Maui FARts Lawsuit

That is, F.A.Rts., First Amendment Rights lawsuit.

If I lose we all lose -- except for the government tyrants who would take a giant bite out of my right to freedom of speech and yours too. What they did to me is routine in Putin's Russia, in China, Iran and Cuba, but it shouldn't happen here if the Bill of Rights means anything.

I have provided information on this case in previous posts and blogs. Here I provide the text of my civil rights lawsuit against County of Maui, which outlines my allegations of malicious criminal misconduct intended to violate and suppress my First Amendment right to free speech.

For links to my other blogs, go to www.kurtbutlerblogs.blogspot.com.

 For extensive background on this case, see especially the link to "Killer Lies."

I am still seeking an attorney's help -- representation or just advice.

Maui's future foretold: Barbarians In Paradise -- Terror Comes to Maui. This is a prophetic flash novel about a future police state and those who rebel against it. Available in paperback and ebook at Amazon.com. (Also other books by Kurt Butler.)

I apologize for the different sizes of type in this post. Try as I might, I can't get it to cooperate.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

KURT BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendant                              

CIVIL NO.  CV13 00163 

                            

_________________________

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF KURT BUTLER, acting pro se, and for cause of action against the above-named Defendant, alleges as follows.

1.  PLAINTIFF Kurt Butler (hereafter “Butler”) is a citizen of the United States and resident of Maui, Hawaii, and was so at all times relevant to this action.

2.  DEFENDANT County of Maui (“the County”) is a county in the State of Hawaii and was so at all times relevant to this action.

3.  This civil rights action is taken pursuant to 42 USC, Sections 1983, 1985 and 1986. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC, Sections 1331, 1343(a)(3) and 1367, and Article III of the United States Constitution.

4.  Venue is proper pursuant to 28 USC, Section 1391.

5.  Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech has been violated by the Defendant, County of Maui (“the County”).

6.  Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief.

7.  Plaintiff understands that certain relevant events occurred outside the time limit period for bringing a civil action, and he cites them to provide context and illustrate motive for the events that occurred within the limitation period. Furthermore, in order to show that a longstanding practice is tantamount to a policy, Plaintiff must, by definition of “longstanding”, cite events outside the two year limitation period.

8.  During the years 2003 through 2011 Butler, a long-time anti-health-fraud writer, whistle blower and activist, has sometimes lawfully demonstrated (displayed a sign and offered flyers) and attempted to lawfully demonstrate on a public sidewalk near the Alive and Well Natural Health Emporium in Kahului, Maui, (hereafter “Alive and Well” or “the store”). Alive and Well is owned by MDDR Health Solutions, Inc (“MDDR”), which is owned by Dennis Jones, Darren Jones and Mona Jones, who run the store. As a responsible former health professional and health journalist Butler believes he has not only a right but a duty to expose and protest the criminal deceptions (per se violations of federal and state anti-fraud laws and food and drug laws) that the store has been using in its hour-long radio commercials for more than a decade to sell its expensive and dangerous products such as “miracle cures” (their term) for terminal cancer and HIV/AIDS, and superior substitutes for “killer vaccines” (their term for all vaccines), which they urge everyone to avoid, especially children.

9.  As a criminal enterprise that dispenses misinformation dangerous to the public health and welfare, and that promotes a radical political agenda, Alive and Well is a legitimate target of dissent and peaceful public protest. Such protests are protected speech. Butler has as much right to sign wave protesting health fraud as the mayor has to sign wave promoting his reelection. And Butler has as much right to protection of the law while lawfully demonstrating as any politician has.

10.  However, Butler has been repeatedly denied the routine municipal services that constitute protection of the law with a consistency that would be a major scandal should a politician be treated the same way. The store’s owners and employees have repeatedly used criminal means and abuse of legal process to stop and prevent Butler’s lawful demonstrations. The courts have repeatedly and unanimously affirmed Butler’s right to demonstrate, yet in all relevant instances  the County has consistently allowed and supported MDDR’s unlawful attempts to suppress Butler’s lawful demonstrations and punish him for them.

11.  Rights purportedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights do not really exist unless they can be enforced and protected in the legal system. There are two possible options for this: criminal law and civil law.

12.  By mid 2008 County of Maui had firmly established and made it clear to Butler that it strongly disapproves of his demonstrations and would deny him the normal municipal services that constitute protection of criminal law in connection with his demonstrations. It did this by unlawfully arresting him for protesting without a permit, which is not a crime since there is no such permit; by harassing him during his demonstrations; and by repeatedly refusing to investigate his complaints of crimes committed by Alive and Well employees and owners in attempts to stop his lawful demonstrations. These crimes include multiple counts of harassment, terroristic threatening (death threats), assault, theft and destruction of his flyers, making fraudulent 911 calls, false reporting to the police, and perjury.

13.  Even when two police officers witnessed a violent assault on Butler by a store security guard twice his size and one third his age – an assault that caused Butler a serious lifetime injury and could have crippled or killed him – they did not arrest the assailant or investigate those who hired him to commit crimes against Butler. No charges were filed in the case and the County made it clear that no charges would have been filed even if Butler had been killed in the assault.

14.  The County’s motive for refusing Butler protection of the law is unclear, though it may be to be to ensure the continued robust health of this criminal enterprise because it pays taxes and employs people who pay taxes.

15.  It is self evident that the store’s beef, and the County’s beef, with Butler has always been about his words. If his sign and his flyers had praised the store’s “miracle cures” or advocated re-election of the mayor, neither MDDR nor the police would have bothered him. And if police officers had witnessed an opponent of the mayor assault Butler on the public sidewalk while he sign waved for the mayor they would have been expected to arrest the assailant and prosecute those who hired him to commit the crime, and they surely would have done so. But the County objected to Butler’s demonstrations targeting the store, so it allowed MDDR’s criminal activities against him to occur with impunity.

16.  Having firmly established by its actions over several years that Butler would have no protection under criminal law, the County was aware that Butler’s last hope of protecting, defending and enforcing his right to lawfully demonstrate safely was to hold his assailant and MDDR accountable for the assault and battery in civil proceedings. The County knew that if Butler failed in this effort there would be nothing to restrain MDDR from continuing to use criminal means, including potentially-lethal violence, to deter his demonstrations. Butler’s right to speak freely would then be permanently eliminated, which is exactly what County of Maui had shown for years that it wanted.

17.  The County knew that the incident reports of the two police officers who witnessed the assault on Butler strongly supported Butler’s case, so it ensured that the officers would not testify truthfully for Butler. For several days the officers made service of the subpoenas ordering them to testify difficult and expensive by being evasive. Only after Butler sent a letter to Chief of Police Gary Yabuta reminding him that evasion of service is a crime, as is subornation of evasion, was Butler’s process server able to serve them.

18.  However, the County was still determined to avoid providing testimony that would help Butler’s case. It found an opportunity to do so, by criminal means, during the trial of Kurt Butler v. MDDR Health Solutions, Inc, et al, CV 09-1-0102(1), conducted August 29 – September 1, 2011.

19.  In case their testimonies would not fit in during the first day of the trial, August 29, 2011, subpoenas had also been prepared and filed to command Officer Gasmen and Officer Sagawinit to appear the next day, August 30. Being inexperienced, Butler did not think to make one subpoena for both days. During the trial that afternoon Butler saw that the two officers were outside the courtroom with Deputy Corporation Counsel Moana Lutey. It appeared that he might be unable to fit their testimony in that day, so Butler’s assistant left the courtroom to serve the subpoenas. Officer Gasmen was served, but Officer Sagawinit had suddenly left the area. When informed of this, Butler asked Lutey where Sagawinit was. She replied “In the building” but refused to say where in the building. Plaintiff asked Lutey, who knew that the subpoenas had been duly filed, to call Sagawinit on her cell phone and tell her to please come to the fourth floor. Lutey refused, saying, “I don’t owe you anything.” Her voice dripped with contempt, venom and anger. It was obvious that she had advised Sagawinit to get lost so she could not be served.

          20.  Taken aback, Butler asked why she was being so hostile. Lutey replied, “Because you’re a troublemaker, an asshole and a nut. You’re crazy.” As an example she referred to Butler suing Gasmen for the unlawful arrest in 2003 for protesting without a permit. Her words showed that she and the County had held a grudge for eight years because Butler had attempted to assert and enforce his First Amendment rights, both by demonstrating, which is protected speech, and by filing the complaint for unlawful arrest, which is also protected speech. To the County’s way of thinking, this made him a crazy troublemaker.

          21.  When Officer Sagawinit suddenly left the bench next to Lutey, she had not yet been informed that she would not testify that day. Though it was late and it seemed unlikely that she would be called to testify, she still should have been available either to be called to testify or to receive the subpoena, duly filed with a copy served on Corpration Counsel, to testify the next day. A plaintiff’s process server should not have to chase a witness or play hide-and-seek, especially when time is short and the witness is reasonably expected to be nearby. Nor should a process server have to outsmart a crafty witness handler who prefers that the witness not testify, as this would allow and encourage routine obstruction of justice by witnesses. But this is the problem the County created in this case. It is not likely that Officer Sagawinit would have suddenly left the area unless Lutey advised her to do so.

          22.  In her public outburst Lutey essentially admitted that long-festering contempt, vengeance and malice had motivated the Office of Corporation Counsel to coach and counsel Officer Sagawinit to obstruct justice by evading service of the subpoena. This criminal witness tampering and subornation to criminally evade service was a continuation of the County’s long-established malicious policy of doing nothing to help Butler’s struggle for freedom of speech and everything possible to set it back. This was extraordinary behavior, far from the norm for the County, which routinely cooperates in criminal and civil cases. The County indisputably denied Butler normal municipal services in retaliation for his protected speech that it disapproved of – his demonstrations, his lawsuit for unlawful arrest and his current lawsuit. This is a violation of Butler’s First Amendment rights.

          23. In this instance Deputy Corporation Counsel Lutey was the County official with final policy-making authority. It had been delegated to her by the Office of Corporation Counsel, and thus her acts constituted official County policy. The trial judge ran a tight ship and stuck to the schedule in deference to the jurors. Butler would have no chance whatsoever to appeal to a higher County authority to compel Lutey and Sagawinit to cooperate. So Lutey was the County authority in charge.

          24. Instead of providing truthful testimony Officer Gasmen pleaded no memory of the incident and Officer Sagawinit evaded service of the subpoena ordering her to testify as a witness for Butler on August 30, 2011. Her testimony was by far the most probative and crucial, and she was much younger than Gasmen and less likely to be believed should she claim to have forgotten. The judge denied Butler’s motion to recess the trial until the officer could be found and served, so she never testified. The verdict, rendered on September 2, 2011, was for the defendant.

25.  These malicious criminal acts – witness tampering, evasion of service and suborning evasion of service – were intended to obstruct justice by sabotaging Butler’s presentation of his case. They succeeded in this and thereby eliminated Butler’s last hope of enforcing his First Amendment right to speak freely. Since a right does not exist unless it can be enforced, the County’s criminal interference with Butler’s attempt to enforce his right to speak freely is tantamount to criminal interference with his right to speak freely, and is therefore a violation of his First Amendment rights.   

26.  Defendant, having previously ensured that Butler would have no protection or relief under criminal law, further ensured by its criminal acts during the trial that Butler would also have no protection or relief under civil law. The County has conclusively shown that, as far as it is concerned, MDDR employees can harass, assault, batter, cripple and even kill Butler with complete impunity. This was the deathblow, long sought by MDDR, to Butler’s freedom of speech.

27.  The County’s actions during the trial were the culmination of an 8-year pattern that is tantamount to a policy of denying Butler normal municipal services that would tend to protect, defend and enforce his First Amendment right, affirmed by several courts, to demonstrate near the Alive and Well store. Because, to Butler’s knowledge, no one else has attempted to protest the store’s deceptions, he cannot point to examples of the policy other than his own experiences. This does not negate the existence of the longstanding pattern.

28.  All of Butler’s complaints about this systematic misconduct – to the Chief of Police, the Mayor, the Prosecutor and Corporation Counsel – have gone unanswered, making it clear that County of Maui condones and approves the (written or unwritten) policy.

INJURY

29.  Butler, now almost 69, cannot demonstrate near the store without reasonable assurance that he will be safe and enjoy the protection of the law. Defendant has denied him this and has unlawfully given MDDR what the courts would not: a de facto injunction on Butler’s demonstrations, one obtained and enforced by the use of criminal violence and the threat of homicide. This is tantamount to a license to murder Butler should he defy the de facto injunction and demonstrate near the store. And this is a violation of Butler’s First Amendment rights.

30.  The greatest injury is the injury to our society. The logical corollary of Defendant’s policies and actions is to tolerate and condone hired violence in election campaigns and disputes over the environment, abortion, gay rights, Hawaiian sovereignty and other issues. A society in which the government chooses sides, then, by providing or withholding municipal services that constitute protection of the law, selectively condones and allows violence to terrorize the marketplace of ideas is not a free, open and democratic society. This is a violation of everyone’s First Amendment rights.

          31.  Without relief from this Court, Plaintiff will have to choose between two options. One, he must give up, as too dangerous, his right to demonstrate near the Alive and Well store. Or, two, he must be prepared to use extreme force to defend himself during such demonstrations.

          32.  Unless this Court provides Plaintiff relief in this case, County of Maui will be encouraged to similarly obstruct justice in future cases.

REMEDIES

33.  Wherefore, Plaintiff Kurt Butler asks this Court to order permanent equitable relief that will restore, protect, defend and ensure his right to safely demonstrate near the Alive and Well store.

34.  This relief should take into account that MDDR and its owners and employees are determined to prevent and interfere with Butler’s demonstrations and cannot be trusted not to harass, harm or kill him, especially knowing that the County will allow them to do so with impunity.

35.  Relief should also take into account that County of Maui cannot be trusted to protect Butler from harassment and assault; to apprehend and charge anyone who might harass and assault him, even if police officers witness the crimes; to refrain from harassing and assaulting him; to refrain from unlawfully arresting him; to properly investigate Butler’s complaints of crimes committed against him; or to otherwise respect and defend his First Amendment rights.

36.  The County’s behavior has been so extraordinary and brazenly criminal that Plaintiff cannot find legal precedents, which may not exist. Therefore, he can only suggest possible remedies, knowing that some of them may not be acceptable to the Court. He asks the Court to hold a hearing to consider these possibilities, as well as others that may occur to Plaintiff later and others that the Court may prefer.

37.  Extraordinary abuses and violations call for extraordinary remedies. Possible remedies that occur to Plaintiff at this time include the following:

Order County of Maui to fund private security for Butler’s demonstrations;

Order Federal Marshals or the National Guard to provide security;

Permit Butler to carry a firearm or a Taser;

Order the closure of the store as a criminal enterprise that engages in interstate commerce and uses violence to silence its critics;

Order the appointment of a special prosecutor to prepare charges relating to the crimes committed by the County and its employees during the trial, and present the case to a grand jury;

Order the County to arrange to provide Butler radio time – to be used exclusively to critique the store’s claims for its products – equal to that of Alive and Well’s commercials, approximately one hour per day;

Order other remedies that would at least partially compensate for the years that Butler has been prevented from safely demonstrating because of the harassment, threats and violence that County of Maui has allowed MDDR to commit against him.

Order County of Maui to reimburse Butler for expenses he incurs in connection with this lawsuit, including an attorney’s fees should he find an attorney to represent him.

Links to all my blogs: www.KurtButlerBlogs.blogspot.com 

For more detailed critiques of various forms of quackery, including naturopathy, see my book A Consumer’s Guide to “Alternative Medicine”.  It was expertly edited by legendary quack buster Stephen Barrett. MD. 

The critics say:

"Superb!" -- Dr. Victor Herbert in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Excellent" -- National Council Against Health Fraud.

"Five Stars" -- Cooking Light.

"Thought provoking; a great book" -- American Journal of Health Promotion.

 When the book was published almost 30 years ago it was strongly praised by responsible health experts and the rare responsible media, but trashed by new-age critics and even vandalized in bookstores by new-age fanatics. It is as true and relevant as ever, and has been mostly vindicated by time. Yet my courageous and far-sighted publisher, the venerable Prometheus Books, is still sitting on lots of copies. Please help validate their integrity by buying a copy. Or two or more as gifts. Perhaps 10 for your local school library and health classes. See their website for assorted discounts. Make them an offer. (My royalties are insignificant; this little promo is for the benefit of one of the world's great publishers, Prometheus Books.) 

Maui's future foretold: Barbarians In Paradise -- Terror Comes to Maui. This is a prophetic flash novel about a future police state and those who rebel against it. Available in paperback and ebook at Amazon.com.