IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________
JOHN DOE 1
JOHN DOE 2
JOHN DOE 3
JOHN DOE 4
JOHN DOE 5
JOHN DOE 6
and UNKNOWN OTHERS
The Honorable Court must review this complaint on one of the Plaintiffs websites to enable the Court to watch videos, documentaries, and read articles needed to present this case and recieve the relief he deserves: http://www.freewebs.com/casinolawsuit
Jeff H Williamson of NEVDA hereby asserts the following claims and state and federal statutory violations against the defendants in the above-entitled action:
(1) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: infringement on freedom of speech,
(2) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: conspiracy to infringe on freedom of speech,
(3) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3) depriving persons rights or priviledge
(4) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1986: refusing or neglecting to prevent,
(5) violation of 18 U.S.C section § 4. Misprision of felony
(6) violation of 18 U.S.C. section § 241. Conspiracy against rights
(7) violation of 18 U.S.C. section § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
violation of 18 U.S.C. section § 1512.(d)(2)Tampering with a victim
(9) violation of 18 U.S.C. section § 1513. Retaliating against a victim
(10) Nevada Revised Statutes, Section 197.110 Misconduct of Public Officer
(11) Nevada Stalking Law. Sec. 3. NRS 200.575
(12) Nevada Battery Law N.R.S. 200.481
1. This is a Complaint seeking damages for violation of the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Defendants had harassed the Plaintiff and had him arrested at a public casino based on the content and viewpoint of Plaintiffs’ speech and his political website-blog.
2. The defendants have violated the Plaintiffs rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America while they acted under color of law and/or have oppressed, threatened, and intimidated the Plaintiff in his exercise and enjoyment of his rights and priviledges secured to him by the United States Constitution and laws of the United States of America. The Defendants institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detentions, interrogations without probable cause, harass without reasonable, articulable suspicion of crime, in their provision of government, law enforcement services as the acts were done with diliberate indifferance, knowingly in violation of plaintiffs’ legal and constitutional rights, without good faith, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs’ humiliation, physical injuries yet to be determined, mental pain and suffering and violation of public trust with the defendants gross negligence, reckless and/or callous indifferance to the rights and safety of the Plaintiff and acted in the face of perceived risks that would violate state and federal law all to the damage of the Plaintiff which constitutes a serious miscarrage of justice.
3. At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "The  freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty--and thus a good unto itself--but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 503-504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 339 (1974). As Justice Holmes wrote, "When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . ." Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion).
4. The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large." Associated Press v. Walker decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130, 164 (1967) (Warren, C.J., concurring in result). Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 673-674 (1944), when he said that "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures." Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks," New York Times, supra, at 270. "The candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry 'Foul!' when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts  to demonstrate the contrary." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 274 (1971).