I
l · I ' Case 3:03-cv-OO60@RU Document 44 Filed 10/$(25103 Page 1 of 4
I L
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L. E D
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
S . 2 °|
l ROBERT L. BRoc1
I Plaintiff ; 3;O3CVO0609 . ‘ ` ' ` ' if
i v. . Q S
5 YALE UNIVERSITY; JEROME N. FRANK zi
i LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION OF
YALE LAW SCHOOL, RICHARD C. LEVIN, : `
President ofthe University, Ofticial Capacity;
ROBERT A. SOLOMON, Director of JEROME N. :
I FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
OF YALE LAW SCHOOL, I/O; ANTHONY T. :
KRONMAN, Dean of Yale Law School, I/O;
CARROLL LEE LUCHT, Law Professor, :
and Attorney at Law, I/O; STEPHEN WIZNER,
Law Professor, and Attorney at Law, I/O. :
Defendant(s) OCTOBER 30, 2003
PLAINTIFF’S ADDITIONAL MEMORANDUM I
OF LAWS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS:
Plaintiff respectfully submits this additional Memorandum of Laws regarding H
Defendants Motion to Dismiss dated October 10, 2003. l
This Memorandum of Laws is relative to the Defendants’ following assertions, on i
page 4, lines 5 to 8, oftheir Motion to Dismiss dated October 10, 20031 I
"The Plaintiff Does Not Set Forth A Claim Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 Because *
Yale Is Not A State Actor And The Complaint Fails To Allege That the Plaintiff
Was Denied A Right Guaranteed By The Constitution Or A Federal Statute."
l
l
T--7i;;--V Y-QQ " TQ; i' nai; -—`;; -r L. _, __ __r__-_ir7---777--uri--nrr- 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 -
I I I Case 3:03-cv-OO60@¥U Document 44 Filed 10/3’Q@O3 Page 2 of 4
I The plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ Part I issue that "Ya1e is Not A State
I Actor†has been dealt previously by plaintiff} by the fact that defendants’ have been
I served in each of their individual and official capacities. In addition defendants truly
I behaved in fact as "State Actors" by acting "under the color of State law", as licensed
I
· Attorneys at Law. I
I This because defendants true status in reality is, as responsible state licensed
I lawyers, limctioning as obedient "officers of the COUI`tâ€, and "acting" as loyal
“Com1nissioners of the Superior Court" for the State of Connecticut.
Now to part 2 Plaintiff was indeed denied a right guaranteed by the Constitution
or a federal statute.
The United States Constitution, Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy,
Self—lncrimination, Due Process (1791)] states the following:
“‘No person shall be held to answer a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a I
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval I
forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall I
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor I
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived I
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation?
Plaintiff claims that defendants documented, and uncontested interference in a
plaintiffs Appeal did in fact deprive, the plaintiff of his property. The plaintiff s I
property being the plaintiff s labor, and expenses involved in the development of a highly
involved legal matter.
2
i ' l Case 3:03-cv-OO60@U Document 44 Filed 10/3‘q?903 Page 3 of 4
i Specifically, the record shows that the defendants retaliated against the plaintiff s
4 early assertrveness, of reporting tothe proper authorities, the documented improprneties
I of defendants. The defendants’ actions brought about a "chilling effect," to plaintiffs
i Constitutional rights. I
I These infractions performed by defendants, and confirmed by documented
{ evidence clearly show intent to deprive the plaintiff" s unambiguous, and unblemished
i right to due process of Law within an American Court of Law. Due to these actions by
the defendants the plaintiff pleads, for financial compensation for his labor, and expenses
as noted.
RESPECT FULLY SUBMITTED,
61 C ff
' • ert L. Brockway, Jr.
28 Boston Terrace
Guiiford, Connecticut 06437
(203) 214-0202
l
I
l . - ' Case 3:03-cv-OO60{SBU Document 44 Filed 10/SUEQOS Page 4 of 4
l BROCKWAY V. YALE UNIVERSITY, ET AL
Q USDC, BRIDGEPORT CIVIL ACTION NO.3;03CV00609 (SRU)
l CERTIFICATION
\ This is to certify that the foregoing PLAINTI1-iF’S ADDITIONAL .
1 MEMORANDUM OF LAWS IN REGARD TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS has been served in person on October 30, 2003 to the law office of PATRICK
M. NOONAN and BROCK T. DUBIN or DELANEY, ZEMETIS, DONAHUE,
DURHAM & NOONAN, P.C., Concept Park—Suite 306, 741 Boston Post Road, Guilford,
CT 06437.
/ , ,· . i
.. .4,,4.;/Ag. ,..I /- e [Le “
ri ert L. rockway, Ir. ' \
1
l
l
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms