UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS, KEITHL, PHILLI S, PROSE PLAINTIFF, CIVIL ACTION NO# < ‘ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Upon the supporting Affidavit ofthe Plant and the accompanying Memorandum of law, itis ORDERED thet Defendant Mark A. Conrad show cause in room ___of he United States Courthouse, t 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, on the__ day of _ 2010, st oelock, why a Preliminary Injunction should not be issued pursuant to Rul 65 (9), Fd. R. Civ. P enjoining the sid Defendant, his successors in office, agents an employees ad al ther persons acting in concert and patcpaton with them to immediately: 1) Cease and desist rom publishing, sharing or disseminating the Paints offense information with all publi, st, local and Federal agencies util conchsion ofthis aston; )Expunge andor seal and amend te Plant's parle ile of both statue end language of M.G.Lc. 265 § 13 Band the word “child” wherever found within uid file ©) Provide completion notice and details to both the Court andthe Pains {Send “notice of amendment / correction” to all eiprocal data feeds, inclusive of Interatate Compact, South Carolina and Georgia and the FBI;IIS FURTHER ORDERED that effective immediately after the Hearing and determination ofthis Order to show couse, Defeadant Mark A. Conrad, shall seat the Plaintiff fora Parole Hearing within 30 days; IT1S FURTHER ORDERED, that upon seating the Plaitiff for a Parole Fearing, Defendants are hereby barred fom using agninst the Plaintiff any information having taken place before the Commencement ofthis ction or previously used agaist him IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this order to show cause, and all ether papers attached to this Application, shall be served on Defendant Mark A. Conta, et by 2010 and the United States Marshals Service is hereby directed to effectuate such sevice, United States District Judge DatedUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS , PRO SE > PLAINTIFF, ) ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO#_ MARK A, CONRAD, ET AL ) ‘DEFENDANTS. ) PLAINTIFF wr IFPORT OF IIIS APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORA} RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ‘his isan action stemming from various constitutional violations rowght pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 bya stat prisoner. STATEMENT. TS (BEFORE 2009) ‘As stated inthe Declaration submited with this Motion, the Defendants are legally and knowingly using «manufactured conviction of child molestation agains the Plait. From May of 2000 tothe later half of 2002 the Paintff continuously requested the false enty tobe corrected by the Defendants nthe fll of 2002, Defendants nan of cial response, admitted to sing the ‘word “child” instead of person” and had “amended” the “records...” ‘Plain informed the Defendants that they needed to “excise the enite Paro file” ofthe word “child” Defendants did not amend the entire Parole file, just the “Record of Decision,” On 02/28/03 aint ‘vas released on Parole,‘STATEMENT OF FACTS (2009 UNTILL PRESENT) (On October, 2008, nearly 8 years ate, the Defendants eld Final Revocation Hearing (“Hearing”) forthe PlaintfP's 2003 Parole permit. At the Hearing the Plintif's 5 month pregnant spouse was ‘eoneously informe in avery eruel manner by Defendants thatthe Pant was convicted of child rmoestation, On Apps the Defendants were ons again informed thi the Paints not convicted of crime against «child, Defendants “denied” Plinf’s Appeal citing “no merit” ARGUMENT “To succeed on application for Preliminary Injunction a party must establish through the common standard that such a need does exist. Reaching the standard is accomplished by a weighing of elements. See ‘Mallen v. Surtsi 590 F.Supp. 241233 (N.D. Cal. 2008) “The Court in Mallen stated sup, {he traditional test requires the movant 0: (1) establish a strong likelihood of success onthe merit; (2) shou the possibility ofireparable injury to the Plaintiff preliminary relies not granted (3) show a balance of hardship favoring the movants; and (4) show that granting the ijumetion favors the public As fully demonstrated below, the Plant's requested Injunction satisfies each ofthe requisite criteria, 1. Plaintiff Has a Strong Likelihood of Success on The Merits This ection is based on established facts beyond any lements of dispute. The Defendants have already admitted to engaging in the unlawful conduct allege by the Paitif, price othe commencement ofthis sction. Indeed success i most certain in thatthe Defendants can neither dispute their previous admission or proffer a defense to justify ther unlawl conduct.1. Without A Preliminary Injunston The Psintiff Will Continue To Suffer Treparable Harm, 1) Without te Cours immediate intervention the Defendants’ wil continue to transmit, publish and stare with otber agencies, contractors, orgurizations andthe World Wide Web the ‘manufaetured conviction ofa child molestation tha unfiy portrays the Plinti s aperson ‘who semully preys on children 2) ‘The Plaintiff cannot get fai and impartial Hearing because of Defendans” refuse to adress the ‘manufactured convston of child molestation. Thus, with each passing dy, the Pants unable to pursue the wrongful revocation of his Hoey Hence time is of essence. 3) On March 4" 2010 the Plantif's souse gave birth to their only child and Plain has real ‘concems for this family being wrongly discriminated against, very much inthe same manner the Plain i suffering imeparable harm, Il The Balance of Harm Clearly Weihs in Plaintiff's Favor: The Paint merely seeks 1 have the Defendants perform their sworn duties. ‘When Plant has demonstrated that the failure to issue the injunetion wil subject him wo 8 substantial rsk of irreparable harm, the Court must balance the risk against any similae risk which granting the injunction would create forthe Defendants. See, Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d, at 808 (holding tht dangers posed by prison crowding outweighed states financial and administrative concems). In the case at bar, the Plaintiff has unquestionably demonstrated a substantial risk of iveparable harm, As for ‘the harm that may be created forthe Defendants, none exists, Defeodaats would only be performing the duties of which they have ten an osth to perform, instead of continuing to act indifferent and above judicial1V. Granting he Plaintiff's Pelinary Injunction serves the Public Interest ‘Simply pu, itis inthe public's intrest that publi officals adhere tothe law. Defendant are not just runing foul ofthe Paint’ rights, but sre atthis moment violating United States Code Title 18,Sestion 495 which provides [W]hoever falsely makes, alter, forges...any public record. Whoever alters or publishes as true or possesses with inten to alter atu, any such false, forged, ore. ..witing knowing the same tobe fase..altered...0r ‘Whoever transits to, or presents o any office oro any officer ofthe United States [FB] any’ auch fale, altered writin, knowing the same tobe false... Shall be fined under thistle or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. [Brackets added] ‘And, Section 1519 of sume tite states, [Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, matte, conceal, covers up, falsifies, or makes false entry in any record document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, orinlvenc... proper administration [Parole Hearing]... Shall be fined under this tit, imprisoned not more ‘han 20 years or both, [Brackets added) ‘The Plant should not be required to Pos Seurity. Usually a litigant who obtains Interim Injunction eliet is asked to post security, Role 65 (), Fed. R Civ. P. However, the Plain san indigent prisoner and is ‘unable to post security. The Cour has discretion to excuse and impoverished litigant from posting security Orantes Hemandezv. Smith, 541 F.Supp. 351,385 n30 (C.D. Cal. 1982). In view of he serous harm conftontng the Plaintiff the Court should grat the relief requested without requiring the posting of securityCONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the motion in its entirety Dated ‘Kei, Philips OSI — P.O. BOX 466 Gardner, MA 01440