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 E-Mail

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

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. 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).

2. 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. <! -- 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. <! -- 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.

6. 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.
  

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10.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'!

11.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.

12.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.

13.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.

14.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.

15.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.

16.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.

17.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.

 
18.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.

19.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.

20.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.

21.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.

1. 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.

2. 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.".

22.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.

23.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.

24.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.

25.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.

26.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.

 
27.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!

28.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.

29.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.

30.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.

31.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:
  

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

b. 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..."

c. 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.

d. 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).

e. Regarding racketeering acts of the above (three year defined)

defendants:

 
1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.
4. 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.

5. 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.

f. 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.

g. 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.

h. 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.

i. 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.

 
 j. 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