but reworked in the summer of 94. The symbol set is entirely unique and does not simply derive from system. The plaintiff wrote IBM research and received a reply. Then the plaintiff got the idea for the first patent and mailed it in to the Department of Commerce. The plaintiff had no experience in these matters. The Department of Commerce rejected the idea out of hand on the usage clause. It had no use. In explaining what the use was (demonstrating the new Pavlita geometry) the plaintiff had to mail in a large amount of information to the Department of Commerce regarding the work of Robert Pavlita.. A patent examiner was brought in on the case, which is rare. The plaintiff won the argument with the patent examiner which is exceeding rare. The plaintiff got inspired even further and came up with another mechanical device to demonstrate the Pavlita geometry even more. The return of classification, (surgery) from the Department of Commerce was a scant 10 days. This is unheard of, the normal turnaround being ninety days.

The plaintiff worked on making charts for the system all that fall and winter and into the spring of 96. The summer of 95 the plaintiff was invited to New Mexico by friends that he met over the phone. They helped the plaintiff show the system to friends of theirs in Los Alamos, but nothing came of it. The plaintiff returned by bus in the fall.

During the fall and winter of 95 the plaintiff called Mr. Burke again concerning the records. The plaintiff called the agencies involved and they stated that they never got letters from Michael Burke. The plaintiff went back to see Attorney Burke in Plymouth and Attorney Burke showed the plaintiff copies of the letters that he sent. The plaintiff called the agencies again, this time asserting that Attorney Burke claimed he sent the letters. Mr. Donovan went to Cape Cod Human Services with witness and obtained a partial copy of the records. The Director of Cape Cod Human Services, Mr. Don Chamberlain, continued to deny that he received any letter but gave the plaintiff a partial copy of the file. The plaintiff also went to the Center for Human Services with witness and obtained a partial file, and the same with Mass Rehab with another witness. The plaintiff then, again with witness, went back to Mr. Burke with these partial files that showed gross illegal and unethical behavior on the part of the agencies. Mr. Burke, 1- stated that he did not want to see the evidence, 2- stated that it was of no use anyway citing "chain of evidence", that it did not go into the hands of an officer of the court. The plaintiff was becoming even more suspicious, but did not confront Mr. Burke too strongly on this feeling that he might loose the only support that he had.

At this time, the plaintiff went to many, many other lawyers on Cape Cod. One had an interest, but stated that she called another lawyer about it and dropped out. All the rest begged off. The plaintiff received a call from Attorney Linda Thompson, who brought up the concept of RICO. Ms Thomson spent almost two hours on the phone with the plaintiff. Ms Thomson knew some things about the plaintiff's Father that the plaintiff did not even know. This was general conversation. The plaintiff, at that time, did not ask for representation. Ms Thompson did state that the only thing confusing to her, (she produced WACO, The Big Lie video, and is President of the American Justice Federation in St. Louis, MO) was the motive on the part of the government, and allowed that some of her own theories did not even fit well. The plaintiff has never been able to contact Linda Thompson again. No address for either her or her well known American Justice Federation is listed when information operators are asked. There are no references to an internet address. One of this organization's main tools was internet. It is if it has entirely disappeared. The plaintiff called the local bar association and was told that in his position, having a published accusation against the DA, that no attorney in either Barnstable or even the State of Mass would touch him for any amount of money. Now the plaintiff was very suspicious of the actions of Attorney Michael Burke.

At the time the plaintiff made a bus trip out to New Mexico, being invited by people interested in the patents, and these strange events occurred.

while on a daytrip with the host, the plaintiffs motel room was broken into and patent material mailed to him by Federal Express was rifled through.

The patent information was sent overnight Federal Express. It arrived two weeks late, opened and rifled through. The plaintiff called Federal Express Security explaining that both return and regular addresses were complete, and that he had correct phone numbers for both address and return address. Federal Express stated "...so call your lawyer.".

The plaintiff received a notice for small claims court. Brian Faunce, a defendant named above was suing the plaintiff for back rent, $4000,00 in small claims court where the limit was 2000.00. Mr. Bonelli was named as a co defendant. The plaintiff went to the small claims trial with Mr. Bonelli. Mr. Bonnelli had paid the rent for a period of about six months after the plaintiff was constructively evicted. A trial was held before a magistrate. Only Mr. Bonelli was allowed to testify. The plaintiff was not allowed to testify. The result, delivered by mail, was that $2000.00 was levied only against Mr. Donovan. At the hearing Mr. Faunce stated that he could not get a hold of Mr. Donovan to serve him. Mr. Donovan wondered why as Mr. Faunce knew that Mr. Donovan, and obviously knew who Mr. Donovan's attorney was as he had spoken to him on the phone. Mr. Donovan wondered why Mr. Faunce had the cheek to go into court knowing that the electrical records showed constructive eviction.
Mr. Donovan had the right to, and requested a regular trial Mr. Donovan contacted the electric company, Com Electric, demanding to know why the meter was not checked way back when Ms Zimmerman took over. Letters were written. When Mr. Donovan showed the security person at Com Electric that the actions of not checking the meter, in all cases, was against company policy, Mr. Donovan wrote another letter, certified, registered, and sent it to the president of the electric company. The letter was returned by the electric company as 'refused'. Mr. Donovan still has the envelope unopened as it was returned. This was all highly irregular. A pre trial hearing was set.

During this time, this plaintiff, Mr. Donovan, was writing a more complete description of the case. He was also contacted by the Center for Public Representation which he had called at some time in the past. The Center for Public Representation was challenging a new Mass Law that restricted patients from receiving psychological records from their therapists that they had heretofore had a right to. This was the change in law that the aforesaid Cynthia Klein was referring to. Mr. Donovan explained his situation to Attorney Nancy Taylor and Attorney Gina Yarbourgh of the Center for Public Representation. After much phone and writing correspondence they stated that they could not use Mr. Donovan on their case.

Mr. Donovan began writing up a more complete version of Wrench. This time he began to realize, put fully together for the first time, the full legal implications of his accusations of treason concerning the former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman.
When the plaintiff accused the Naval Secretary of treason, it was following the letter written to Commander Troutman. In that letter, about Pavlita's geometry, the plaintiff stopped mid letter and started discussing the general naval situation with the Soviets, this being mid March of 1984. The Soviet navy was much in the news. The Leningrad and consorts were steaming toward Cuba. NATO was assuming that this had something to do with Latin America. The plaintiff's Father had drawn maps for, and was very familiar with, the scenario of naval war with the Soviets. The plaintiff was also reading messages in the major publications above most readers heads in that regard, described briefly above, and saw the seriousness. The plaintiff also remembered his Father predicting this on his deathbed in 1981 but assumed at the time that his Father was just delirious. The plaintiff then fairly correctly predicted just what the Soviets were capable of in the letter to Commander Troutman written the 15th and 16th of March, 1984 and mailed on the 17th of March 1984. After this letter was irrevocably in the mail, the three other Soviet battlegroups, without agreed warning, steamed from Leningrad and Murmansk. The Leningrad and consorts, against NATO's thoughts, turned up the eastern seaboard of the United Stated from Cuba, not toward Latin America. The plaintiff did have his Father's knowledge on this subject, the plaintiff was able to 'read the billboards' in major publications as described above and knew that this general situation was occurring. But through some high coincidence, the plaintiff's warning to Commander Troutman occurred exactly when the battlegroups emerged, and when the plaintiff could not have known the exact timing, that it was announced after the letter was postmarked. This was the reason for Special Agent Lawrence's questions about prior contacts with Soviet Embassies. The plaintiff has no explanation, beyond what has been stated, for the coincidence of this exactness.
The plaintiff also remembered from his childhood his Father's very general explanation of the nuclear situation. This is not the situation that is known to the public.
To wit: The plaintiff's Father's boss, Henry Luce, made secret agreements with the then other nuclear powers, China and the Soviet Union, concerning non use of nuclear weapons. This was greatly solidified in Terhan, Iran by Henry Luce in the early part of the Korean Conflict. Specifically, when the Chinese understood that there was a full agreement, their troops crossed the Yalu, and their navy was never deployed. Joseph Stalin had specific concerns, namely that NATO could trust him, but how could he possibly trust the United States being that from any four year period, there could be another Commander and Chief. Mr. Luce understood these concerns, and with the aforementioned Hedley Donovan concocted a fake 'censorship flap', and using Fortune Magazine publicly changed a story from '...the President decided...' to '...it was decided...', in a story decidedly against Constitutional command structure to emphasize who was in control. This was good enough for Joseph Stalin. Subsequently and unexpectantly two things happened in short order; 1- Joseph Stalin died, and 2- the French began loosing in Indochina. There are two major factors in military intelligence: capability and intent. The plaintiff heard much arguing between his parents as a child (10), and understood the general situation. However, in retrospect, the plaintiff did not understand the full implications, some legal, as they related to him and the events on the Vineyard in 1984, 1985.

The plaintiff saw an article about the suit being filed in Federal Court by the Center for Public Representation stating that the suit had now been accepted as a class action suit. The plaintiff again contacted both Attorney Nancy Taylor and Attorney Gina Yarbourgh fairly much demanding that he be allowed to be a plaintiff in the class action.
After some discussion the plaintiff was informed that he was so allowed.

During this time also, now very suspicious of Attorney Michael Burke, but still thinking that Attorney Michael Burke was his only hope, the plaintiff called and discussed the patents with Attorney Michael Burke. The main purpose was to reinforce the validity of his case. Attorney Michael Burke seemed keenly interested and requested that he see the patent ideas and Department of Commerce Classification returns. Being somewhat suspicious, the plaintiff only sent the first initial correspondence to the Patent Office that was rejected on the usage clause and the first return classification, both faxed to Attorney Burke. (There may be problems with records of this, as they are in an unattached hard drive.) Following this fax, the plaintiff wrote letter to Attorney Burke and made calls to his office. These calls and letters were never answered, making the plaintiff more suspicious still.

The plaintiff called another local patent attorney in Osterville on Cape Cod. The plaintiff spoke with this patent attorney for 15 minutes. Two weeks later, the plaintiff called back the patent attorney. It was a different voice. The patent attorney was surprised, stated that he was a one man office out of town during the period of the first phone call. Confused, the plaintiff called ATT security and was told to his surprise that this happens all the time, industrial espionage, and that there is nothing that they could do.
The plaintiff called his first patent attorney, John McGonagle, who did a search on both patents paid for by Ms Miller's mother. The attorney would not take the plaintiff's calls. The plaintiff was concerned because Attorney McGonagle in his cover letter, (one sent to the plaintiff by Federal Express with the search), Attorney McGonagle inferred that the Department of Commerce might object because the patent was 'demonstrating a law of nature'. The patent is unobvious, unique, and useful, and does not derive from system.
What was confusing to the plaintiff, was that the Attorney should be elated, ecstatic, not 'concerned'. What 'laws of nature'? They would be new!

A pre trial hearing was scheduled for the case of Brian Faunce (plaintiff against Michael Donovan (herein this plaintiff), defendant. Now the plaintiff was writing up a more 'digestible' version of Wrench. The plaintiff then also had to give a written answer and defense to the court situation with Brian Faunce. The plaintiff began to realize that he was, again, being set up. The plaintiff realized also that, even given the facts of the electric, etc., the jury would be real confused over Mr. Faunce's, (and later Attorney Burke's motive. Mr. Donovan, (herein the plaintiff, but defendant with Mr. Faunce), understood that the only way a jury would believe him was to tell the whole truth, all of it, even if he was allowed only to do so in his opening statement. Otherwise events would make no sense to the jury. The plaintiff then realized that another, confirming situation witnessed in 1985, presumably orchestrated by either the government acting officially, or racketeering within the government acting unofficially would come into play.
The plaintiff's evidence against Former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman was mainly published in the New York Times. Secretary Lehman was reported to have stated, and denials were never published, that he, The Secretary, would issue a standing order to front line Battle Group Commanders to use a nuclear device or devices if the Soviets again stated 'surprise maneuvers' without warning. This smacks against an underlying principle of freedom of the seas as outlined by Wilson's 14 points, of course. Secret agreements, either between the navies, or between diplomatic channels, either official or 'under the boards' are just that: secret. And therein, in this situation, not a factor. The statement that the Secretary would issue such an order, was in and of itself unconstitutional and illegal. And it was, at the top, widely known that it was unconstitutional and illegal. The best kept secrets are secrets that the rulers, including media, want to keep. It would take someone outside the normal situation, uncontrolled, to point out the illegality and the published proof thereof. The plaintiff, did, is, and will, and this situation was understood by the plaintiff at the time. There was another confirming situation that occurred in the Winter of 1985/86 on the Vineyard, that was not understood- but just dawning on the plaintiff as to its implications. It was deliberately set up so that there would be two witnesses, as required by the United States Constitution for situations of treason. There were three parties, any two being able to witness against one. This plaintiff made a statement that could obviously be misconstrued. This plaintiff never committed an act of treason, never knowingly aided and abetted a foreign power or agent thereof in any action against the plaintiff's country of citizenship, the United States. However, the plaintiff then reasoned, that if push came to shove, which would come about if he told the whole truth, any statements he made, either in his defense, or in the aforesaid winter on the Vineyard could be used falsely against him. The plaintiff understood the possibly thought of, a wrong and untrue scenario, wherein neither John Lehman nor the plaintiff committed treason. The plaintiff understood the possibility thought of, a wrong and untrue scenario, wherein both John Lehman and the plaintiff committed treason. Granting the relative power of the two parties, one owning American Express, and the other impoverished, the plaintiff reasoned that he might very well be wrongfully accused of treason, and that the public, governed as it is at time by pure emotion, would want one or the other to be guilty. The plaintiff alleges, asserts, and knows to be the truth that John Lehman committed treason, and that the plaintiff did not. The plaintiff did not, and does not, know of the statute of limitations in regards to treason, or if subsequent actions on the part of the plaintiff could further be misconstrued to void the limitation. The plaintiff was forced into the realization that if he properly defended himself, and being also warned by Mr. Faunce that the false actions would follow him forever, that he would open himself up, tend to falsely incriminate himself in a capital offense. What was the plaintiff to do? The plaintiff wrote Attorney John Griffin, (one of many letters), wherein (this letter) the plaintiff made these reasonable points and requests: First, the plaintiff requested immunity from prosecution for both himself and Mr. Lehman, noting that a period of 13-14 years had passed, that the general situation was better understood without scapegoats, and noting that in that period, the government had much information, and made no arrests. Secondly, the plaintiff pointed out that the government would need the other witness. Thirdly, that the plaintiff was not going to witness (in what could wrongly be construed to be) against himself until his story was fully explained. Fourthly, the plaintiff pointed out the facts in the case with Mr. Faunce, stating that the real underlying issue was the right of the State to withhold information due a defendant by law, and then by proxy try him. Fifth, the plaintiff went over the substance of the case with Mr. Faunce, stating conspiracy, constructive eviction, and malicious prosecution. Lastly, the plaintiff suggested that without action on the part of US Attorney, John Griffin, particularly in regards to the extortion of the plaintiff's newspaper's clients, that the US Attorney himself would be considered of holding this plaintiff's hands behind his back while he was being maliciously prosecuted, and was opening (the US Attorney) up to prosecution himself for at the very least misfeasance of office, (for most particularly refusing to investigate extortion of the plaintiff's newspaper advertisers).
The plaintiff had at that point received a total of five separate death threats, two on the Vineyard, and three on Cape Cod. Knowing that the patents were valuable, and that the bulk of the plaintiff's estate consisted of the patents, copyrighted symbol set, and various published and published writings, undertook, (pro se as no attorney knowing the accusations against the District Attorney would represent him in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), to write his last will and testament. The plaintiff included in the letter to the US Attorney, John Griffin, a rough draft which started to detail some of the training given to him by his Father, Time Magazine's Chief Mapmaker, Jeremiah Francis Donovan.
The plaintiff also stated that he would include his last will and testament because there was now no attorney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts willing to get involved for any amount of money, (as brought home to the plaintiff so pointedly by the Barnstable Bar Association). Seeing the absurdity of the situation, that the US Attorney was now working decidedly and wrongly and illegally (both nonfeasance and misfeasance) against the plaintiffs interests; the plaintiff did not include his last will and testament, but did include the rough draft.

A pre trial conference occurred in the case of Brian Faunce vs Michael Donovan. Both went into chambers with the Judge. As written answer, the plaintiff herein (defendant therein) marked the applicable sections of a reheaded xerox of the letter and statements to US Attorney and handed it to the Judge as his written answer. The Judge refused to take the written answer. This plaintiff felt that there was something wrong with this, but not knowing law, did not see it as completely wrong. The plaintiff was being tried, and should be allowed to give written answer. There were, in chambers, the Judge, a large guard, this plaintiff, and Mr. Faunce.

The plaintiff noticed a large unwarranted, out-of-date article in the Cape Cod Times suggesting that 'childhood memories' are very unreliable. The placement and timing of this out of date material prompted the plaintiff to reason that this discussion concerned the 'childhood memories' included in his letter to Assistant US Attorney, John Griffin. The plaintiff was beginning to understand how the 'unofficial' nuclear agreements worked in reality. It can be likened to two hoodlums arguing over territory. As their arrangement is illegal, only 'criminal honor' can enforce the agreement. If hoodum X has made a secret attack, against agreement, on hoodlum Ys person or territory, and there is a witness in hoodlum X's camp which hoodlum Y has found out about, (a witness to the double cross), and hoodlum X kills this witness, he would have a hard time ever making a deal with hoodlum Y again. The plaintiff then understood that the evidence he gave in 1984 and 1985, unofficial as it was, as it concerned the 'nuclear glue' had to have been shared with the Soviets and Chinese. The media was arguing that the plaintiff was not of sound mind. This was created. The plaintiff then sat down and wrote a fuller version, explaining in detail his Father's and Mother's involvement in transferring to the Soviet Union Henry Lucy's talk about helping the French with an atomic bomb in Dien Bien Phu.
Again this detailed account had to be shared, and was new information to the Chinese, who even after all these years had to make a statement. If the plaintiff was treated with any sort of sense or decency in 1984 and 1985, had persons associated in fact and racketeering in high position not been so interested in stealing geometry and curtailing knowledge of it, it could have been worked out then with only minor barking and snarling. The Chinese then did the only thing they could do. They certainly could not pick a naval or military target, understanding it was mostly the 'media naval intelligence' that was to blame. An American flight going to France was the perfect message, and nearly one hundred people eye-witnessed the missile go up. There were photographs. The FBI had no interest in talking to any of these witnesses. Of course. They already knew. Congressmen on television pointedly stated that they know it was neither a mistake by the US Navy or terrorism. They say that, using that particular and exact limiting phrase, because it is the truth; the families of the victims being completely confused as to why an insurance settlement limitation, covering acts of war, was allowed. And the United States knows that it was very wrong.
This racketeering, as per the US Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, effected foreign commerce as well as interstate commerce.
The plaintiff knew that he could not trust the US Attorney, either with his will, now having received five death threats, or with this material. For 14 years the plaintiff's phone service has been tampered with. For 14 years the plaintiff's mail has been tampered with. (The plaintiff was informed that all files in Mass were being held by the Attorney for The State Police, Attorney Jack Flynn who by inaction was reasoned to be on the defensive and adversarial to the plaintiff.) The plaintiff also saw, (most particularly by a published 'parting shot' letter) that Col. Henderson, Commander of the Mass State Police, the only public servant seen by the plaintiff to be of any help, was forced out of office over this particular case and matter, now working security for an electric company in western Mass. The plaintiff found a method of getting the material and his last will and testament into the hands of a high ranking United States military officer known to have the honor and decency under all circumstances, no matter what he thought of the plaintiff, to take the material and hold the plaintiff's will. This method was designed to bypass FBI, NSA-phone co, Department of Justice, Naval Intelligence, or for that matter anyone in the United States Navy, the plaintiff now being aware from reliable published accounts that a portion of agents assigned to United States Naval Intelligence are not required to swear an oath either to the United States, or the Constitution thereof.
Following this a US Navy fighter jet flew up the coast from Virginia Beach, Virginia and at midnight swooped down on a town, wrongly listed in the Cape Cod Times as the Town of Eastham. Headline read "Afterburners Lighting Up the Sky". The jet flew down to under 100 meters waking up a section of the Cape. The plaintiff, again with the knowledge gained from his Father, told his girlfriend exactly what word need appear in a headline for this to stop. The word did not appear. About a week later the same thing happened again; a US Naval fighter jet waking up a portion of the Cape late at night. Following this (to the plaintiff's girlfriend's amazement) that word did appear in the headline; the Navy giving silly explanation and allowing that the pilots (whose names the navy would not reveal) would not be disciplined. The 'old' navy was rightfully angry at the 'media' navy for this fix. The only media personnel that this plaintiff has evidence against in this 14 years of racketeering is Scott Himstead, former publisher of the Dow Jones owned Cape Cod Times, and Richard Reston, former Moscow correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, and son of the deceased New York Times Washington correspondent, 'Scotty' Reston. Unfortunately the evidence against these media 'fighters' is over the three year statute of limitations for this case.
Every recourse for complaint in the Commonwealth of Mass. had been exhausted. At this time, (in the period shortly following the naval jet statement, April 97), the plaintiff and his girlfriend decided to pack up every possession and move to Norfolk, VA. The plaintiff also began to understand, for reasons stated above, the one thing that never made sense to him in his own story: If all the time, effort, expense, and planning, on more than one occasion, went into schemes to disable and extort him: wouldn't it have been simply easier and far more expedient to simply kill the plaintiff? For reason stated above with the hoodlum example, (killing witnesses would make re negotiating the 'nuclear glue' exceeding difficult); the plaintiff reasoned that the death threats were not to be carried out. The plaintiff worried far less about the death threats, and worried also far less about the welfare of the other witness, two witnesses being required by the United States Constitution for acts of treason. Plaintiff decided that it was time to stand up and make another complaint, this time trying, as suggested, the Federal Court.
John McGonagle (11 Beacon Street, Boston, 02108), the Boston patent attorney paid in full by the plaintiff's girlfriend's mother, would respond neither to phone calls or letters. The plaintiff's girlfriend, using up all her savings, retained a Norfolk patent firm, and placed the patents in the hands of Attorney Charles Payne, senior partner of Payne Gates Farthing and Radd, 15th floor, Old Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Drive, Norfolk, Va. $850.00 has been paid to Attorney Charles Payne, and $450.00 is still due on the account.
The plaintiff's girlfriend (Ms Jean Miller) had problems obtaining phone service in Norfolk. It took more than a week or so after assigned hook-up day. When a line was ordered for internet, every possible delay seemed to occur, many of which Bell Atlantic readily admitted were completely out of the ordinary (Such as calls from the phone company to the house asking if the plaintiff really wanted to be hooked to internet!). It took numerous calls to the supervisor in Richmond to get service.
The plaintiff visited FBI on Military Hwy. in Norfolk to revisit all complaints he had tried to make in Mass. The FBI was reluctant to discuss any details. A five page complaint was handed in. The plaintiff has heard nothing back. A number of phone calls have been made to Attorney Richard Seible, Criminal Division, US Attorney's Office, Norfolk, Va. Attorney Seibel's office will not return the plaintiff's calls.

Regarding the plaintiff's state of mind, and legal competency: The plaintiff asserts that he is of sound state of mind and legally competent. The plaintiff asserts that he was racketeered against, and as explained briefly above, a victim, deliberately incapacitated. The first time the plaintiff was incapacitated in such a manner it was the night of April 13th, 1984 in the State of Connecticut. A similar accusation was made by TASS concerning Soviet mathematician Koslov. Both accounts are similar, and seem to be the result of an electronic device, not drug, developed by a company called Astronics, demonstrated for the CIA, and tested on members of Congress including the late 'Tip' O'Neal. It spreads apart the synapses and can be quite devastating. Astronics was told that the government had no interest in the device after giving them (in 'non disclosure') the plans. The development of both drugs and psycotronic devices (all categorized under 'non-lethal technology') poses some hard legal issues that have never been dealt with. In correspondence with the aforementioned Association of National Security Alumni, the plaintiff was surprised to find out that he is not exceptional, that over 60 such cases have been recorded by them, and that many of these assaults were upon whistle blowers talking about government misuse of these technologies. The son of the plaintiff's Father's former Boss, Henry Luce III, is on the board of the national security committee that oversees non-lethal technology development, and he is in the media, not government, high in Time/Warner, now a Belgian company. A few years after the attack on the plaintiff another suspicious situation occurred that, by example, should be mentioned to the court, as it involved a Federal Court in Boston. This was the racketeering case against former Secretary of Labor, Raymond Donovan. Twelve jurors and two alternates were selected. The trial was exceedingly long, and as the months went by, the judge was left with only twelve jurors. At that point one of the jurors became suddenly irrational screaming in court. This juror had no record of any psychologically aberrant behavior in the past. Psychiatrists were called in, and were perplexed. The judge was forced to make a decision of either declaring a mistrial, or continuing with 11 jurors. He chose the latter and Secretary Raymond Donovan was acquitted anyway. Was this jury tampering with the same type of device? This device has been described in the book, Mind Wars, by Ron McRay. The plaintiff has noticed that the page describing that device has been missing out of libraries, (small sections including that page so that the page itself was not tagged). The plaintiff requested and obtained a letter from the head librarian in Falmouth, Mass, to that effect. As these new technologies are not in the public's mind, (the board that controls them are mainly media), they can be reasoned to be not often on the courts mind. Therefore though jury tampering can easily be performed by these devises, and not easily detected, and not even in the mind of the court: how then difficult to consider as even a possibility? One of the conclusions of the above book was this: it is very difficult to distinguish a natural psycopathology from a created one.
If these situations are new and difficult to the courts, how much more difficult the situation to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has never been a danger to himself or others. Therefore, there is no record anywhere of the plaintiff being a danger to himself or others. The plaintiff is not without some psychological problems, being an alcoholic. The plaintiff saw a psychiatrist for one visit 28 years ago and went directly into AA, sober now, and sober for almost all of the past 28 years. A Special Agent for Naval Intelligence appeared to be looking for an excuse not to take material from the plaintiff in a case before a Federal Judge in San Francisco. The plaintiff had written, as friend-of-court, the Federal Judge concerning communications to him on Martha's Vineyard from Jacksonville, Fl that the plaintiff reasoned could relate to the Walker case. Those parts of the case, as published in the New York Times and never referred to again, were never referred to either in the book and made for TV movie 'I Pledge Allegiance'. The author, Howard Blum, was even later to joke that the Federal Judge was picked because he was so 'often asleep'. The plaintiff was set up to be psychologically disabled and categorized as such. There are records showing psychiatrists being extorted to say that the plaintiff was not of sound mind.
When the plaintiff found out that the Federal case in Mass, wherein the Mass Office of Public Representation challenged the law that restricts a patients access to his psychotherapy records, was being challenged as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, and was also class action: the plaintiff insisted that he be named a class action litigant. This is the same law that the plaintiff was told by his therapist at Cape Cod Human Services, that the Commonwealth of Mass was creating. The therapist at the time warning the plaintiff to hurry up. The law was not yet in place when Attorney Michael Burke wrote on behalf of the plaintiff requesting the records. The office of Public Representation notes that never, ever has any reasonable reason for the law being passed been put forth. In a pre trial order by Federal Judge Keeton, the judge noted that there seemed to be serious 'case management' issues. The judge wanted a sample situation or case where the patients rights were being infringed upon. The plaintiff insisted that his case be brought forth. The attorneys for plaintiff in that case, Gina Yarbourgh and Nancy Taylor, of the States Office of Public Representation then, suddenly, after many months of preparation, discontinued the case! Here a law passed for expressly the issue of the situations of this complaint then could not come to court as, where the plaintiff here maneuvered himself into being a plaintiff in the class action testing the law, the state agencies withdraw. Judge Keeton asked does any case or issue exist ...... it certainly did it certainly does.
From Judge Keeton's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 28, 1997, (Civil Action No. 96-12289-REK) in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Judge Keeton starts by stating that the case: "presents serious case management issues..., The proposed class consists of all former, current, and future patients who have requested or may request records from their psychotherapists on or after March 10, 1994, under the authority of Mass. Gen. ch. L ch.1112, SS 12CC. Id. (backward 'P')10." And therein, later, Judge Keeton asked the important question: "The first concern this form of extremely generalized complaint raises is jurisdictional. Does any "case or controversy" in the constitutional sense (on which this court's subject matter jurisdiction depends) now exist?" It did, it does, and both the state public representation plaintiffs and the defendant in both the case before Judge Keeton and this case, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts- Scott Harshberger, knew it.
So the court is faced with a plaintiff admittedly on social security for some sort of psychiatric disorder who alleges that not only was he set up and placed in this position, but on three occasions, two provable, that attempts to be self sufficient were by illegal means interfered with, and his complaints about this (including alleged death threats) were not taken. The plaintiff alleges that the records (both psychological records and records held by state and government enforcement agencies) will substantiate this position. The plaintiff alleges that there were some racketeering motivated psychiatric opinions, extorted. And one psychiatrist who stated that there is no psycopathology was the victim of an extortion attempt by government personnel to say that he was. Further, the plaintiff asserts that he was told 1- by his therapist that a law would be passed limiting access to records, that it was being discussed specifically in regards to the plaintiff's case. 2- by attorneys in public representation for the Commonwealth of Mass that there was never any stated reason for the law being passed, and when a federal judge ordered that a case like the plaintiff be brought forward after the plaintiff was finally allowed to be a class action litigant, the state plaintiffs withdrew. Complicating things more, the plaintiff alleges that at one point a drug or psychotronic device was used to create psychiatric conditions. And further some psychiatric conditions themselves can be episodic in nature, being active sometime and not at others. Further the conditions the plaintiff alleges are in themselves exceedingly stressful. Can the court make a reasonable judgment of this complaint and these matters without having some idea of both the plaintiff's present state of mind and the plaintiff's mental history?
The plaintiff thinks not and has these suggestions which are also requests and prayers for motions:

For reasons stated that the court order that all records from all sources be delivered to the Court. Because of chain of evidence, as this pro se plaintiff understands it, the plaintiff is not an officer of the court, so that it would have to be delivered to the court itself. Partial records, for reasons stated, would not do. This is a prayer and request to the court for a motion.

The plaintiff, for all reasons above, prays and requests that the Mass State law limiting records be declared by this Federal Court as unconstitutional, and make this request also as a motion.

The plaintiff would expect that the court at least consider some expert evaluation of the plaintiff's present state of mind. If this is considered by the court, the plaintiff would not object, providing that he be able to tape record, as evidence, the evaluations. All things considered, the plaintiff knows that his accusations could more than embarrass officials in the government who he alleges to have been racketeering for illegitimate financial ends, and feels this stipulation more than reasonable.

As the history of RICO cases show, this often being the controversy in determining limitations, the victim of the racketeering often has problems initially seeing the various acts as being in a pattern. This is particularly true early in the series of acts.
The plaintiff now (this date of Feb 6th, 1998) having just received a written communication from one above defendant, Michael Burke, recalls these odd occurrences on his past which may or may not be relevant. Michael Burke stated that the plaintiff was charged for five hours of his time. There was more than one time, and this plaintiff remembers them. Much of the time seemed to be discussing things not related to this plaintiff's (Mr. Donovan's case). Attorney Michael Burke questioned this plaintiff in detail about a Martha's Vineyard Attorney, Attorney Hagazian. The plaintiff assumed that this was in reference to some case that Attorney Burke was working on, the details of which Attorney Burke could not relate to this plaintiff because of confidentiality. So this plaintiff took little note of this.
Now, (Feb. 6th, 1998), the plaintiff remembers that he had in the late 1980s attempted to retain Attorney Hagazian on contingancey. It was a matter of probate. This plaintiff, through his Mother's estate, Mary Rita (Jewett) Donovan, was legatee of a share of residual portions of the estate of Michael Plunkett of Glenbrook (Stanford Conn.) This estate included, as part of the residual, two ATT account numbers for stock. Only one account was probateed (in Buffalo, N.Y). The executrix was Stephanie (Jewett) McCormack. The plaintiff found letters of his Mother asserting that Mr. Plunkett had far more ATT stock than probated. The plaintiff had much trouble with probate court, on the Vineyard. The plaintiff heard through closed doors the Judge screaming at the Attorney who filed for his sister, the executrix, Attorney Henry Corry who was alone with the Judge. The plaintiff didn't even understand ex-parte at the time. The plaintiff knew something was very wrong and left a letter claiming 'fraud' which still remains in the probate files of his parents in Edgartown The plaintiff wondered at the time why his sister was first so suspicious of Stephanie McCormack, then did not want any information on the second ATT account of Michael Plunkett. This plaintiff had much correspondence with Ameritec, the holding company for ATT in Jacksonville. Ameritec stated that both accounts existed for sure, but the full records were with Merrill Lynch because it was part of large blocks of stocks within that brokerage firm. The plaintiff wrote that firm and the information was not forthcoming. Ms Hagazien stated that she made inquiries and did not want the case, nor would any Island attorney touch it which baffled this plaintiff. Subsequently around 1990 this plaintiff retained Attorney John Weltman of Brown Resnick Freed and Gesmer in Boston (a firm which Attorney Weltman subsequently left). This plaintiff retained Attorney Weltman who charged him $4000.00 for retaining a Manhattan Law firm. The only thing that this plaintiff remembers about the Manhattan firm was that on the letterhead William ('Wild Bill') Donovan (original CIA Director) was formally of counsel. Although this plaintiff had both account numbers of Michael Plunkett, (according to Attorney John Weltman) the NY Judge accepted the pleading of Merrill Lynch that they destroyed records after a certain period of years this being allowed by a new law. This never made any sense to this plaintiff, the period being eight years and many probate matters taking longer than that. This plaintiff only now remembers that Attorney John Weltman was fostered on the plaintiff by the same group of people within the group of AA who later were involved in setting him up with Dr. Agasim.
Again, the Federal Courts have recognized that in RICO cases patterns take time to be recognized by the victims. This plaintiff does not know if the probate situation above is related, but does remember that in the written material sent to the plaintiff from the Association of National Security Alumni, (in what the Association was calling 'illegal government harassment', and what this plaintiff sees as racketeering with government involvement) it was stated that the "first order of business is always to destroy the victim financially thereby rendering the victim helpless before the courts..."

Regarding jurisdiction and venue. Racketeering cases are complex because racketeers hide there activities within legitimate organizations. Racketeering with government involvement is more complex. This involves patents, patents as proof of other activity, naval matters, matters including written material from United States Senators, alleged illegal activities occurring in the states of Mass., Conn., NM, VA, and ME. There is also, beyond the three year limit, but part of the 14 year ongoing pattern of racketeering, alleged new evidence for crimes occurring also in Texas and Oklahoma and in international waters off of New York and much older (Walker) FBI investigations in Norfolk. The amount is over $10,000.
The plaintiff had exhausted all recourse in the state of Mass. The plaintiff is threatened in the state of Mass. The plaintiff was further threatened (reciently- Jan 9, 1998) by phone by the defendant Michael Burke, his former attorney, this was witnessed.
Though the plaintiff understands that the near defendants are more than 100 miles away, the plaintiff prays that the court consider everything in this complaint and accept jurisdiction and venue.
Further, the plaintiff, as a point of law, desires some direction from the court. The plaintiff understands that in any case acts within three years are not disregarded by statute of limitations. Within RICO itself there is some controversy as to periods over three years. As a point of law, the plaintiff begs to know if other acts, shown to be part of the pattern can be included if they are past the three (and sometimes four) year period. If the time is extended retroactively past three years, as judged by the court, then the plaintiff would then amend this complaint to include the other acts in the pattern of racketeering. The plaintiff, as motion, prays for a judgment of the court on this matter.

Regarding classification of RICO: The plaintiff understands that the defendants might wrongly argue that the case does not fit the definition of RICO, being an ongoing criminal enterprise effecting interstate or foreign commerce. They might argue so from the financial aspect, namely, can the plaintiff show that the near parties, named as defendants, stood to gain financially, when the plaintiff himself admits they all had little or no knowledge of the big financial factor? Using standard models of racketeering as related to Mafia type organizations, the plaintiff can, showing that soldiers in a Mafia organization often commit extortion or do other illegal acts for their bosses without understanding the full situation. As both in government infiltrated racketeering and mob racketeering, the bosses would be stupid to tell all their subordinates all the reasons why they are doing things. How would a prostitute gain doing favors for a boss in an operation known to the mob boss to be an enterprise effecting interstate commerce? For one by keeping her job and favor, she would both know that what she was doing was illegal and that there was a purpose, she may not need to know the exactness of his purpose to know there was a purpose and to gain financially. Similarly for government infiltrated racketeering that would have even more power and influence. The plaintiff feels that argument should be accepted by the court. But even if it is not, but it certainly should, the plaintiff refers to the Supreme Court ruling where parties associated in fact, in regards RICO classification, working for a united purpose, the united purpose being curtailing the plaintiffs rights, are to be considered an enterprise. And as in that case there can be a commonality of purpose, a pattern, without each individual party having the exact same identical purposes, as long as there is a thread of one common purpose, (NOW v Scheider et al; 510 U.S. 249, (1994), Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion for a unamimous court).

Regarding racketeering acts of the above (three year defined) defendants:

Assistant US Attorney John Griffin: racketeering, multiple misfeasance and nonfeasance, conspiracy. The misfeasance and nonfeasance and conspiracy and obstruction of justice were directly related to crimes specifically covered by RICO. Long file of correspondence as evidence. Col. Henderson being the best witness additional to the correspondence.

Attorney General Scott Harshburger: racketeering, multiple misfeasance and nonfeasance, conspiracy and obstruction of justice, these acts as aiding above mentioned crimes all covered in RICO. Exceedingly long file of correspondence, and records of complaint attempts ignored, going back all the way (14 years) through Public Safety Secretaries of Barry, Rapone, and O'Toole. Col. Henderson again being the best (near to events) witness.

Barnstable District Attorney Phillip Rollins: Racketeering, multiple acts of misfeasance, nonfeasance, conspiracy and obstruction of justice all related to the above crimes which are specifically covered in RICO. District Attorney Rollins was continually contacted, the worst being his inaction and cover-up of the killing of the Smith brothers. A crime that if investigated at all, would lead back to the situation of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's previous, and concurrent, complaints. (District Attorney Rollins was even asked to investigate the probate matter as fraud and refused- as just remembered by this plaintiff.) This plaintiff even, more than once by mail, and to his assistant Michael O'Keef by phone, asked the District Attorney to investigate extortion of the advertisers in the plaintiff's newspaper which was accusing the DA of obstruction of justice.

Brain Faunce, and Brian Faunce as Trustee of Main and Winter Realty Trust, and Main and Winter Reality Trust: Racketeering, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, constructive eviction, collection of unlawful debt. Mr. Faunce had, by Michael Burke's attested statements, a relationship with Attorney Burke concerning the electric in the building that the plaintiff was not aware of. He collected the unlawful debt of the plaintiff having to pay Mr. Faunce's electric bills as shown by Com Electric records. He knew of the newspaper and the plaintiffs accusations against the District Attorney Phillip Rollins. He can be reasoned to have been assured that Com Electric would not check the meter, as they were before witness proved to have not done. Mr. Faunce can be reasoned to only take such illegal actions if he were to be assured that the DA would not interfere, his acts after all were shutting down a newspaper which, by his daughters witnessed statements, he knew. Mr. Faunce denied before witness that he ever talked to Michael Burke, contradicting Michael Burke's sworn statements.

Michael Burke and the law business of Michael Burke, PC: Racketeering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and conspiracy in malicious prosecution. Michael Burke held up a letter to the plaintiff in which he stated that he had indeed spoke to Mr. Faunce. This would have thrown out the entire maliciously prosecuted trial brought by Mr. Faunce. This is proved by dates on his letter, postal dates, and sworn witness accounts with signed statements made directly after the events occurred by witness Ms Jean Miller. Mr. Burke acted against obtaining the plaintiffs records as his own files and his own sworn statements prove. Michael Burke denies receiving the patent information, though this will be contradicted by witness of both the plaintiff and Ms Miller.
Attorney Michael Burke in sworn statement admits to have had both the newspaper published by the plaintiff, and Wrench before he committed these acts.

Racketeering is complex, to explain this racketeering, and the plaintiffs growing awareness, the plaintiff must cover 14 years of events. The courts directions with complaint is to be brief. If the court, taking into account that this is a pro se litigant, deem it necessary to be more detailed in describing each racketeering act, this plaintiff asks the court to allow the plaintiff to amend this complaint.

Relief sought: In the three year period the plaintiff lost the inheritance residue invested into the storefront. This was $17,500. 00. The store never got a chance to be operational. Lost also was the newspaper. Unfortunately, under RICO, losses from future proprietary interests can not be claimed. However, the value of the newspaper itself, at the time, is always valued at 4 times profit. Had not for the extortion the fees been collected, and based on the previous Vineyard Map, just hitting $35,000, per annum, another such start, with full rights would be worth to a buyer, at the time of these acts at the very least $35,000. (a very short future would have been four times) This brings the total proprietary loss to $52.500.00. Treble as allowed under RICO being $157,000.00.
Additionally, outside of RICO, the plaintiff asks the court that Mr. Faunce pay the electric debt to Com Electric- $600.00, and that Michael Burke pay back to the plaintiff the $545.00 collected as $45.00 record holding fee and $500 retainer.
Additionally, outside of RICO, the plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff any damages for pain and suffering the court deems appropriate.
Additionally, inside of RICO, if the court extends the limitation beyond three years, the proprietary damages would be $260,000.00, treble $780,000,00, though other defendants would then be involved.
Additionally, outside of RICO, the plaintiff asks the court to determine, as point of law, what damage can be claimed as to his patent applications.

Regarding all situations and conditions alleged in this complaint, and understanding that within the confines of RICO there can be no judgment or relief for future proprietary interests or for pain and suffering, this petitioner, Michael Donovan, pro se and unlearned in law and praying in a common plea request what further relief outside of the confines of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act deemed just and right and meet by the court.
Regarding the only property that the plaintiff has, patentable ideas in patent process, if the court finds that, as alleged, agents of the United States government acted illegally and wrongully within a pattern of racketeering, and that pattern of racketeering was initially, or even in part, to stop knowledge of Pavlita's new geometry upon which the patentable ideas of this plaintiff are based, then the plaintiff asks that the United States government itself, by its act of nonfeasance in allowing such racketeering, be held responsible for all future loss of income that the plaintiff would have had. In the addendum to his aforementioned will, the plaintiff pointed out that his ideas can be considered as component parts of a developing technology, and that if any future claims are brought forth that so that technologies or devices were not developed that would have logically been before his entry date, then the idea and rights should be awarded to the plaintiff's estate. Further, if claims are made that are equal in entry time, that, arguing from the basis of patent law itself, as established by the US Constitution, promoting the creation of ideas, then too the ideas and rights thereto should be awarded to this plaintiff or his estate.

Regarding the congressional intent that RICO be used as a "weapon against unlawful activity whose scope and persistence pose a special threat to the social well being", and noting that there is great public concern as to how the investigations regarding the events outside of Waco, Texas were handled, and that there is further public concern over how the investigation of the bombing in Oklahoma City was handled, and noting also that the records regarding the aforesaid Waco investigation were destroyed in the Oklahoma bombing, and noting further that a grand jury now sits in Oklahoma regarding the possibility that Federal Authorities knew the bombing was coming and did nothing about it, and further noting that this investigation was prompted by massive public petition including families of victims, and noting also that major media has given this scant coverage (a danger posing a far greater threat than militia bombers, the complacency and aid and abatement inside agencies of Federal government itself), and noting more that this complaint alleges facts supporting a motive for criminal activity by agents of the Federal Government racketeering under the cloak of government in Waco, and that this motive also gives another motive for the bombing in Oklahoma City (destruction of records) ; this plaintiff, Michael Donovan, respectively prays to the court that the proceedings be open to the public, and respectively prays also that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia take what further action or actions deemed proper and in the interest of justice.

I, Michael Donovan, plaintiff, signing my name below, swear and affirm that the information in this complaint to the United Stated Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is the truth. I, Michael Donovan, plaintiff further swear and affirm that I have served by first class postage all the above named defendants with copy of this complaint, with required waver of summons, as stipulated by Federal Rules of Procedure. I, Michael Donovan, plaintiff, further swear and affirm that I have mailed by first class postage to the Present Secretary of the Navy, Pentagon, Wash DC, and also to Agent in Charge, John Malone, Office of Inspection, BATF in Arlington, Virginia a copy of this complaint as required by Rule 4 (small I) (C) of the US rules of civil procedure.

________________(date:)_______________
Michael Donovan

Home Archives News Resources Victims

Forum Conferences Search Web Ring Contact

Our Disclaimer Fair Use

Michael Donovan's Court Case

Introduction:

Michael Donovan's
Court Case