Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No: 18-1017
In the
In 1908 the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Ex
Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). The Court beautifully explained that the
sovereign in a constitutional republic are the people of the republic, meaning the
The Court then made explicit that the people of the States are not implicated
when some State official that they employ and fund, the people’s servant, violates
the principles of the supreme authority, the United States Constitution. STATE =
1
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
The employee’s official title means nothing after she violates the Constitution. It is
the people who remain supreme. Ex Parte Young was an early attempt by the
Supreme Court to aid individual efforts to drain the swamp and vindicate federal
rights. The only ones who object are lawyers who support unconstitutional acts and
corruption and desire that perpetrators must escape the consequences of their
from the people who employ State officials, meaning it is not the people who are
shamed into tempering its innate statist proclivities and adopted this fundamental
American principle through the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. The Supreme
Judicial Court rejoiced when the Legislature finally enacted, fully 200 years after
2
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
This statute finally made explicit that even in Massachusetts, a State officer,
meaning the people’s servant that they employ and fund, who commits intentional
torts against the people of the State, is stripped of any sovereign immunity, may
MGL ch. 258 § 10 (c), explicitly codified a clear BAN on the Attorney General
representing, at the expense of the people (the true sovereign), such State officials.
“Section 10. The provisions of sections one to eight, inclusive, shall not
apply to: (c) any claim arising out of an intentional tort, including assault,
battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, intentional mental distress,
malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, libel, slander,
misrepresentation, deceit, invasion of privacy, interference with
advantageous relations or interference with contractual relations;”
This BAN has been tendered due respect by the state Supreme Court. South Boston
Betterment Trust Corp. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 438 Mass. 57, 69 (2002),
Anzalone v. Admin. Off. of the Trial Court, 457 Mass. 647 (2010), Lafayette Place
Assoc. v. Boston Redev. Auth., 427 Mass. 509 (1998), Doe v. Town of Blandford,
402 Mass. 831 (1988), and Afrasiabia v. Awad, 14-10239-PBS (D. Mass. 2015)
3
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
become the true last refuge of the scoundrel in Massachusetts. The flag no longer
represents the people or the Constitution that they cherish, it now represents the
Attorney General providing, at the expense of the tax payer, full legal services for
corrupt State officials who consciously violated the Constitution and the Hobbs
Act but now don’t even have to pay for defending themselves in court, even though
“the officer is stripped of his official character and is subjected in his person to the
consequences of his individual conduct” and the “State has no power to impart
United States.”
Since 1908 the Court has repeatedly explained the fundamental point that
State officers sued in court under Ex Parte Young do not represent the State
(people), and suits against them under Ex Parte Young are not suits against the
State (people).
indemnify and defend, at the expense of the sovereign people, State officers sued
in their person under Ex Parte Young for violations of the Constitution and the
Hobbs Act.
Attorney General is ultra vires and require these State officers - James Paikos,
Robert Harvey, Debra Stoller, Loretta Cooke, George Zachos, Susan Giordano -
4
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
stripped as they are of their official status and subjected in their person to the
sworn documents attesting that, by money order made out to the Treasury of the
Commonwealth, they have repaid the people the monies illegally withdrawn from
George Abraham and Candace Lapidus Sloane are independent market actors who
In 2015 the United States Supreme Court stripped all such market actors of
The Court also defined the “active supervision” of licensing boards that it
required a State to implement before these market actors could be indemnified and
covered by sovereign immunity. Only then could the licensing board itself be
ostensibly provide “active supervision” over the medical board. In his April 8,
2016 letter, Gov. Baker acknowledged that in the absence of his proposed Act, the
5
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
licensing boards does not provide for the degree of supervision required by
the Supreme Court[]” and that “[i]t would also leave individual practitioners
liability under the antitrust laws.” The Legislature refused to pass that bill to
See http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationexecorder/legislation/state-oversight-of-
The Massachusetts Governor has officially declared that the market actors in
control of the independent licensing board, here Appellees Michael Henry, Robin
“active supervision” defined by the Court, itself is not an arm of the State and thus
the ‘People’s Lawyer,’ to indemnify independent private market actors and defend
them using public tax dollars in this suit brought against their persons in response
6
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
to their violation of the Constitution and the Hobbs Act. This kleptocratic practice
is called crony capitalism, a term coined in 1980 by George Taber for TIME
By law, these independent market actors must be responsible for their own
ongoing legal expenses and must not be illegally fed from the public trough.
independent appellees by the Attorney General in Federal court is ultra vires and
require these independent market actors to immediately provide to this court sworn
documents attesting that they have repaid the people, by money order made out to
the Treasury of the Commonwealth, the monies illegally withdrawn from the
CONCLUSION
No court has the authority to waive or overrule the Supreme Court’s ruling
in Ex Parte Young or the clear dictate of a state law that defines the state’s
sovereign immunity doctrine and what the tax payer is not on the hook for.
state law, US and state constitutions, the will of the elected Legislature, as well as
7
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
As a matter of law, this court must immediately grant the relief sought:
officers, stripped of their official status and subjected in their person to the
court sworn documents attesting that they have repaid the people, by money
order made out to the Treasury of the Commonwealth, the monies illegally
they have repaid the people, by money order made out to the Treasury of the
Commonwealth, the monies illegally withdrawn from the Treasury thus far
8
Case: 18-1017 Document: 00117294448 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Entry ID: 6172856
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Dr Bharani certifies that a copy of this electronic brief has been served today
upon the defendants in case 18-1017 (DC 1:17-cv-10936) (via the Massachusetts
Attorney General) via the ECF system.