Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Snttt
finymt{,rwtnffuF
itl Fw
Respondent.
$rprmiru
fur!rt*$*wru
$trfnprrur?nrnat $t*t
fltrcnlrrt!**$arfiffii
*
Eli A. Blackhouse,
Plaintiff (pro se)
35 Bridge Street, Suite 1
Gardiner, ME 04345 -2121
-\-
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Whether the Maine Supreme Judicial Court erred in upholding the lower court's
dismissal of a kidnapping victim's protection from harassment ("PFH") complaint by
citing the entbezzlement and extortion activity holding said plaintiff in debt bondage
- and in the thrall of his captors - as not remediable by the Maine statute prohibiting
harassment activity.
il.
Whether the Maine Supreme Judicial Court erred in failing to issue or in failing to
cause a court of appropriate jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to resolve
the plaintiffs wrongfi.rl confinement to Central Maine and to the premises of 235
Water Street in the City of Gardiner (upon its discovery thatthe Plaintiffwas held so
bound).
-2-
LIST OF PARTIES
The name of the Petitioner is:
Laurie Connelly
-3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTTONS
PRESENTED.
.............2
LIST OF PARTIES.
......3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.
OPINIONS
...........5
BELOW.
.......6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
STATEMENT OF THE
.. .. ...6
INVOLVED.....
....,.7
CASE.
.....I0
.......13
II.
CONCLUSION.
APPENDIX
August 12,2010 Memorandum of Decision of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (sitting as the
......App. 1 (p. 21)
Law Court)......
January 26,2010) Denial of Request for Protection of Harassment: Temporary Order and
Court.
-4-
....App. 2 (p.22)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL STATUTE
28 USC 5224t (3) (c).
.7,16
STATE STATUTES
5 MRSA $ 4532..
...7,15
'.'
5 MRSA $ 45S2-A
5 MRSA $ 4633
5
MRSA
$ 4633
5 MRSA $ 4651
(2)....
--7,t1
(1)....
..7,r2
(2)....
..........7,12
(2)......
....7,14,17
4681
5 MRS S 4682 (reallocated).........
5 MRS $
........8,
14
'.....8
14
MRSA $ 5501
14
MRSA $ 600r
14
MRSA $ 6016.
14
MRSA $ 6021
(2)....
.....-..9, l0
14
.9,l2
....8,
(3)....
16
...9,12
.......9,12
REGULATIONS
24 CFR 882.4s
(1xb)(4xiii)......
24 CFR 982.310
(bX2)..
24 CFR 982.456
(bxl).
......e,12
......9,
12
..9,12
-5-
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the Maine Supreme Judicial (Law) Court is not reported and is included in
the Appendix (App., infra, at p. 2l).The final judgment of the Maine District Court (at Augusta)
is not reported and is reproduced in the Appendix (App., infra, atp.22).
$
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The judgment of the Maine Supreme Judicial (Law) Court was entered on August 12,
2010. See App., infra, at 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC S 1257
(a) and 28 USC 5 2241 (3) (c).
-6-
..
s MRS $ 4s82
A person may not discriminate against any individual because that individual has
opposed any act or practice that is unlawful under [the Maine Human Rights Act]
because that individual made a charge...under this Act.
s MRS $ 4633 (2)
It is unlawful for a person to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual
in the exercise or enjoyment of...rights...
s MRS S46sl (2).
"Harassment" means:
A.
-7 -
s MRS
S 4681
INOTE THAT this statute refers only to the Attorney General's ability to bring an action
on behalf of an individual aggrieved by the civil rights violations listed therein; however,
same statute is listed in 5 MRS $ 4651 (2) (c) as bearing a description of proscribed
activity identifiable as remediable harassment. Also note that 5 MRS $ 4682 (following)
permits the filing of a "restraining order" by individuals aggrieved by the same actions
delineated in 5 MRS $ 4681 but is not listed among the definitions of harassment in 5
MRS $ 4651 (2) (c). One presumes that in referring to 5 MRS $ 4681 as bearing a list of
violations consisting of "harassment," that lawmakers intended 5 MRS S 4682 - which
repeats the list of (civil rights) violations enumerated in 5 MRS $ 4681 but states that
such violations are remediable by way of "civil action" (i.e., by individuals so aggrieved)
- that they also intended the prohibited actions listed in 5 MRS $ 4682 to be remediable
by way of a "protection from harassment" order.]
5 MRS $ 4682 (1-A
Whenever any person, whether or not acting under color of law, intentionally interferes
or attempts to intentionally interfere by physical force or violence against a person,
damage or destruction of property or trespass on property or by the threat of physical
force or violence against a person, damage or destruction of property or trespass on
property with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person of rights secured by the
United States Constitution or the laws of the United States or of rights secured...the
person whose exercise or enjoyment of these rights has been interfered with, or attempted
to be interfered with, may institute and prosecute in that person's own name and on that
person's own behalf a civil action for legal or equitable relief.
14 MRS $ ss01
Every person unlawfully deprived of his personal liberty by the act of another.
right have a writ of habeas corpus...
Title
17 violations constitute
-B-
..
shall
of
In any action of forcible entry and detainer there is a rebuttable presumption that the
action was commenced in retaliation against the tenant if, within 6 months prior to the
commencement of the action, the tenant has:
A.
B.
E.
Filed, in good faith, a fair housing complaint with the Maine Human
Rights Commission or...
14 MRS 56016
Rent charged for residential estates may not be increased if the dwelling unit is in
violation of the wamanty of habitability.
14 MRS S6021 (2).
In any written or oral agreement for rental of a dwelling unit, the landlord shall be
deemed to covenant and warrant that the dwelling unit is fit for human habitation.
14 MRS $6022 (1)
as
The PHA failure to pay the housing assistance payment to the owner is not a violation
the lease between the tenant and the owner. ...
24 CFR e82.4s6 (b) (1)
The family [HUD's term for "covered tenant"] is not aparty to...the HAP contract."
-9-
of
- where he currently
dwells
- because
Ms. Connelly and her property management company, dlbla "TLC Properties," require him to
pay an amount of rent that is illegal according to Federal law.2 Fully disabled with post-traumatic
in
presently imperiled by: a) conditions created by the extortion of excessive rent, which violate the
apartment's warranty of habitability (14 MRSA $ 6021); and, b) his inability to relocate outside
of the thrall of Ms. Connelly, who acquired the building from the previous owner after
said
owner had extorted over $8000 from his monthly SSDI disbursement check (in a manner both
identical to and enabling the continuation of the extortion that would
sale
stop trespassing. She has no right to be on the premises, as her acquisition of the building
occurred during a period of time in which Mr. Blackhouse remained unremunerated and unconsulted subsequent to the illegally non-forfeited sale; additionally, she further violated the
Plaintiffls rights by refusing a mandatory reasonable accommodation of his disability, his right
under both State tenant law and Federal law (the Americans with Disabilities Act [the "ADA"]).
Connelly and her husband to accommodate him by directing all communications to his Catholic
'
Mr. Blackhouse's guaranteed Federal Section 8 housing subsidy was retaliatorily terminated by
AHA - in 2005 - after Mr. Blackhouse attempted to report his 2002 kidnapping and three-weeks of
captivity. The termination caused his rent-to-income ratio to exceed 40%o of his income, which is
the
-10-
Charities of Maine case manager; he also requested that paper notices not be posted to his door.
Ms. Connelly violated the RA request by appearing at his door once again after he instructed her
that on-premises collection of rent exacerbated his disability. During this episode, she demanded
the illegal amount of rent in question, attempting to enact a shakedown that violated both: a) his
right not to be subjected to extortion; and, b) his right to have landlord-tenant communications
reasonably accommodated (see
refusing) to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when those
equal
Prior to filing against Ms. Connelly when the RA refusal caused his health to fail, Mr.
Blackhouse filed a formal housing discrimination complaint against the Connellys with the
Maine Human Rights Commission (in October, 2009). This complaint described the illegal
housing activity that causes him to remain largely indoors in a non- HUD-compliant, cell-like
setting, out of reach of the court system, and unable to relocate to a replacement residence; it also
attributed the wrongful confinement to HUD fraud, money-laundering activity, and the transfer
of the building via fraudulent title sale, describing how Auta Main (the previous alleged owner)
had sold the building without remuneration of excessive rent to the Plaintiff, prohibiting the
latter from maintaining a safe standard of living within the apartment and from being able to
relocqte out ofit.
This activity enabled the Defendant and her husband- dlbla "TLC Properties," and upon
the illegal acquisition of the building from Ms. Main
apartment and a built-in source of extortion cash, to wit: the excessive rent now keeps him bound
to the premises of 235 Water Street, within harassing reach of the operators of the Mad Dog Pub
-LL-
and the other downtown establishments in which the extorted rent is laundered, and as such,
guarantees that the Defendant
disbursement check,
SSDI
Plaintiff s right to choose to relocate and not to pay rent to the Connellys at all; and, b) his right
to pay only the rent he was required to pay according to HUD regulations.3 To the contrary of
their demands, it would be the obligation of the Aususta Housins Authorit)' to pay rent to the
Connellys
if
and only
if
the Corurellys legally held title to the building, which they do not.a
However, Ms. Connelly's harassment during this time was not limited to refusing to
accommodate his disability
continue the wrongful confinement pattern initiated by the seller: she also violated 5 MRSA $
4633, which prohibits both retaliation and coercion against any individual opposing violations
of
the Maine Human Rights Act. This violation occurred when she attempted to evict the Plaintiff
on November 3, 2009, during the pendency of the Maine Human Rights Commission decision
eviction attempts
complaints
It
of housing discrimination
MRSA $ 6001.
The Defendant also routinely violates State tenant law by not providing rental receipts (14 MRSA
6022)
and in maintaining the rent at an increased amount that both violates Federal regulation and is
S
prohibited by 14 MRSA $ 6016, which forbids landlords from raising rent on dwellings that are not
suitable for habitation. Before the illegal transfer of the building to the Connellys in 2009, the alleged
former "owner" (Ms. Main) raised rent from $450 per month to $475 per month in spite of the presence of
apartment conditions violating the warranty of habitability.
o
That missing housing authority payments ("FIAPs") are not the tenant's responsibility is stated on
numerous occasions in HUD-promulgated Federal regulations such as 24 CFR 882.451 (b)(4)(iii): "The
family is not responsible for payment of the portion of rent to owner covered by the housing assistance
payment under the HAP contract between the owner and the PHA"; 24 CFR 982.310 (b) (2): "The PHA
failure to pay the housing assistance payment to the owner is not a violation of the lease between the
tenant and the owner", and 24 CFR 982.456 (b) (1): "The family (HUD's term for 'covered tenant') is
not a parly to...the HAP contract."
-12-
I.
requiring excessive rent under threat of police-enforced eviction keeps Mr. Blackhouse in an
unlawful state of peonage. HUD prohibits excessive rent for covered Section 8 tenants precisely
because excessively high rent-to-income ratios bind such individuals to and confine them
within
properties in which they do not wish to reside, converting said tenants into victims of rent-based
debt bondage: that is, perennial furnishers of unlarvfully excessive rent, a condition rendering
such victims: a) unable to relocate away from the premises (that is, because excessive rent
prevents the saving of first month's rent and security deposit), and
as a consequence of not
also, b) unable to escape the thrall (and any other forms of attendant
abuse) of the landlord controlling the requirement to pay the unlawful rent. For the purposes
of
evaluating this case for its broader class applications, the Court should note that the successful
execution of such rent-to-income ratio violations
unlawfully enable such violators to circumvent the expenses and market vagaries associated
as in the
Plaintiff
s case
any combination
of
HUD or State and Federal law enforcement agencies fail to enforce indispensable rules
protecting the disenfranchised from housing-based fraud and abuse, there likely exists a vast, un-
Constitutional industry based upon the wrongful confinement of HUD-dependent tenants to their
own dwellings by way of such fraud. While the Plaintiff s case is unusual in the scope and range
of organized criminal activity enacted against him during a period in which he is a witness to
-L3-
It is difficult to ascertain
- where crucial to
cannot be understated.
fails to state a claim of harassment as defined in 5 MRSA $ 4651, et seq." possibly anticipated
that an affirmative harassment determination would have to arise from three or more acts readily
discernible
Blackhouse
to pay HUD-
prohibited excessive rent under threat of police eviction constitutes a harassing "single act" or
"course of action" in violation of 5 MRS $ a681; both kinds of act are among the definitional
parameters of 5 MRS $ 4651 (2) (c) harassment (the retaliatory and peremptory eviction attempt
of the
disabled Plaintiff
notwithstandings).
Plaintiff to the illegal premises of 235 Water Street in February, 2008. This former property
manager now repeatedly demands entry to Mr. Blackhouse's apartment during a period in which
the disabled tenant's health remains jeopardized by indoor confinement and forced interaction
with prospective "buyers" of the building, who are - in the first place
Which violated multiple MRS Title 17 prohibitions (not listed or analyzed here but readily
manifest from a juxtaposition of the crimes delineated in said criminal statute: the Defendant's repeated
stalking and terrorizing of the disabled victim constituted sufficient grounds for a restraining order and
the harassment was episodic enough to meet the definition of harassment as "three or more" harassing
acts in any event.
-14-
seeking to acquire money-laundered property operating on money extorted from the disable
different occasions to avoid such repeated efforts to "sho#' the apartment while he remained
criminally restrained within it. This behavior continued without abatement when the Connellys
took over ownership of the building,6 and Mr. Blackhouse fled for a third time
on this
- when
Mr. Vallee retook to demanding access to the apartment while refusing Mr. Blackhouse's right
not to be exposed to door postings advertising the former's impending, unwarranted property
inspections. Mr. Vallee also left an additional note even after the Plaintiff s instruction to him
in person
trigger the
that such communications were among the specific forms of communication that
ill
effects of his disability. As with Ms. Connelly, he proceeded with full knowledge
refusals
to
accommodate the
Plaintiffs post-
traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), the aggregate activity described in this brief also violates 5
MRS $ 4582, which prohibits discrimination against a tenant based upon both disability
status as recipient of public assistance.
and
prohibited excessive rent from the Plaintiff s SSDI disbursement check - presently conducted by
the Defendant
Th" Gardiner Police Department appears to have tipped Auta Main to sell her business - and then
235 Water Street - to evade having to prosecute the money-laundering activity the Plaintiff reported to its
chief, who also forced the Plaintiff to submit to an illegal search of the latter's apartment after same
Plaintiff attempted to compel law enforcement intervention in a manifest - and newly-uncovered conspiracy to have him abducted by a mob-run ooin-home health care" agency and conveyed into torture
and re-confinement
an attempt to prevent him from pressing charges against his 2002 assailants.
-15-
il.
letter, completed court form, and formal victim's statement. Together, these documents amply
described conditions meeting the criterion for enactment of habeas corpus intervention described
in 28 USC $ 2241 (c) (3), which permits court-ordered assistance to and protection of any
individual "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."
premises
or
even
to a
specific
geographical arca constitutes such a custodial violation, and Mr. Blackhouse is presently being
restrained both to the City of Gardiner and to the premises of 235 Water Street in violation
of
of America.
is
administration of court proceedings involving citizens incarcerated in the penal system, the basic
protection the Writ extends has also been invoked to defend non-prisoner victims of crimes
Mr.
According to the recent Maine definition of the crime (presently repealed, but likely to be
reinstated), Mr. Blackhouse is also - at this writing - a victim of kidnapping in the course of being
committed. The criminal violations (including kidnapping) of the United States Code comprising his
abduction and post-torture captivity are delineatedin Blackhouse v. TLC Properties, et al.
-1.6-
individuals have organized to enact financial crimes, entitlement program fraud, and police
abuse, and have even conspired
an
presently ongoing
disabled victim's life to keep him continuously susceptible to peril. As offrcials at all level
it
becomes obvious
of
after
authority, motivation, or operational efficacy (and, in most instances, good faith) to protect Mr.
Blackhouse from additional abuse during a period in which he is a victim of
- and witness to -
large-scale Federal criminal activity. Indeed, justice has not been delivered with respect to the
Maine Supreme Court refused to fulfill its responsibility (as did the State's district court
upon its discovery of Mr. Blackhouse's status as an unassisted victim of crime) to interpret
victimization-related need
of evidence
the Plaintiffs immediate removal out of harm's way, executing said removal in a manner
compliant with the victim's wishes and protective of his human, civil, and Constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, both Maine District Court and Maine Supreme Judicial (Law)
Court erred in finding that Ms. Connelly's actions did not violate 5 MRSA $ 4651. The lower
-t7 -
court's dismissal should have been vacated by the Law Court and a temporary protection from
harassment order granted pending
a full, court-initiated
criminal investigation
of relief
of
the
normally or
circumstantially granted to plaintiffs during the pendency of court decisions should have been
granted
security deposit Ms. Connelly acquired from Auta Main during the fraudulent purchase of 235
of
conducted
to protection from
the
administration ofjustice to the extent that both the State and Federal courts must now intervene,
specific questions of harassment law notwithstanding. At this writing, Eli Blackhouse remains in
peril of the aforementioned kidnapping attempt (see Footnote 4) in large part because the
Defendant's discriminatory and obstructive building management practices keep him at risk
such abuse, and he cannot temporarily relocate away from dangerous premises
properly-accommodated housing
of
forbidden by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In determining the final
disposition of Blackhouse v. Connelly, the Court should consider that even the most lenient
assessment of Ms. Connelly's actions
full analysis
of the criminal activity she commits but featuring an accurate rendering of her part in
extortion proper
the
constitute harassment in any event, as she has been charging an amount of rent prohibited by
HUD continuously for the past seven (7) months (since September, 2009), a period in which the
While not sufficient to compensate the Plaintiff, the loss is cited here to demonstrate the
- relative to the law - with which the multi-tiered fraud operation (which featured the
repeated exchange of money derived from real estate prohibited from re-sale) served to deprive the
wrongfu lly confi ned victim.
heedlessness
18-
Plaintiff has also been subjected to inhumane housing conditions and forced to remain within her
sphere of control and under threat ofphysical violence by her husband.e
The Plaintiff also notes that Ms. Connelly and Mr. Vallee are attempting to sell the
building during the pendency of housing discrimination lawsuit proceedings, activity that
constitutes money-laundering and is grounds for enjoinment pursuant to Maine tenant
Additionally,
1aw.10
In closing, the Plaintiff re-asserts that the appropriate court should intervene directly with
injunctive remedies in advance of additional proceedings relative either to the Law Court's
decision regarding the lower court's dismissal or Ms. Connelly's culpability
in
harassment
can protect
him from ongoing, longstanding criminal activity, including the current threat of reprisal violent
criminal activity, and no Maine-driven law enforcement mechanism currently protects the
Plaintiffs Constitutional right to liberty and freedom from its unwarranted revocation. Habeas
corpus proceedings
should occur in
advance of the Court's final judgment regarding the PFH complaint appeal proper, and his only
abuse
is directly through
certiorari.
The APD refused to intervene in the threats, shielding Mr. Connelly from intervention and
enforcement activity by denying accommodations to the victim during interactions with the police,
despite the victim's PTSD and survival of unprosecuted police assault. The threats of physical violence
made against the Plaintiff by Mr. Connelly were reported in the United States District Court action he
attempted to file but that was - for reasons obvious from these proceedings - unable to pursue with effect.
l0
The nature of his ongoing wrongful confinement to the State of Maine - during a period in which
he remains deliberately immobilized by ongoing financial exploitation by the Defendant - has enabled the
Plaintiff to provide some, but not all, of the statutory citations of consequence to the questions articulated
in this petition. Maine's prohibition against the maintenance of "dangerous buildings" (17 MRS $ 2851)
is just one example of multiple other statutes presently being violated by the Defendant.
-L9-
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner requests that the Petition for Writ of Certioari be
granted.
Dated:
Revised:
Revised for
2nd USSC
Revision: March 28, 20ll (non-substantive; revised deadtine) [60 days from
Jan.27,20l1l
Signed
Date
-20-
APPENDIX
Reporter of Decisions
ELI A. BLACKHOUSE
v.
LAURIE CONNELLY
Submitted on Briefs JuIy 26,2010
Decided August 12,2010
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and
JABAR,
JJ.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Eli A. Blackhouse appeals from the judgment of the District Court (Augusta, Westcott, J.)
dismissing his protection from harassment action, 5 M.R.S. $ 4651-4654 (2009) for failure to
state a claim of harassment. Blackhouse contends that his complaint did sufficiently make out a
claim of harassment because, he alleges, Laurie Connelly requires that he pay an illegal amount
of rent that prevents him from leaving or safely remaining within his current residence. The
District Court concluded, correctly, that if there is any remedy for Blackhouse's claims, the
remedy is not provided by the protection from harassment statute.
The entry is:
Judgment affrrmed.
-21