Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

READ IT HERE! LAWSUIT AGAINST CHENEY!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:17 PM
Original message
READ IT HERE! LAWSUIT AGAINST CHENEY!
After being arrested for assault after addressing Vice President Dick Cheney, seeing the charge reduced to "harassment" and then dropped altogether, Amherst native Steven Howards was not willing to let the latter drop. He has sued the agent who made the arrest, with the goal of possibly determining Cheney's involvement in what Howards charges is a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights. Here is the text of the lawsuit.

--------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.

STEVEN HOWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIRGIL D. "GUS" REICHLE, JR., in his individual and official capacity,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff STEVEN HOWARDS, by and through his attorney, David A. Lane, of KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, respectfully alleges for his Complaint as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages against the Defendant for violating Plaintiff Steve Howards's rights under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. Mr. Howards alleges that Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights when, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and with deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights, he subjected him to an intrusive, unjustified, and illegal search and seizure without any basis for believing he was engaged in criminal activity. Mr. Howards additionally alleges that Defendant violated his First Amendment rights when he retaliated against him for his valid exercise of his free speech rights. Defendants' conduct under color of state law proximately caused the deprivation of Mr. Howards's federally protected rights.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If this Court finds no jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the Defendant is a federal law enforcement agent, it should then be found under Bivens v. Six Unknown Drug Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331, 1343 and 2201. Jurisdiction supporting Mr. Howards' claim for attorney fees is conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

3. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All of the events alleged herein occurred within the state of Colorado, and all of the parties are residents of the state. At all pertinent times mentioned herein, Defendant was employed by the United States Treasury Department as a Secret Service agent assigned to protect the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, and was acting under color of state law at the time of this incident.

PARTIES

4. At all pertinent times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Steve Howards was a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of Colorado.

5. At all pertinent times mentioned herein, Defendant was employed as a Secret Service agent and was acting within the scope of his duties and employment, under color and authority of state and federal law, and in his official capacities as a U.S. Treasury employee.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. On June 16, 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney was in Beaver Creek, Colorado, as was Plaintiff, Steve Howards.

7. Mr. Howards was walking in Beaver Creek with his young son who was going to a piano lesson, when he saw Mr. Cheney surrounded by people, shaking hands and posing for photographs in an outdoor mall area.

8. Mr. Howards walked to where Mr. Cheney was and Mr. Howards, who was approximately 2-3 feet away from Mr. Cheney addressed the Vice President by saying "Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible", or words to that affect.

9. Mr. Howards and his young son then walked away to go to the piano lesson where he joined his wife.

10. This encounter with the Vice President occurred in plain view of dozens of citizens and numerous Secret Service agents.

11. Approximately ten minutes later Mr. Howards and his son began to return through the same area.

12. As Mr. Howards and his son approached the area where the initial encounter occurred, they were intercepted by the Defendant who demanded to know if he had assaulted the Vice President.

13. Mr. Howards, in shocked amazement, denied that he had assaulted the Vice President.

14. At that point, Mr. Howards, in the presence of his young son, was placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County jail where he was searched and detained for several hours.

15. Although the Defendant told Mr. Howards that he was going to be charged with assaulting the vice-president, Mr. Howards was ultimately issued a summons for harassment under Colorado State Law, for harassing the Vice President.

16. On July 6, 2006, the Eagle County District Attorney's office moved to dismiss all charges.

17. On July 10, 2006, the state court dismissed all charges.

18. At no time during these encounters did Steve Howards ever violate any law, federal, state or local.

19. Mr. Howards was arrested without probable cause to believe that he had committed any offense whatsoever.

20. Mr. Howards was arrested in retaliation for his having exercised his First Amendment protected free speech right to speak out to the Vice President and in retaliation for his having exercised his First Amendment right to petition his government.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(§ 1983 Fourth Amendment Violation -- Unlawful Seizure)

21. Mr. Howards incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.

22. The actions of Defendant as described herein, while acting under color of state and/or federal law, intentionally deprived Mr. Howards of the securities, rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America, including his right to freedom from unlawful seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that Steve Howards was arrested without probable cause to believe he had committed any offense.

23. Defendant intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and excessively subdued, restrained, detained and falsely arrested Mr. Howards, without any reasonable justification or probable cause.

24. Defendants' conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages, and losses to Mr. Howards.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(§ 1983 Fourth Amendment Violation -- Unlawful Search)

25. Mr. Howards incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.

26. The actions of Defendant as described herein, while acting under color of state and/or federal law, intentionally deprived Mr. Howards of the securities, rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America, including his right to freedom from unlawful searches as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that the Defendants had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that Steve Howards had committed any violation of the law prior to searching his person pursuant to the unlawful arrest.

27. Defendant deliberately and improperly accosted Mr. Howards and intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly subjected him to an illegal, demeaning, and invasive search without any reasonable justification.

28. Defendant's conduct proximately caused damages to Mr. Howards.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(§ 1983 First Amendment Violation -- Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech)

29. Mr. Howards incorporates all other paragraphs of this Amended Complaint for purposes of this claim.

30. In criticizing the actions of the Vice President and the Bush administration in pursuing the war in Iraq, Mr. Howards was engaging in the constitutionally protected activity of free speech and petitioning his government for redress.

31. Mr. Howards's speech was related to matters of public concern.

32. The Defendant's acts of intimidating, threatening, searching, and falsely arresting Mr. Howards were motivated by Mr. Howards's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.

33. Defendant's actions caused Mr. Howards to suffer injuries that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected activity.

34. Defendant's conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to Mr. Howards of which reasonable persons in Defendants' position knew or should have known.

35. Defendant's acts were done under color of state and/or federal law.

36. Defendant engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly maliciously, and in reckless disregard of Mr. Howards's federally protected constitutional rights.

37. Defendant's conduct proximately caused significant injuries, damages and losses to Mr. Howards.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Howards respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants, and grant:

(a) Appropriate declaratory and other injunctive and/or equitable relief;

(b) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, loss of reputation, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial;

(c) All economic losses on all claims allowed by law;

(d) Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial;

(e) Attorneys fees and the costs associated with this action, including those associated with having to defend against the false criminal charge as well as expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;

(f) Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate.

(g) Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed by law.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A TRIAL TO A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

Dated this ____ day of September, 2006.

KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP

________________________________________

David A. Lane

The Oddfellows Hall

1543 Champa Street, Suite 400

Denver, Colorado 80202

(303) 571-1000

dlane@killmerlane.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. good for steven!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Recommended - Go get 'em, Mr. Howards!
I assume contributions to his legal fund can be made to his attorney's office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good. Double triple quadruple pentagonal good.
This guy deserves all good American's support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. for sure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusEarl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'll donate to this one, go get him Mr. Howard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Will there be a legal fund I can contribute to? n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'd want restitution too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. I"m glad he has the strength to go after this!
This is a suit in behalf of us all.

Good for him! I hope this goes far.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. Sweet! More power to him!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kick & Nominated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. I has been awhile since I seen a Bivens case...
...they are very interesting. I hope the asshole defendant gets nailed to the freaking wall.

Bravo!! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GardeningGal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Now this is a trial I would want to be on the jury! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. The young son -- wouldn't even talk -- "We'll call Social Services"

"I stopped and told him I could not abandon my eight-year-old son in the middle of a public mall, at which point he responded, “We'll call Social Services.” Fortunately, on the way out, we passed my wife, who -- my son was with my wife. He had run off in terror. He wouldn't even talk, he was so scared."

As a parent, hearing this on DN! made me almost sick.
How frightening.
And what a lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
resist_vote on paper Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. I hope they don't treat him as an enemy combatant
but they could, isn't it so?

Now, that habeas corpus died, why should they let this lawsuit happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That's a scary thought, but since he's already gone public,,
It probably won't happen. All of Bush's "enemy combatant" arrests will be made in secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
15. Good for Howards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
16. God damn Cheney to hell!
That's not a curse, that's a humble and impassioned request.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. Good for him....
Edited on Fri Oct-20-06 02:34 PM by truebrit71
Cheney needs to be told to go fuck himself....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
18. That's great but how is it against Cheney?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. "Lawsuit indirectly against Cheney" would be more accurate, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
20. My 15 year old just told me about this guy!
Her Honors World History teacher, fortunately, seems quite progressive and has them reading all sorts of current events -- she just passed on this article:

"Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," Steven Howards told Vice President Dick Cheney in a chance June meeting at a Colorado ski resort. Ten minutes later, Howards says, a Secret Service agent was escorting him to jail on charges of assault, though he'd never touched CHeney. Now Howards is suing.

The suit -- filed in Denver -- is at least the third of its kind to target the Secret Service in the past two years. The American Civil Liberties Union sued in 2004 on behalf od a West Virginia couple who said they were arrested for wearing anti-George Bush T-shirts to a presidential appearance, and in 2005 on behalf of a Denver couple who said their "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker got them ejected from a presidential speech. Two women who say they were arrested at a Bush rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for holding a sign and wearing a John Kerry button filed their own law suit last year. "This isn't an isolated case," Howards said. "That to me is scarier for the future of this nation than Osama bin Laden ever will be."

A Secret Services spokesperson declined to comment on the Howards case, and the agency has said little about the other cases. But, in the Iowa case, Justice Department lawyers argues that the Secret Service targeted the women simply for disobedience. "At no time," they wrote, "did any political message play any role." U.S.News & World Report, October 16, 2006, p.19
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southern_belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. Good for you! Go get 'em! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
22. Note that Darth Cheney is not actually the defendant
It's his goon, probably a secret service agent. Looks like a well drafted complaint, though. I wish Mr. Howards luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. But if, under oath . . .
. . . the SS agent says that darth told him to arrest Howards, would that not open up the possibility of a similar suit against darth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Yep. Discovery may very well uncover a conspiracy that
includes Cheney. Then they amend their complaint!

Good on them!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrick t. cakes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. would be nice
but i bet the
ss thug takes the fall.
he'll be justly compensated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
24. Can I sue to get the constitution and bill of rights back??? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Let's get a group suit going
as many of us as possible.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout1071 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
25. Link?
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
27. Ah, there's your courageous vice president ...
He thinks nothing of sending tens of thousands of troops into Iraq, lugging over a hundred pounds of equipment around in 100-plus degree temperatures, without body armour, helmut inserts, vehicle armour, living in horrid conditions, being fed substandard food and contaminated water -- and he thinks GETTING YELLED AT IS ASSAULT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-20-06 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
30. k&r. good luck to howards. hope he has a great lawyer to kick
someone's legal ASS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
33. I hope Cheney is beginning to get a clue
He may hold the reins of power now, but there are still a lot of cititzens who want to see him face justice - when he's not so powerful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat@14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
34. Hope Mr Howard isn't classified an enemy combatant...locked up forever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
35. Excellent! Two middle fingers to dickwad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC