UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

NO. 10-2277

GREGORY MCKENNA

Plaintiff

Vs.

THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, OFFICERS CHARLES BOSCHERT, KENNETH

WILLIAMS, 8 UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

ASSISTANT US ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK KAPPELHOFF, APPLE INC., A-1

PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS, TIMOTHY BONINE, D’ANGELO AUTOMOTIVE

Defendants

_____________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE TO THE COURT REGARDING THE DISTRICT COURT’S

DENIAL OF HIS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

COMES NOW, pro se Plaintiff Gregory McKenna, and for his Notice to the Court

regarding the Circuit Court’s Denial of his Motion For Relief From Judgment, states as follows:

1. On or around August 10, 2010, Plaintiff McKenna filed a Motion for Relief From

Judgment with the District Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 60(b)(2),

(5) and (6). Plaintiff’s grounds for filing his Motion was that the case law cited by the District

Court (i.e., DeShanney, Dorothy, Sellers, etc.) in its January 4, 2010 Judgment is not followed

since the Courts have mandated that Government officials cannot deliberately neglect their duty

1
to protect and intentionally cause injury to a citizen. Moreover, all of the case law used by the

District Court that knowingly furthered the Mafia crimes was wrongfully applied since they

referred to cases of incidental neglect committed by Government officials. Plaintiff argued that

the issue of deliberate neglect and reckless injury committed by the Defendant law enforcement

officials was settled in numerous Supreme Court rulings (i.e., Daniels, Davidson, Collins,

Nishiyama and others), and moreover, the Defendants’ intentional neglect is a Constitutional

wrong pursuant to the deliberate deprivation norm and other well-established principles.

Plaintiff also filed his Motion for newly discovered evidence of the Italian Mafia bugging his

cellular phones in violation of the Communications Act, his Due Process rights and other wrongs

being maliciously neglected by the Defendant law enforcement officials.

2. On August 23, 2010, Judge Perry denied Plaintiff’s Motion For Relief From Judgment

and furthered the Mafia crimes based on her purported belief that Plaintiff’s new evidence of

Mafia stalking, extortion and exaction does not give rise to a Constitutional claim since

Government officials cannot be held liable for acts of deliberate neglect. (See Judge Perry’s

8/23/10 Order, page 2.). Accordingly, Judge Perry denied Plaintiff’s Motion in patent dereliction

to the deliberate deprivation norm, US Supreme Court precedent, and other well-established

principles. Notwithstanding, the belief that no citizen has a right to protection from the

Government, especially when the danger was created by a Government regulated monopoly, is

utterly erroneous. Archie v. Racine at 1246 (7th Cir. 1988)(When the Government monopolizes

the avenues of relief, or when it has not already afforded process sufficient to yield accurate

decisions, it has an obligation to give aid.).

3. In contravention to Judge Perry alleging that Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed as a

matter of law and his new evidence was not relevant to his Rule 60(b)(2) Motion, the new

2
evidence was relevant since it proved the Defendants were directly involved in violating the

Communications Act and Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. Albeit Judge Perry alleged she did not

consider Plaintiff’s evidence or factual allegations when dismissing his Complaint, she indeed

dismissed Plaintiff’s request for relief for violations of the Communications Act because the

claim originated in 2001 and Plaintiff was outside the 2-year statute of limitations (See

Judgment, page 7, footnote 4). In contrast, Plaintiff’s newly discovered evidence of the

Defendants abetting the Mafia bugging of his BlackBerry phones extended the statute of

limitations an additional 2 years. The new evidence implicated the Defendants as principle

violators of the Act1. In patent dereliction to Plaintiff’s right to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2),

however, Judge Perry maliciously neglected the new evidence of the Defendants violating the

Communications Act and wrongfully ruled that they were immune from the Act because they

have no duty to protect. Effectively, Judge Perry wrongfully neglected the new evidence that

entitled Plaintiff to relief to prejudice the Plaintiff and conceal the Defendants’ crimes against

him and society.

4. To corroborate the fact that Judge Perry intentionally ignored new evidence to further

the Mafia crimes, her former ruling demonstrated her belief that Government law enforcement

1 Pursuant to 18 USC §2511(1)(b), any person who intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or

procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device

to intercept any oral communication may in a civil action recover from the person or entity

which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. Accordingly, because the

Defendants acted wrongfully by obstructing justice, conspiring and abetting the use of illegal

communication devices, they violated the Act to entitle Plaintiff relief.

3
officials cannot deliberately neglect their statutorily imposed duty to protect the public. Steven

Kern v. City of Gerald, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89447, p.10 (8th Cir. 2008)(“Plaintiffs have set

forth very broad allegations stating that the defendants acted recklessly and willfully in failing to

properly train, hire and supervise the police officers… these facts would likely overcome the

protections afforded by official immunity or the public duty doctrine, even assuming that these

defenses were applicable…dismissal at this stage is not warranted.”)(quoting Judge Perry).

Accordingly, Judge Perry is aware that the Police cannot deliberately neglect their duty to

protect. Nevertheless, she proceeded to demonstrate her prejudice against the Plaintiff when she

ruled against her former rulings and alleged that law enforcement officials can deliberately

neglect the Mafia crimes against Plaintiff to further their commission and cause him injuries.

5. In addition to demonstrating extrajudicial prejudice, Judge Perry willfully and

knowingly violated several criminal statutes to further the Mafia crimes in an act of treason and

seditious conspiracy against the United States. Judge Perry did in fact see direct evidence and

obtained actual knowledge of the Mafia sending death threats to Plaintiff’s bugged Apple iPods

and BlackBerry phones to stalk, extort and exact Plaintiff and terrorize society. Nonetheless,

Judge Perry maliciously neglected her mandatory duty to act pursuant to 28 USC §1361 and

others. In effect, Judge Perry criminally neglected the crimes and rendered assistance to enemies

of the United States in an act of treason and seditious conspiracy in violation of criminal statutes:

18 USC §2, §3 and §4, 18 USC §1510, 18 USC §1512(b), 18 USC §2381, 18 USC §2382, 18

USC §2384 and others. Accordingly, an arrest is warranted for Judge Perry’s criminal neglect

and other high crimes. The treason attempt is so blatant that a failure to prosecute would

unlawfully abet the crimes and further their commission against Plaintiff and the United States.

4
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this honorable Court include Judge Perry’s Order

in the case file to take into account her prejudicial acts, criminal violations and manifest errors of

law. Plaintiff also requests that this Court act without further delay and initiate an Injunction, sua

sponte, to end the criminal neglect and treason conspiracy involving Government law

enforcement officials rendering assistance to enemies of the United States. Plaintiff also requests

that this Court remand the case for further proceedings and grant all other relief that this Court

deems just and proper.

September 10, 2010.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/: Gregory McKenna

Pro Se Plaintiff

9937 Young Drive, H

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

(310) 493-4990

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiff hereby states that a copy of the foregoing Notice to the Court was electronically

filed on Pacer on September 10, 2010 and copies were electronically sent to the Defendants’

counsel via Pacer’s electronic filing system.