You are on page 1of 11

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 11

Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)


'

. ...

--

..
,

<

. '

:..<~

forthe
District of Massachusetts,

Rolf Cachat-Schilling,
Jaines Schilling-Cachat,
Michael Suter,
Sarah Kohler,
Alejo Zacarias
Plaintiff(s)
(Write the fall name ofeach plaintiff who is filing this complaint.
If the names ofall the plaintiffs cannot fit in the space above,
please write "see attached" in the space and attach an additional
page with the fall list of names.)

-v-

Town of Shutesbury Planning Board,


Jeffrey Lacy,
Deacon Bonnar,
Lakes Street Development: Mamin Lebovits and
Zachary Schulman
Defendant(s)
(Write the fall name ofeach defendant who is being sued. If the
names ofall the defendants cannot fit in the space above, please
write "see attached" in the space and attach an additional page
with the full list ofnames. Do not include addresses here.)

Case No.
(to be filled in by the Clerk's Office)

)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Jury Trial: (check one)

Yes

IZ! No

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS


(Non-Prisoner Complaint)

NOTICE
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2 addresses the privacy and security concerns resulting from public access to
electronic court files. Under this rule, papers filed with the court should not contain: an individual's full social
security number or full birth date; the full natne of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account
number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual's
birth; a minor's initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number.
Except as noted in this form, plaintiff need not send exhibits, affidavits, grievance or witness statements, or any
other materials to the Clerk's Office with this complaint.
In order for your complaint to be filed, it must be accompanied by the filing fee or an application to proceed in
forma pauperis.

Pagel of IO

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 11


Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

I.

The Parties to This Complaint


A.

The Plaintiff(s)
Provide the information below for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional pages if
needed.
Name
Address

Rolf Cachat-Schilling, James Schilling-Cachat


229 Leverett Road
Shutesbury
City

B.

County

Franklin

Telephone Number

413-253-0164

E-Mail Address

rocasch@yahoo.com

MA

01072

State

Zip Code

The Defendant(s)
Provide the information below for each defendant named in the complaint, whether the defendant is an
individual, a government agency, an organization, or a corporation. For an individual defendant,
include the person's job or title (if known) and check whether you are bringing this complaint against
them in their individual capacity or official capacity, or both. Attach additional pages if needed.
Defendant No. 1
Name

Deacon Bonnar

Job or Title (if known)

Chairperson, Shutesbury Planning Board

Address

l Cooleyvitle Road
Shutesbury
City

County
Telephone Number
E-Mail Address (if known)

Zip Code

~ Official capacity

Jeffrey Lacy
Planning Board Member
7 Baker Road and 1 Cooleyville Road
Shutesbury
City

County
Telephone Number
E-Mail Address (if known)

1072

State

Franklin
413 259 1204
planning@shutesbury.org

D Individual capacity
Defendant No. 2
Name
Job or Title (if known)
Address

MA

MA

1072

State

Zip Code

Franklin
413 2591204
planning@shutesbury.org
~ Individual capacity

~ Official capacity
Page 2 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 11

Plaintiffs:
Alejo Zacarias
214 Neilson Rd.
New Salem, MA 01355

County: Franklin
Tel: 978-544-7279
Sarah Kohler
24 Neilson Rd.
New Salem, MA 01355

County: Franklin
Tel: 978-544-7279
Michael Suter
94 Pratt Corner Road
Shutesbury, MA 01072

County: Franklin
413-658-5188

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 4 of 11


Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

Defendant No. 3
Name
Job or Title (if known)
Address

Mamin Lebovitz, Lake Street Development


Principal
180 N. Stetson Ave Suite 3500
Chicago
IL
City

County

Cook

Telephone Number
E-Mail Address (if known)

312 576 5678

~ Individual capacity

Defendant No. 4
Name

State

60601
Zip Code

~ Official capacity

Zachary Schulman, Lake Street Development

Job or Title (if known)

Principal

Address

180 N. Stetson Ave., Suite 3500


Chicago
IL
City

County

Cook

Telephone Number

312 763 2993

State

60601
Zip Code

E-Mail Address (if known)


~ Individual capacity

II.

~ Official capacity

Basis for Jurisdiction


Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, you may sue state or local officials for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal laws]." Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 US. 388 (1971), you may sue federal officials for the violation of certain
constitutional rights.
A.

Are you bringing suit against (check all that apply):

Federal officials (a Bivens claim)

~ State or local officials (a 1983 claim)

B.

Section 1983 allows claims alleging the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and [federal laws]." 42 U.S.C. 1983. If you are suing under section 1983, what
federal constitutional or statutory right(s) do you claim is/are being violated by state or local officials?
RLUIPA, Constitutional Equal Protection, Freedom of Religious and Personal Expression,
Dept. of the Interior code Section 106 and Bulletin 38,
and Indian Land Deeds of Hampshire County, folios 33-39, in res: reservation of access rights.

Page 3 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 5 of 11


Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

C.

Plaintiffs suing under Bivens may only recover for the violation of certain constitutional rights. If you
are suing under Bivens, what constitutional right(s) do you claim is/are being violated by federal
officials?

D.

Section 1983 allows defendants to be found liable only when they have acted "under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia."
42 U.S.C. 1983. If you are suing under section 1983, explain how each defendant acted under color
of state or local law. If you are suing under Bivens, explain how each defendant acted under color of
federal law. Attach additional pages if needed.
Jeffrey Lacy, in his role as Planning Board Member, lobbied and advocated extra-procedurally for
applicants, and harassed private citizens during religious observances with demands and ultimatums for
deliberation, as well as to present evidence and arguments in re: Lakes Street Development's
application before the Town Planning Board. Lacy acted in the guise of closed meetings and sudden
private email missives, unannounced and outside town meeting protocol, without proper public notice
and in absence of other Planning Board members. Jeffrey Lacy committed these acts on several
occasions partly to harass and trouble Plaintiffs during observance of major holidays, of which
observance Jeffrey Lacy was notified and of which he acknowledged awareness, and at other times to
suppress opposition to the application or to advocate for the Applicant. Jeffrey Lacy usurped the Chair
position of the Board, manipulated deliberations, instructed other memers of the Board on how form
their opinions and on how to interpret codes and laws, as well as archaeological reports, ecological
reports, and Algonquian culture, overruling and lobbying against testimony of professionals before the
Board and acting as advocate/agent/lobbyist in and out of meetings for Lake Street Development.
Defandant Lacy also obstructed testimony of and publicly insulted the Plaintiff Rolf Cachat-Schilling in
open public meeting and otherwise aided and abetted the blocking by Lake Street Development through
their Attorney, Michael Pill, ofreligious land use, obstructing Native Americans and Syncretic
Spiritualists of the Northeast Church from accessing numerous religious sites across town through a ban
specifically directed at and only at Native Americans, Syncretic Spiritualist members and their families.
Jeffrey Lacy further aided and abetted this oppression of religious worship and expression in order to
prevent Native Americans and Syncretic Spiritualists (Syncretic Church) from documenting a suspected
Native American burial ground and associated Traditional Cultural Property, which are also integral to
Syncretic Church religious practices. Defendant Lacy generally abused his position and went beyond
his authority to adovcate for Lake Street Development and to circumvent THPO access, Native and
other access by appointing himself as proxy representative of vulnerable, qualified parties without their
consent, including but not limited to the present Plaintiffs, and pre-empting their access and selfdetermination.

Page 4 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 6 of 11


Pro Se 15 ( 12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

Deacon Bonnar, in his capacity as Chair, failed many times to maintain Massachusetts Town Meeting
standards, allowed verbal harassment of private citizens, slander and extended ad-hominem attacks by
Michael Pill on Plaintiffs and other private citizens, failed to control meetings, direct the Board or
maintian compliance with procedural regulations, and generally abused his office through inaction and
refusal to recognize Plaintiffs and others on the floor during open town meetings on this subejct.
Defendant Bonnar further failed to comply with Section 106, Dept. of the Interior code, and Bulletin 38
of the same body, as well as RLUIPA, in a Special Traditional Cultural Properties District as
recognized by the National Registry of Historic Places decision of December 11, 2008, in res Kinder
Morgan and Sacred Hill Ceremonial Site, Montague, MA, and in a Town with long-established
traditional practices of open access to trails and woodlands of uninhabited lots and absentee-owned lots,
which tradition is expressed in many town statements, messages and records and encoded in town trail
and open space preservation bylaws and efforts.
Further, the Defendants acted in violation of specific reserved rights of access as stipulated in the
originating Indian Land Deeds for Hampshire County, folios 33-39, in which named Native American
signatories reserved rights to enter all lands sold under said deeds for their people, heirs and assigns to
camp, fish, hunt, collect wood and engage in other unspecified activities, and that no non-Natives shall
prohibit them or be unfriendly toward them, their heirs or assigns, violation of which injures Plaintiffs
Rolf Cachat-Schilling, James Schilling-Cachat, and by class extension, Alejo Zacarias and others not
named herein, as heirs and class compatriots of those signatories, which Plaintiffs are descendants of
local, namely Stockbridge Mahikkaneuk and Mattampash Nipmuk, as well as other Native American
groups, some of which enjoy Federal recognition (St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, R. Cachat-Schilling). As
well, neither the Town nor the Applicant have the right to abrogate these originating land deeds and the
rights they reserve as they were entered into the Commonwealth General Court and approved thereby.

III.

Statement of Claim

State as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each defendant was personally involved in the
alleged wrongful action, along with the dates and locations of all relevant events. You may wish to include
further details such as the names of other persons involved in the events giving rise to your claims. Do not cite
any cases or statutes. If more than one claim is asserted, number each claim and write a short and plain
statement of each claim in a separate paragraph. Attach additional pages if needed.

A.

Where did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?


Shutesbury, Massachusetts, Town Hall, the "Wheelock Tract," various other unnamed tracts within the
town, and by email to the Plaintiffs.

B.

What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?
Between November, 2016 and August 15, 2016, and which continue to persist.

C.

What are the facts underlying your claim(s)? (For example: What happened to you? Who did what?
Was anyone else involved? Who else saw what happened?)

Page 5 of IO

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 7 of 11


Pro Se 15 (12115) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

1. Marnin Lebovits and Zachary Schulman, as principals of Lake Street Development through their
Attorney, specifically targeted Native Americans, members of the Syncretic Church and their families,
which ban was extended by their business associate, Cinda Jones, to include approximately 30% of the
Town of Shutesbury area, excluding both banned groups and all Plaintiffs from accessing numerous
cultural, sacred and worship sites. The Lake Street principals were notified by Narragansett and
Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribal Historic Preservation Offices of suspected Native American burials on
the lot for which Lake Street submitted a solar array application. Lake Street responded by immediately
banning all Native American representatives and all members of the Synrectic Church and their
families, friends, associates and assigns. This action was taken by Lake Street, through their Attorney,
to harrass, dishearten and obstruct from religious practice the Plaintiffs, as well as to prevent
investigation by Native Americans and others of the reported suspected burials.
2. Deacon Bonnar, in his capacity as Chair, failed at all times to maintain Massachusetts town meeting
standards, allowed verbal harassment of private citizens, slander and extended ad-hominem attacks by
Michael Pill on Plaintiffs and other private citizens, failed to control meetings, direct the Board,
maintian compliance with procedural regulations, and failed to comply with Federal acts and codes or
failed to uphold traditional and encoded open access policies that the Town has otherwise defended and
promoted.
3. Jeffrey Lacy lobbied and advocated extra-procedurally for applicants and harassed private citizens
during religious observance with ultimatums for deliberation, as well as to present evidence and
arguments in re: Lake Street Development's application before the Town Planning Board, and did so in
the forum of closed meetings, unannounced and outside town meeting protocol, without proper public
notice and in absence of some Planning Board members. Jeffrey Lacy committed these acts on several
occasions to harass and trouble Plaintiffs during observance ofhoildays and ceremonies, of which
observance Jeffrey Lacy was notified and of which he acknowledged awareness. Jeffrey Lacy usurped
the Chair position of the Board, manipulated deliberations, instructed other memers of the Board in
how form their opnions and in how to interpret codes and laws as well as archaeology, ecology, and
Algonquian culture, obstructed testimony of and publicly insulted the PlaintiffRolfCachat-Schilling in
open public meeting and otherwise aided and abetted the blocking of traditional and longstanding
religious land use by Lake Street Development through their Attorney, Michael Pill, obstructing Native
Americans and Syncretic Spiritualists of the Northeast Church from accessing numerous religious sites
across town by a ban specifically directed at and only at Native Americans, Syncretic Spiritualist
members and their families. Jeffrey Lacy further aided and abetted this oppression of religious worship
and expression in order to prevent Native Americans and Syncretic Spiritualists (Syncretic Church)
from documenting a suspected Native American burial ground and associated Traditional Cultural
Property, which are integral to Syncretic Church religious practices. Jeffrey Lacy directed Board
members to ignore the allegation that Federal law has jurisdiction in this case. Jeffrey Lacy is formerly
a logger and stands to gain personally in his private enterprise from the dissolution of conservation and
preservation restrictions and so has a personal confict of interests in this matter.

Page 6 of IO

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 8 of 11


Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

4.Lake Street Development as Defendants Liebovitz and Schulman, in conjunction with their business
associate, Cinda Jones, with the help of the inaction, abuse of power, non-compliance with regulations
incombination with active inteference and advocacy by Town Officals named herein promoted and are
promoting the destruction of Native American and Euroamerican cultural and religious properties while
obstructing their identification and protection by the interested parties, and depriving them of access to
religious practices by serial destruction of all their Traditional Cultural Properties and places of
worship. The landowner from whom Lake Street Development is leasing the land has a history of
destruction ofTCPs, and has previusly refused access to THPOs in investigations ofTCPs within the
named Special TCP District (namely, Brushy Mountain, in Leverett, Cowl's. Inc. and Cinda Jones),
while also seeking Federal monies for conservation easements on the same land. Cowl's, Inc., Jones
and friends are currently further seeking Federal monies for conservation easement on lands where
TCPs and Federal rules are being violated. Defedants have been notified that Plaintiffs Kohler and
Cachat-Schilling have engaged in careful study of TCPs and other historic properties on Cowl's openaccess lands and wish to obstruct discovery of and protection ofTCPs and CSLs to prevent limitation
of commercial logging activity in which they are engaged. The Plaintiffs have prepared a scientific
report on the destruction and preservation ofTCPs and Ceremonial Stone Landscapes specifically in the
Town of Shutesbury, comprising the only complete inventory and survey of Algonquian TCPs and
CSLs on all the public and tradtionally accessible lands within the town, which report is currently in
editorial stage for publication in a regional archaeology bulletin, and which report evidences increasing
damage to the said TCPs and places of worship and identifies local threats. Deacon Bonnar and Jeffrey
Lacy, along with Cinda Jones have a vested interest in preventing the preservation of Native American
and other sites, in concealing their presence and whereabouts, and preventing any precedents that will
restrict logging and commercial development of publi lands, conservation lands, and rural lands, in
which both Jeffrey Lacy and Cinda Jones ar commercially and personally engaged.
5.Deacon Bonnar and Jeffrey Lacy interfered and advocated against, as well as insulting and belittling,
testimony from Plaintiffs Rolf Cachat-Schilling and Sarah Kohler in open meetings in order to suppress
preservation of sacred places by Native Americans and Syncretic Church members, which actions serve
to debilitate the Platintift's efforts to safeguard places of worship and to set a precedent that accelerates
their serial destruction, depriving all parties permanently of access.

IV.

Injuries
If you sustained injuries related to the events alleged above, describe your injuries and state what medical
treatment, if any, you required and did or did not receive.

Injuries of the Plaintiffs include obstruction from religious practice, public insult, deprivation of places of
worship, Traditional Cultural Properties and other cultural properties, obstruction from access to sacred places
and places of worship, obstruction from access for the purpose of identifying and preservaing TCPs, places of
worship, sacred places and other cultural properties, and potential progressive and total loss ofTCPs, places of
worship, sacred places and access thereto.

Page 7 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 9 of 11


Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

No medical treatment or other remedy is available for the destruction of sacred places, TCPs, places of worship
and other cultural properties as they cannot be replaced or properly restored. The injury is spiritual, enduring
and progressive, and impacts the lives and health of those injured through emotional stress, as well as
deprivation of the physical, emotional and psychological benefits or worship and observation, which impacts are
traumatic and have been medically linked to syndromes that can lead to death.
Hence, Plaintiffs have received no medical or other relief as there exist no therapy for injury to the soul or to
spiritual practice, and whose resulting negative effects fall into the class recognized as Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, effected across generations by repeated cross-generational losses to spiritual practice and access to
sacred places, TCPs, places of worship and other cultural properties.
We further note that Native Americans and the members of the Syncretic Church are specifically targeted in the
ban, and that the Town of Shutesbury has accessed and disbursed in excess of $400,000, partlyin CAP funds, on
Euromaerican Historical Preservation projects within the Town, while in parallel, the same Town has aquired
and disbursed $0 for any project to preserve Native American or non-European historical properties or spaces.
The same Town moreover has an established and encoded practice of keeping open historic and traditional trails
through both public and private properties, which encoded rules forbid closure of an established trail without
replacement even on private land, with the written intention of preserving open access to Shutesbury citizens,
while supporting, tolerating, advocating for, and preserving a ban directed racially at Native Americans and
religiously at Syncretic Church members denying them access to the same lands. The Town has an established
culture of open access as described and which is expressed in signs formerly posted by Cowl's, Inc. on the
property now under a ban: "Respectful visits welcome."
Additionally, the Town of Shutesbury Historical Committee Officers have, in open meetings, confessed their
long-time knowledge of the presence of many Native American archeaological and historical relics on the Town
landscape in various areas, along with relics of unknown origin and Colonial origin. However, the same
Committee has enacted programs and efforts to preserve Euroamerican and Colonial relics while failing to
report, document, assess or consider any relics of potentially Native American origin.

V.

Relief
State briefly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments. Do not cite any cases or statutes.
If requesting money damages, include the amounts of any actual damages and/or punitive damages claimed for
the acts alleged. Explain the basis for these claims.
The Plaintiffs move for Preliminary Injunctive Relief pending physical investigation of the site in question by a
Federally recognized local THPO, which site is the proposed solar array within the "Wheelock tract" before the
Town of Shutesbury Planning Board in application. We move that inestigation be conducted within the
standards and codes of Dept. of the Interior Section 106 and Bulletin 38 in respect to THPO assessment and
disposition ofTCPs, burials and Ceremonial Stone Landscapes, specifically as applies to the Special TCP
District emanating from Sacred Hill Ceremonial Site in Montague, MA as declared in the 2008 Kinder Morgan
decision by the NRHP, and objective physical tests be performed to determine the presene or absene of human
remains, such as Ground Penetrating Radar and/or careful follow-up with soil tests for anthropogenic bioderived
soil chemical anomalies indicative of dissolved human remains.
We further petition the Court to order the Defendants to lift any and all bans on entry to sacred places, TCPs,
places of worship and cultural properties under the normal, culturally traditional, universal and established terms
of the Town of Shutesbury as held in common.

Page 8 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 10 of 11


Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

VI.

Certification and Closing


Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief that this complaint: ( 1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the
requirements of Rule 11.

A.

For Parties Without an Attorney


I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address where case-related papers may be
served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result
in the dismissal of my case.
Date of signing:

08/16/2016

Signature of Plaintiff
Printed Name of Plaintiff

B.

For Attorneys
Date of signing:

Signature of Attorney
Printed Name of Attorney
Bar Number
Name of Law Firm
Address

City

State

Zip Code

Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Page 9 of 10

..

Case 3:16-cv-30144-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 11 of 11

Pro Se 15 (12/15) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)

--------

.. ~----------~--- -~-~----

...-... -... .....

d/7~

U=- ,J0

:l.A-c.4-1<-14-S

__