to protect and intentionally cause injury to a citizen. Moreover, all of the case law used by theDistrict Court that knowingly furthered the Mafia crimes was wrongfully applied since theyreferred to cases of
neglect committed by Government officials. Plaintiff argued thatthe issue of deliberate neglect and reckless injury committed by the Defendant law enforcementofficials was settled in numerous Supreme Court rulings (i.e.,
Daniels, Davidson, Collins, Nishiyama
and others), and moreover, the Defendants’ intentional neglect is a Constitutionalwrong pursuant to the deliberate deprivation
and other well-established principles.Plaintiff also filed his Motion for newly discovered evidence of the Italian Mafia bugging hiscellular phones in violation of the Communications Act, his Due Process rights and other wrongs being maliciously neglected by the Defendant law enforcement officials.2. On August 23, 2010, Judge Perry denied Plaintiff’s Motion For Relief From Judgmentand furthered the Mafia crimes based on her purported belief that Plaintiff’s new evidence of Mafia stalking, extortion and exaction does not give rise to a Constitutional claim sinceGovernment officials cannot be held liable for acts of deliberate neglect. (See Judge Perry’s8/23/10 Order, page 2.). Accordingly, Judge Perry denied Plaintiff’s Motion in patent derelictionto the deliberate deprivation norm, US Supreme Court precedent, and other well-established principles. Notwithstanding, the belief that no citizen has a right to protection from theGovernment, especially when the danger was created by a Government regulated monopoly, isutterly erroneous.
Archie v. Racine
at 1246 (7th Cir. 1988)(When the Government monopolizesthe avenues of relief, or when it has not already afforded process sufficient to yield accuratedecisions, it has an obligation to give aid.).3. In contravention to Judge Perry alleging that Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed as amatter of law and his new evidence was not relevant to his Rule 60(b)(2) Motion, the new