oS =
September 21, 1981 defendant ROSE provided information from an FBI
informant to Joseph Donnelly and other law enforcement officers
regarding weapons in Apartment 7K.
19. Regarding the allegations in paragraph 33 of the complaint,
defendant ROSE states that the search warrant application speaks for
iteelf. To the extent an answer to paragraph 33 of the complaint is
required, paragraph 33 ie denied.
20. Regarding paragraph 35 of the complaint, defendant ROSE
etates that the search warrant affidavit speaks for itself and the
affidavit ia based, in part, on information from an informant.
Defendants Daly and ROSE did provide information to other law enfor-
cement agents, but lack knowledge or information as to all of their
identities. All other allegations in paragraph 35 are denied.
21. Regarding paragraph 36 of the complaint, defendant ROSE
atates that the warrant application speaks for itself, and admits that
the warrant application does not specifically state the manner in
which the information was acquired by the informant. All other alle-
gations in paragraph 36 are denied.
22. Defendant ROSE denies all allegations in paragraph 37 of
the complaint, and specifically states that the FHI did provide infor~
mation to Albany Police Officials and states that he is without
knowledge or information sufficient to torm a belief as to whether
Detective Tanchak was directly provided with such information from the
FBI.
~6-
23. Defendant ROSE denies all allegations contained in
paragraph 46 of the complaint except to specifically admit that
several law enforcement agents entered Apartment 7K at 400 Central
Avenue at or about 3:00 a.m. on September 22, 1981, and a search was
conducted purguant to a search warrant.
24. Defendant ROSE admits the presence of all officers in
paragraph 47 of the complaint, at Apartment 7K, 400 Central Avenue on
September 22, 1981, but denies that other unknown agents of the FBI
were present, Defendant ROSE admits the presence of one other agent
of the FBI. All other allegations in paragraph 47 are denied.
25. Defendant ROSE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of all averments in the first sentence
of paragraph 48. Defendant ROSE denies the truth of all averments in
the second sentence of paragraph 48 of the complaint.
26. Defendant ROSE lacks knowledge or information sutfticient to
form a belief as to the truth of all averments in paragraph 49 of the
complaint, except to admit that plaintiff MICHELSON, Estis and Youny
were arrested,
27. As his anewer to paragraph 52 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirmea his answers to paragraphs 1 through
51 of the complaint, set forth herein.
28. Defendant ROSE denies all alleyations in paragraph 53 of
the complaint, except to admit items of property were seized in
Apartment 7K, 400 Central Avenue.
Pls
29. Regarding paragraph 56 of the complaint, defendant ROSE
denies all averments in the first sentence of paragraph 56. Defendant
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of all averments in the second sentence of paragraph 56.
30. As his answer to paragraph 60 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirme hie aneawers to paragraphs 1 through
59 of the complaint, set forth herein.
31. Regarding paragraph 64 of the complaint, defendant ROSE
denies that he participated in any such discussion or agreement, and
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of all remaining allegations in paragraph 64 of the complaint.
32. As his anawer to paragraph 72 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirms his answers to paragraphs 1 through
71 of the complaint, set forth herein.
33. As his anawer to paragraph 78 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirms his answers to paragraphs 1 through
77 of the complaint, as set forth herein.
34. As his answer to paragraph 62 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirms his answers to paragraphs | through
81 of the complaint, as set forth herein.
35. As his answer to paragraph #4 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirms his answers to paragraphs 1 through
83 of the complaint, as set forth herein.
36. As hie answer to paragraph 88 of the complaint, defendant
~§-
incorporates herein and reaffirms his answers to paragraphs 1 through
87 of the complaint, as set forth herein.
37. As his anewer to paragraph 90 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirms his answers to paragraphs 1 through
89 of the complaint, as set forth herein.
38. As hie anawer to paragraph 93 of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirma his answers to paragraphs 1} through
92 of the complaint, as set forth herein.
39. As his answer to paragraph 111) of the complaint, defendant
incorporates herein and reaffirms his answers to paragraphs 1 through
110 of the complaint, as set forth herein.
40. Defendant denies all allegations in the complaint and the
amended complaint not heretofore specifically admitted.
As And For Separate Affirmative Defenses
To The Complaint And The Amended Complaint Herein,
The Defendant Alleges As etl e
41. Defendant is entitled to Qualified Immunity.
42. Defendant is entitled to Absolute Immunity.
43. Defendant at all times acted in good faith.
44, Res judicata and/or collateral estoppel are applicable.
45. Plaintiff's action was not commenced within the statute of
limitations.
46. Any alleged injuries of plaintiff were caused by the
culpable conduct of the plaintiff and/or other persons over whom this
defendant has no control.
Fe
47. Defendant acted reasonably at all times.
48. Defendant did not engage in state action.
49. Plaintiff acted illegally.
WHEREFORE, defendant demands judgment dismissing the complaint
together with costes and disbursements of
and the amended complaint,
defending this action, and such other and further relief which this
court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, JR.
UNLTED STATES ATTORNEY
BY: \ (?
WILLIAM P, FANCIULLO
ASSISTANT U.8. ATTORNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALLL LLL NL LLANELLI AA
AARON ESTIS,
Plaintiff,
~against
PAUL DALY, AGENT IN CHARGE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
JAMES J. ROSE, SPECIAL AGENT,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
AND UNKNOWN OTHER AGENTS OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
UNKNOWN NEW YORK STATE POLICE
OFFICERS; THE COUNTY OF ALBANY;
ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SOL GREENBERG; ALBANY COUNTY
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JOSEPH DONNELLY; ALBANY COUNTY
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOHN
DORFMAN; UNKNOWN OTHER ALBANY COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS; THE CITY OF
ALBANY; THE CITY OF ALBANY POLICE
CHIEF THOMAS BURKE; CITY OF ALBANY
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF JON REID;
CITY OF ALBANY POLICE LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM MURRAY; CITY OF ALBANY
POLICE DETECTIVE JOHN TANCHAK;
UNKNOWN OTHER CITY OF ALBANY
POLICE OFFICERS,
Defendants.
AALAND ANODE DLL ALLAN,
VERA MICHELSON and CAPITAL DISTRICT
COALITION AGAINST APARTHEID AND RACISM,
by its Chairman, MICHAEL DOLLARD,
Plaintiffs,
~against~-
PAUL DALY, AGENT IN CHARGE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
JAMES J. ROSE, SPECIAL AGENT,
U.S, DISTRICT CUURT
N.D. OF N.Y.
rd FILED
Nov 2 1 1983
No. 82-CV~-1412
ORDER SETTING
SCHEDULE FOR
PROGRESSION
OF CASE
No. 82-CV~1413
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
AND UNKNOWN OTHER AGENTS OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
UNKNOWN NEW YORK STATE POLICE
OFFICERS; ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY SOL GREENBERG; ALBANY
COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JOSEPH DONNELLY; ALBANY COUNTY
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOHN
DORFMAN; UNKNOWN OTHER ALBANY COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS; THE COUNTY OF
ALBANY; THE CITY OF ALBANY POLICE
CHIEF THOMAS BURKE; CITY OF ALBANY
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF JON REID;
CITY OF ALBANY POLICE LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM MURRAY; CITY OF ALBANY
DETECTIVE JOHN TANCHAK; UNKNOWN
OTHER CITY OF ALBANY POLICE OFFICERS;
and THE CITY OF ALBANY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause came on for hearing and consideration concerning
completion of discovery and the scheduling of a final pretrial
conference and trial, and the Court having considered the
positions of counsel for the parties, it is
ORDERED:
l. The parties shall complete discovery in this cause on or
before May 15, 1984. No dispositive motion shall be made
returnable later than twenty (20) days after the completion of
discovery. Unless excused by the Court, oral argument is
required on all motions.
2. A final pretrial conference will be held before the
undersigned at the United States Post Office and Courthouse,
Albany, New York, on Thursday, the 2lst day of June, 1984, at
9:30 o'clock A.M. Additional pretrial conferences, including
conferences relating to discovery issues, may be scheduled prior
to the final pretrial conference in the discretion of the Court.
3. A date for the trial of this case by jury will be fixed
at the time of the final pretrial conference.
4. The attorneys for all parties are directed to confer, no
later than ten (10) days before the date of the final pretrial
conference, to:
(1) discuss the possibility of settlement;
(2) stipulate to as many facts and issues as possible;
(3) prepare a pretrial stipulation in accordance with
this order;
(4) examine all exhibits and documents proposed to be
used at the trial;
(5) furnish opposing counsel the names and addresses of
all witnesses; and
(6) complete all other matters which may expedite both
the pretrial and trial of the case.
The pretrial stipulation shall contain:
(1) the basis of Federal jurisdiction;
(2) a concise statement of the nature of the action and
an estimate of the length of trial;
(3) a brief, general statement of each party's case or
contentions;
(4) a list of all witnesses who will be called at the
trial and a brief summary of the testimony to be
given by each witness;
(5) a list of exhibits, including a designation of
those exhibits to be received in evidence without
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
ob jection;
a concise statement of those facts which are
admitted and will require no proof at trial,
together with any reservations directed to such
admissions;
a concise statement of those issues of law on
which there is agreement;
a concise statement of those issues of fact which
remain to be litigated;
a concise statement of those issues of law which
remain for determination by the Court;
a list of all motions or other matters which
require action by the Court;
a concise statement of any disagreement as to the
application of rules of evidence or the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; and
the signatures of counsel for all parties.
5. No later than three days before the day set for the
final pretrial conference, the parties shall file with the Court,
in duplicate, the pretrial stipulation prepared in accordance
with paragraph 4 above.
6. At the time of the final pretrial conference, or at such
other time as the Court may direct:
(1)
(2)
Each side shall submit to the Judge, in duplicate,
and to opposing counsel, a trial brief or memoran-
dum with citations of authorities and arguments in
support of its position on all disputed issues of
law.
Counsel for each party shall submit to the Judge,
in duplicate, with a copy to opposing counsel,
written requests for instructions to the jury.
Supplemental requests for instructions may be
submitted at any time prior to the arguments to the
(3)
(4)
jury. All requests for instructions shall he
plainly marked with the name and number of the
case; shall contain citations of supporting
authorities, if any; shall designate the party
submitting the same; and shall be numbered in
sequence, with each request separately stated on
a separate page of 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Counsel for each party shall submit proposed ques~
tions, in writing, to be asked of prospective
jurors on the voir dire examination. A copy of the
proposed questions shall be furnished to opposing
counsel and two copies shall be furnished to the
Court.
Written proposals for special questions, inter~-
rogatories or forms of verdict to be submitted
to the jury shall be furnished to the Court in
duplicate, with copies to be served on each
opposing counsel.
7. Exhibits shall be submitted to the Clerk to be marked
for identification prior to the commencement of trial.
8. All depositions shall be filed with the Clerk prior to
the date of the final pretrial conference.
9. In order that the full purpose of pretrial conferences
may be accomplished, it is directed that all parties be repre~
sented at all of the meetings herein provided for by the attor-
neys who will participate in the trial of the case and who are
vested with full authority to make admissions and disclosures of
fact and to bind their clients by agreements as respects all
matters pertaining to the trial of the case and the said
conferences.
10. Failure to comply with the requirements of this order
will subject the party or attorney to appropriate sanctions.
ee ee
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November U/ , 1983
Albany, New York
OLIVER & OLIVER, ESQS.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Estis
31 Barclay Street
Albany, New York 12209
Attn: Lewis B. Oliver, Jr., Esq.
WALTER & THAYER, ESQS.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michelson, et al.
69 Columbia Street
Albany, New York 12207
Attn: Anita Thayer, Esq.
HON. FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, JR.
United States Attorney
Attorney for Federal Defendants
U.S. Post Office & Courthouse
Albany, New York 12207
Attn: William P. Fanciullo, A.U.S.A.
CARTER, CONBOY, BARDWELL,
CASE & BLACKMORE, ESQS.
Attorneys for Albany County Defendants
74 Chapel Street
Albany, New York 12207
Attn: Dianne B. Mayberger, Esq.
VINCENT J. MCARDLE, JR.
City of Albany Corporation Counsel
Attorney for City of Albany Defendants
100 State Street
Albany, New York 12207
Attn: John L. Shea
Asst. Corporation Counsel
adios AMAA AMAL AD ALAA EALERTS
WALTER & THAYER ao
LAW OFFICES
69 COLUMBIA STREET
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207
se remenadnemeannammenmnaienaea
(918) 462-6753
ANITA THAYER
LANNY &. WALTER
November 3, 1983
RE: Michelson et al v. Daly et al
82-CV-1413
Dear Counsel:
I have prepared a proposed Joint Report of Counsel
using the previously prepared joint report in the Estes v.
Daly action as a model.
Please contact me with regard to any other material
that you feel should be in this report. If necessary, I
will set up a joint meeting.
As a final report must be filed with Judge Miner
on or before November 10, I would appreciate your response
early next week.
Very truly yours,
(pcen ip
Anita Thayer
AT:cjh
Enclosure
"0: HON. FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, JR.
JOHN L. SHEA, ESQ.
CARTER CONBOY BARDWELL CASE & BLACKMORE
ULSTER COUNTY ADDRESS: @OX 4129 GAUGERTICS, NY 12447 e (Q14) 246-402)
reinraitn 1 eel bebe ecm tL te MR RRS SES acer rR en
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VERA MICHELSON and CAPITAL DISTRICT
COALITION AGAINST APARTHEID AND RACISM,
by its Chairman, MICHAEL DOLLARD,
Plaintiffs,
~against-
JOINT REPORT OF
PAUL DALY, AGENT IN CHARGE, FEDERAL COUNSEL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; JOHN J. ROSE,
SPECIAL AGENT, FEDERAL BUREAU OF Civil Action Pile No.
INVESTIGATION; AND UNKNOWN OTHER AGENTS 82-CV-1413 (Miner, J.)
OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
UNKNOWN NEW YORK STATE POLICE OFFICERS;
ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SOL
GREENBERG; ALBANY COUNTY ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOSEPH DONNELLY;
ALBANY COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JOHN DORFMAN; UNKNOWN OTHER ALBANY COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS; THE CITY OF ALBANY
POLICE CHIEF THOMAS BURKE; CITY OF
ALBANY ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF JOHN REID
CITY OF ALBANY DETECTIVE JOHN TANCHAK; UNKNOWN
OTHER CITY OF ALBANY POLICE OFFICERS; AND
- THE CITY OF ALBANY,
Defendants.
In accordance with the Order Setting Pretrial Conference,
dated October 3, 1983, issued by the Honorable Roger J. Miner,
Walter & Thayer, Esqs., by Anita Thayer, counsel for the plaintiffs;
Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case and Blackmore by Susanna L. Fisch,
counsel for the County Defendants; Albany City Corporation Counsel
by John L. Shea, counsel for the City Defendants; and United States
Attorney, counsel for the F.B.1I. Defendants by William P. Fanciullo,
provide herein their joint status report in relation to the above
entitled action.
QUESTION: What, very briefly, is the nature of the case and what
are the major factual and legal issues?
ANSWER: A. Nature of Case
The Complaint alleges that on September 22, 1981
Plaintiff Michelson's apartment was unlawfully raided by numerous
local, state, and federal law enforcement officers who burst into
her apartment, while she was sleeping, with shotguns drawn and
weapons pointed, ransacked her apartment, confiscated her per~
sonal papers and property and papers and documents belonging to
the Capital District Coalition Against Apartheid, and placed her
and two (2) houseguests under arrest thereby preventing her from
participating in, organizing, and leading an anti-apartheid demon-
stration scheduled for that afternoon to protest the playing of a
game by the Springbok Rugby Team from the apartheid country of
South Africa.
Plaintiff Capital District Coalition Against Apartheid
and Racism claims that it was the local initiator of a lawful march
and assembly in Albany, New York, on September 22, 1982 to protest
the staging of a rugby game between a local team and the South
African Rugby Team. Throughout the organizing effort, prior to and
during the September 22, 1981 demonstration, the defendants indi-
vidually and together violated the right of the Coalition and its
members to peacefully assemble by spreading false rumors of violenc
disseminating unfounded threats to would be participants and suppor
ters, Placing the Coalition and its leaders and/or members under
sneer
surveillance, maintaining records and files of first amendment
lactivities of the coalition and its members, and arresting plaintiff
Michelson. The actions of the defendant interfered with the
|demonstration planned by the Coalition and damaged the reputation
of the Coalition and its members as peaceful, law-abiding citizens.
}
\' B. Major Factual and Legal Issues
ii
(1) Whether or not the informant exists; whether his
‘identity must be disclosed.
r (2) Whether the search warrant was perjurious;
\ (3) Whether the search warrant was valid on its face;
(4) Assuming the search warrant was valid, whether
| the search of the apartment was conducted in a reasonable manner;
(5) Whether defendants had probable cause to arrest
plaintiff Michelson;
(6) Whether the defendants unlawfully incarcerated
plaintifé Michelson without bail and without access to an attorney}
(7) Whether defendant was incarcerated to prevent her |
} |
participation inthe anti-apartheid demonstration;
(8) Whether defendants unlawfully confiscated documents
and items of personal property;
| (9) Whether defendants conspired toge ines to deprive
| plaintiff Michelson of her constitutional eights)
(10) Whether the municipal defendants and defendants in
supervisory positions failed to exercise reasonable diligence and
bo INN ne ae we Sas Wn OS vawartgneneeeny kT ae
Pen ae Pent eN toe ee
TAURI PAC PT NV CaLINUTSPOT er
TORTS pat eve Sse AN PTE
seicaiiangnncaitaneanicte estan oH RAY SENET ERA LSE Ae eoosraialeatinarar Meee AVRO
|/proper supervision in seeking to prevent the violation of piaintiff's
ii rights;
1 (11) Whether the defendants committed the tort of mali-
|cious prosecution; |
(12) Whether the defendants committed to tort of abuse
of process; |
| (13) Whether the defendants committed the tort of
| aise arrest and imprisonment;
(14) Whether the Affirmative defenses alleged in the
janswers of the respective defendants can be established;
(15) Whether defendants conspired together to intimidate
| peopse into not attending the demonstration, and interfered with the
j '
| conduct of the demonstration;
i|
| (16) Whether the seizure of Coalition documents inter~.
|
'\fered with right of the Coalition members to associate freely;
i (17) Whether plaintiff Coalition's claim pursuant to |
i
142 U.S.C, 81986 was timely; |
| 3 \ cache’ oleae | :
f (18) Whether plaintiff Coalition is entitled to
t
jinjunctive relief.
PUESTION: 2. Are there any parties who have not been served?
|
| |
i
|
i
| |
i |
| |
“
ANSWER: 2. All named parties have been served and all unknown
ACIS LI,
eae have not been served. Plaintiff intends to serve certain
law enforcement agents who are unknown to plaintite at this time
when their identity is discovered.
|
QUESTION: 3. Are there any parties in default?
| ANSWER: 3. we.
‘question: 4. What items of discovery have been completed and what
\further items of discovery are contemplated?
“ANSWER: 4. Discovery has not been completed. Plaintiff has
‘ordered the bulk of the transcript from a related criminal trial.
“approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the transcripts ordered have been
received. The balance requested should be received from the court
stenographer by mid-November. When all transcripts have been
received, plaintiffs will have testimony from defendants Rose, Daly,
Reid and Tanchak as well as eight non-party witnesses. Plaintiffs
foresee supplemental depositions from Daly, Reid, and Tanchak
‘as well as depositions of defendants Donnelly, Dorfman, Burke,
Murray and Greenberg. Plaintiff also anticipates that there may be
other discovery including Demands for documents and admissions,
and depositions of several non-party witnesses. Plaintiffs also
anticipate deposing the alleged confidential informant.
Plaintiffs anticipate that some of their discovery
requests and/or subpoenas may be challenged by Motions to Quash or
for protective Order.
the
s served a
‘motions
i\
\ on June 3, 1983, Albany County defendant
These were duly answered. The
f Interrogatories.
f Michelson and Michael
have also served plaintif
rson of plaintiff Coalitio
First Set oO
county defendants
n with a Notice
||Dollard, former chairpe
ito Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination -
conducted.
complete discovery?
a
x
o
@
®
ie)
0
long will it take to
QUESTION: 5, How
|
‘ANSWER: 5, Discovery should be completed on OF before September
30, 1984.
Have there been settlement negotiations?
No.
ations of any
ties entered into stipul
Have the par
\
‘kina?
= : 7. The parties have not entered into any stipulation
bf facts or law in this case, and this document does not constitute
buch a stipulation.
QUESTION: 8. Are there any pending motions? Are any motions con-
kemplated?
Upon completion of
pending motions.
a. There are no
there will be motions
for dismis:
the parties anticipate
Aaron Estishas
iscovery,
r summary judgment.
similar facts and circumsta
commenced 4 civil rights
neces against the same
ection based on
ng in this Court.
vil No. g2-CV~1412 pendi
defendants which is ci
laintiffs contemplate 4 mot
for the
jon to consolidate the two actions for
plaintiff Estis and the attorneys
rial, and the attorneys
1}
Ly 4
saiasccsssnseiseattic.S Mien
. sy paisa obs Daa ul RAR ARR
si 4 m sansa hig AUR AANA A a A REE
PT OU ‘ am wt sa ‘ wish ‘ uodchinsntbaadi ny uttasegnia Nts sia ve sarge hO Rabun hn vac mARWM HEIDE NS tA ANT
Siig bay rpleiac Mh aah AA GRR ac A Af cn WA ues wile ab 1 ae z
i
|
|
for the defendants County of Albany and City of Albany will consent,
land the attorney for the federal defendants may consent.
QUESTION: 9. Has there been a demand for a jury trial? Will
buch a demand be made?
hwswer: 9. Yes, Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.
QUESTION: 10. What is the estimated length of trial?
1)
‘ANSWER: 10. Although it is difficult to anticipate the length of
any trial at this time, the parties estimate that the trial will
pie three (3) weeks.
Respectfully submitted,
|
||
FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, JR., ESQ. ANITA THAYER, ESQ.
‘UNITED STATES ATTORNEY WALTER & THAYER
Northern District of New York Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Attorney for Defendants Daly and 69 Columbia Street
{| Rose Albany, New York 12207
United States Courthouse and Post (518) 462-6753
| Office
Albany, New York 12207
By: William P. Fanciullo, Esq.
Assistant United States
\ Attorney
\
i iaiciaiiniinaeminmneiammaniy. =
VINCENT J. MCARDLE, JR., ESQ. CARTER CONBOY BARDWELL CASE &
CORPORATION COUNSEL, CITY OF BLACKMORE, ESQS.
Preoiat Attorneys for Defendants County
Attorney for Defendants City of of Albany, Greenberg, Donnelly anc
‘Albany, Burke, Reid, Murray Dorfman
and Tanchak 74 Chapel Street
100 State Street Albany, New York 12207
Albany, New York 12207 By: Susanna L. Fisch, Esq.
By: John L. Shea, Esq. .
| Assistant Corporation
Counsel
uIstoey pue
proypedy
ysutreby
worzt[Teo)
pyorrystq Tewded
L9LT-ogT (gis) =eucudeTes “uot
‘ ‘ ¥ -sseader quowmuaeAOd ysuTese 498q
CozzT | MUOK mane OE =9u8t 5 Bupmog# 9yz Jo yasd st
——. * * €yoTqeaqsuomep yoqsutadsg e4yz jo
Suturtowm ey uo SysTAtqoe PTey
-yaude-[jue mmojy jo yseire ous
jo 3[nsed B&B St YOTUM ‘a {Nsael
Ss UL ‘“STBTOTIIOC [BV90T pue 83855"
SNOHATISL ‘[esepey ysupede Pelis 37S:
~iiciiliboaeneninbane -MBT <BTTOP VOTITFH ouTU 8B ut
JITIUTETA B ST UOFITTBOD AUL
LL LA ALD ALO * t
peTsTsueyut eq.
ssauddy qenu WsToer 4euz, ese suztj euy2
——— ee _ YN ‘f£rqunoo sfuy Uy S3yusts UsuNUS
uo Sj[Nesss eseyy Jo esnBleg .
*yzOM 9U3 enuy uoo djey 04 *quay{ ueer# eqy wsyToBs
jo uopyngzaqguos fu UeATS sey UOT IBIZSTUTWpS usedeey
gdesoe esvetTd ‘feat 408 eu4 ‘set pTAOUTM [BpIBA UO
eqyudypozzued of SsTquun we fT _ kt ejeu0tys0doudstp sqoeduy yng
euofreAe S}O@ TIS USTUM sueyeis
“ast Suttyew anof uo emeu guoddns pus swesZoud yyTEey
s,dnou? fu/fuw eowtd esvetd — ‘sqof ‘sepqgtungaoddo [suoZ,zzONPe
jo uoTgonaqgeep Bou 8} 4FTM
‘seers Buyso0us tou
Ieyjzo pus yuowUeA UT SOT TBH
: yuoqg mou *huBQTY UBTX-F9UB UT TezedpoTised COSTS
49023S 382Td O6€ Sey UOT}T1BOD SUL *STZEN/UBLT
weque) sounosey pooysoquzt on ey} JO Sets Oyj pue LEToEdt
eurd o¢:L qnoge sumuoj peaosucds sey
UQuom yose jo AEpsoupem PYOISS UOTRTTBCD aug *SPSI<2 STHOUseY
quezin? ey3 Of PSse Tee Al}0aLTP
SONTIEGY TIHINOW YND OF 309 ey wopteuy UE SOUe te Te TT soe
-T4UB puB 4sp,oBs JO u,moid
eu} 2819 GOTZFUZODeT ENF UITM
ee OO BOS OS BS OOH SBA OBASABOO
djay wea nof Moy
Tetuier smaznery le MCLEA
organized for the purpose of
opposing the
in the Republic of South Africa
and RACISM JM SHE WiITED STATES?
WAPPRTHEID - Apartheid is the
government policy of white
supremacy in South Africa.
The white minority makes up
less than twenty percent of the
population but controle every
aspect of life for the black
majority. Eighty percent of
the land is cortrolled by the
white minority. Laws have
been enacted by thc white
Afrikaner government which
restrict family life, health
services, work, education and
living arrangements. Even
freedom of movement is restrict-
ed by the hated passbook laws.
This system is rigidly codified
and brutally enforced. The
apartheid system has beer con-
demned by the United Nations,
the international community and
virtually all churches outside
of South Africa. In total dis-
regard for concepts of human
rights end racial justice, the
Reagan acministration has de-
ciared South Africa a friendly
nation and has set up open ties
with thir blatantly racist
Racism is part of the fabric of
of American life and victim-
izes in both subtle and
brutal ways American minority
groups. Institutionalized
racism acversely affects
virtually every aspect of
American society - education,
the legal system, housing,
health care, employment and
politics.
why we formed
In 1981, the apartheid system
diractly touched Albany with
the announcement of a nlanned
tour by the South African
apartheid rugby team, the
Springboks. The game was
scheduled for September 22,
1981. Over forty Capital
District cormunity groups .and
hundreds of concerned individ-
uals came together to oppose
the appearance by this team in
Albany-and the Capital District
Coalition Against Apartheid and
Racism was formed. A success-
ful demonstration of thousands
against the Springboks strength-
ed the Coalition's commitment
+9 fight apartheid and racism.
The Coalition and the struggle
continues.
what we do
The Coalition supports the
United Nations Resolution
calling for total isolation
of South Africa in the world
community in the areas of
sports, economics, entertain-
ment, trade and diplomatic
recognition.
A picket was held a 4@ local
Caldor's department store to
protest the selling of South
African baby bonnets and
Caldor's has agreed never to
purchase from South Africa
again.
The cultural boycott asked
for by the United Nations and
South African Liberat ion
groups is gaining national
and international strength.
This boycott is of American
entertainers who have agreed
to perform in South Africa at
the request of the apartheid
leaders in an attempt to give
legitimacy to an S{llegitimate
regime. Locally. the Coali-
tion hss picketed Ses ‘cus
entertainers who have cooper-~
ated with the apartheid
system including Chick Corea,
Ray Charles, the Beach Boys
and Linda Ronstadt. We have
also provided a list of the
entertainers wno have been tc
South Africa to local univer-
sities and colleges requesting
that they not te booked on
these campuses.
2
balk is
EXHIBIT
ure ;
me gure
a)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 413
NORTHERN DIS'TRICT OF NEW YORK
VERA MLCHELSON, and CAPITAL DISTRICT
COALIVLON AGAINS'? APARTHETD AND RACISM,
by its Chairman MICHAL DOLLARD,
Plaintiffs,
~against- COMPLAINT
PAUL DALY, AGENT IN CHARGE, FEDERAL BUREAU Civil No.
OF INVESTIGATION; JAMES J. ROSE, SPECIAL
AGENT, FROERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
AND UNKNOWN OTHER AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTiGATLON; UNKNOWN Ni'w YORK STATE POLICE
OFFICERS; ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SOL
GREENBERG; ALBANY COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY JOSEPH DONNELLY; ALBANY COUNTY ASSIS-~
TANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOHN DORFMAN; UNKNOWN
OTHER ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS; THE TRIAL BY JURY
COUNTY OF ALBANY; THE CITY OF ALBANY POLICE DEMANDED
CHIEF THOMAS BURKE; CITY OF ALBANY ASSISTANT
POLICE CHIEF JON REID; CITY OF ALBANY POLICE
LIEUTENANT WILLIAM MURRAY; CITY OF ALBANY
DETECTIVE JOHN TANCHAK, UNKNOWN O'TKER City. OFr if
ALBAN: POLICE OFriCERS, and THE CITY OF ALBANY,
Defendants.
em ns a el eh aabege ena nine Se) A NEAL RCIA AA
STATEMENT OF CASE
1. Plaintiff, Michelson alleges that on or about 3:00 a.m.,
a | ;
on September 22, 19h1, her apartment at 400 Contral Avenue,
Albany, New York, was unlawfully raided and invaded by certain
defendints and approximately ten (10) to twee,’ (20) other local,
State, Federal, and weknown Taw ontorcement officers whe burst
into her apartment, while oie was sleeping, with shotguns drawn
and weapons pointed, ransacked her apartment, confiscated her
persvunal papers and property and papers and documents belonging
to the Capital District Coalition Against Apartheid, and placed
her and twu (¢) hvuseyuests under arrest. Plaintiff was arrested
for two (2) petty offenses and incarcerated at Albany County Juit
thereby preventing her from participating in, organizing, and
leading an anti-apartheid demonstration scheduled for that after-
noun to protest the pluyinyg of a game by the Springbok Rugby
Team from the apartheid country of South Africa. The violation
charyes ayainst plaintifé were subsequently dismissed.
2. Plaintiff Capital District Coalition Ayainst Apartheid
and Racism (lwivinafter “Coalition"), alleges that it was the
local initiator of a lawful march and assembly in Albany, New York,
on September 22, 1982 to protest the staging of a rugby game
between a local team and the South African Rugby Team. Through-
out the organiziny effort, prior to and during the September 22,
1981 demonstration, the defendants individually and together vio-~
lated the right of tne Coalition and its members to peacefully
assemble by, but not limited to, the following: spreading false
rumors of violence, disseminating unfounded threats to would be par
ticipants and supporters, placing the Coalition and its leaders anda
or members under surveillance, maintaining records and files of
first amendment activities of the Coalition and its members, and
arresting plaintiff Vere Michelson, a leading civil rights
activist and well-known Coalition leader on the morning of the
planned demonstration, The actions of the defendant signifi-
cantly interfered with the dumonstratéon planned by the Coalition
and damaged the reputation of the Coalition und its members as
peouceful, law-abidiny citizens.
3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S. $1983, $1985,
$1986, and 81988, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth,
Tenth and Fourtee.th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Jurisdiction is founied upon 28 U.S.C. $1331 and 1343 and the
aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions. Plain-
titi further invokes the pendent jurisdiction of this Court to
hear and decide claims under the laws of New York State.
Timeiy notice has been given to defendants pursuant to State law.
All claims, alleged herein, remain unpaid and unadjusted.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Michelson is a thirty-six (36) year old woman
who is a resident of the City of Albany, County of Albany, State
of New York.
S$. Plaintiff Capital District Coalition Against Apartheid
and Racism is an unincorporated association whose chairman 1s
Michael Dollard. The Coalition was formerly known as the Capital
District Coalition Against Rucisn. The 1.0. Box anu Address of
the (vrlition is P.O. Box 30u2, Albany, New York 12203
&. Defendant Paul Daly ls a Special Agent of the Federal
smrarcusssscrncsnennnatt
Bureau of Investigation,
oo pefendawt samen ae Rose ote ah Ayent in charye of the
ete
Albany Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
8. Defendant Sol Greenbery is the District Attorney of the
County of Albany and an employee, officer and agent of the County
of Albany.
9. Defendant Joseph Donnelly is an Assistant District Attor-
ney of the County of Albany and an employee, o!ficer, and agent
of the County of Albany.
10. Defendant John Dorfman is an Assistant District Attor-
ney of the County of Albany and an employee, officer and agent
of the County of Albany.
ll. The defendant County of Albany is a municipal corporation
under the laws of New York State with its principal office in
Albany County, State of New York.
12. Defendant Thomas Burke is the Police Chief of the City
of Albany Police Department.
13. Defendant Jon Reid is the Deputy Police Chief of the
City of Albany Police Department.
14. Defendant William Murray is a Lieutenant in the Albany
City Police Department.
Lo. Defendant John Tanchak is a Detective in the Albany City
Police Department.
16. Defendanc City of Albany is a municipal corporation
under the laws of New York State with its principal office in the
pity ak Albany, County of Albany, state of New York.
17. All unknown clicr defendants were New York State Police
Officers or were Albany County Assistant Di::trict Attorneys or
were Albany Cit. police officers.
18. Each and ever, defendant is being sued individually and
in his or her official capacity.
19. Fach and every defendant was acting in his or her capacity
as stated and in vonspiring with other defendants.
ei
20. kKach defendant is identified by his official capacity at
the time relevant hereto, «wind all defendants’ actions described
herein were done under color
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BY PLAINTIFF
MICHELSON
AL
21. Plaintiff Michelson was a member, organizer and officer
of the Coalition, which planned and staged the anti-apartheid
deuonstration on September 22, 1981. The Coalition was affiliated
with the National Stop the Apartheid Rugby Tour Coalition (herein
after S.A.R.T.).
22. On information and belief, plaintiff's apartment at
400 Central Avenue, Albany, New York, had been under surveillance
prior to September 22, 1981 by defendants and/or other members
of their respectuve law enforcement agencies and/or other law
enforcement agencies acting at the request of defendants.
23. Plaintiff's apartment had been used as a place for
Coalition committee meetings.
24. On September 21, 1981, at the Hyatt House in Albany, ‘cw
York, a meeting was held in the early evening between defendants
Paul Daly, James Rose, Jon keld, Wiliiam Murray, and unknown
other law «nforcement officers, at which meeting alleged infor-
mation from an atleowucd informant of the Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation was discuss. d which allegedly related to plaintiff's
apartment.
25. On September 21, 1981, ut approximately 8:10 P.M., Mr.
John Spearman was arrested by city of Albany Folice officers.
el chatsencanaianitis seis PRES LC NINA NERA: *
Mr. Spearman was a member Of S.A.R.T. and was in Albany to parti-~
cipate in the protest against the Springbok ruyby game.
26. Subsequent to Mr. Spearman's arrest, the defendants
decided and ayjreed to obtain a search warrant for plaintiff's
Apartment at 400 Central Avenue.
27. Said search warrant was hased on an application sworn
to by defendant Detective John Tanchak of the Albany City police
department. A copy of the application is attached as Exhibit A.
28. Said search warrant application was typed by defendant
Albany County Assistant District Attorney Joseph Donnelly on
September 21, 1981. Defendant Donnelly assisted in the prepara~
tion of said search warrant and application therefore, and while
so doing was acting in an administrative and investigatory capa~
ity’.
29. On September 21, 1981, defendants Paul Daly, Agent in
Charge, and/or James Rosu, Special Ayent of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation,also ussisted in the preparation of the appli-
cation for said warrant by providing the aforesaid Donnelly and
Tanchak with information allegedly from a confidential informant.
30. Upen information and belief, the alleyed informant is a
fabrication and does not exist.
31. On September 21, i981, Deputy Chief Jon Reid and Lieuten-
ant William Murray of the Albany City Police Department also
assisted in the preparation of the warrant application.
sennemveamnaannpanrnen res
32. Also present during the preparation of said warrant
application were other unknown local, state, and federal law en-~
forcement officers.
33. The Search Warrant application alleges that:
“Pirst: There is resonable cause to believe that
certain property, to-wit: smoke bombs, sticks,
knives, rifles, shotguns, handguns and any other
object which could be used as a weapon and any
and all other contraband may be found in or upon
tthe apartment).
34. In fuct, no weapons were found in the apartment.
35. The Warrant Application rests upon statements allegedly
given to members of the Albany City Police Department and defen-
dant Tanchak by a “confidential reliable informant.”
36. The Warrant Application does not state the source or
basis hy which this alleged "informant" acquired the information
attrabuted to him in the Application.
39- In fact, neitner Detective Tanchak, no. any other Albany
police official ever spoke to any alleged intormant.
38. The Warrant Application fails to disclose that Detective
Tanchak never had any direct communication with any informant.
39. In fact, none of the information in t he Warrant Appli-
cation was known to Tanchuk from his own knowledge.
40. In addition, the Warrant Applivation 18, On information
and belief, dcliperately Culse, misleading and perjurious,
The application falsely alleges that Mrs. Clara Satterfiel
" sought police protection because she feared harm from members of
the Coalition.
-*
42 The Application falsely states that a second person
"jumped from the car and escaped" at the time of Mr. Spearman's
arrest.
4). The Applicution falsely identifies Mr. William Robinsun
as a travelling companion of Mr. Spearman, and falsely stated Ii:
was armed.
44. The defendants knew OF should have known that said
Search Warrant Application was fraudulent and not based on
probable cause.
45. Honorable Thomas Keegan, City of Albany Police Court,
issued the Search Warrant based upon the Application of defendant
Tanchak.
46. At approximately 3:00 a.m., on September 22, 1981, a
posse of local, state, federal and unknown law enforcement
officers broke into plaintiff's apartment door, did not identify
themselves as law enforcement officers, terrorized plaintiff
and her guests, searched and scavenged the apartment and broke
and destroyed certain items found therein including, but not
limited to, plaintiff's toilet and her answering machine.
P
47. The aforementioned officers included James J. Rose,
Special Agent, Albany office, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
John Reid, Assistant Chief of the Albany City Police Department,
Lieutenant William Murray of the Albany City Police Department,
Detectiv: John Tanchak of the Albany City Police Department,
other unknown officers of the Albany City Police Department,
unknown officers of the New York State Police, and other unknown
law enforcement agents.
el
