PARTIES

1) John E. Boyle Lives at 8 d Seabrook Rd. Hyannis, MA 02601 (508) 648-7000

2) The Town of Barnstable is located at 357 Main street Hyannis, MA 02601

3) Town Manager John Klimm 357 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 (508) 862-4000

4) Chief John Finnegan (retired)

5) Chief Paul McDonald

6) Detective Sergeant John Murphy

7) Sergeant Arthur Caido

8) Sergeant Richard Morse

4 to 8 Are to be reached at 1200 Phinneys Lane P.O. Box B Hyannis, MA 02601

(508) 775-0387
 FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

District of Massachusetts

Eastern Division

John E. Boyle, Pro Se Litigant Federal District Court Docket No.

Plaintiff 09CV11435-WGY

V.

Barnstable Police Department

Town of Barnstable

John Klimm, Town Manager

Chief John Finnegan (retired)

Chief Paul McDonald

Detective Sgt. John F. Murphy

Sgt. Arthur Caido

Sgt. Richard Morse

Defendants

COMPLAINT, VERIFIED,

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 FACTS

1) John Boyle is a resident of Hyannis, MA living there for over 32 years. He was a former
elected town official, serving six years on the Barnstable Town Council. He holds an Associate
Degree in Criminal Justice and a Bacceuralete of Science in Political Science. He is currently
residing at 8d Seabrook Road, Hyannis MA 02601

2) Boyle was the founder, owner and CEO of King’s Coach, Inc., formerly a limousine company
offering sedans, vans and limousines, licensed in the Town of Barnstable in April of 2000. At
the peak, King’s Coach had 35 drivers and eight office staff plus twenty vehicles with annual
revenues in 2004 of $980,000.00 and 2005 of $880,000.00. Further he owned and operated
SHUTTLE KING, a shared ride shuttle service operating in 40 city and towns of the
commonwealth of Massachusetts licensed under the Department of Telecommunications
and Energy.

3) Boyle founded and operated in 1995 American Refuse and Recycling Inc., a trash collection
service serving the mid -Cape. American Refuse was the third largest trash hauling firm on
Cape Cod, behind only BFI and Waste Management upon selling to Waste Management on
1999.

4) Boyle purchased Five Star Enterprises Inc., of Falmouth MA, a rubbish and demolition and
construction collection service, from the Barnstable Superior Court appointed receiver on
August 18 2005, renaming it TRASHGUY. Boyle operated “Five Star” for the receiver from
June 9 2005 so as to keep the value. Boyle won the right to purchase by sealed bid.

5) It should be noted that Five Star’s owner, Melvin Reine, was a notorious figure in Falmouth
MA, having served jail time for arson and being suspect in the disappearance of three
individuals, though never charged. Currently he is committed to a state run mental health
facility suffering from dementia in 2001.

6) Further, Reine’s wife Shirley was found murdered on May 9 2005 for which no one has ever
been charged. This event rekindled the notoriety of Melvin Reine, Five Stars owner and
tweaked the interest of the Cape Cod Times newspaper as well as other media. This event
also put into motion the availability to bid on Five Star.

7) Close to purchasing Five Star, Boyle was approached by a reporter from Cape Cod Times,
Amanda Lehmert. Lehmert asked Boyle to be a source for her ongoing series of the Reines.
8) After thought and contemplation, Boyle agreed, but with conditions. Boyle met with Lemhert
and Editor Ann Brennan and agreed to be a source if his name was kept from the paper and if
they kept the Five Stars purchase price from the paper. They agreed.

9) Boyle, it should be noted, was never a suspect or person of interest in the murder of Shirley
Reine. In fact, Boyle assisted the State Police investigators with computer issues at his home
office and readily discussed issues of their concern when asked.

10) Multiple media outlets contacted Boyle for input in what had seemed to become a real
crime/drama/human interest story. Boyle did not seek this theatre or publicity, and was
inadvertently thrust into it.

11) Boyle was in a unique position in that he was able to see and hear things that the local press
wasn’t publishing. He offered these scenarios, verified, when questioned about issues
surrounding Shirley Reine. These scenarios ran counter to prevailing thought in law
enforcement and published accounts in the local paper. This happened around the time of
exoneration of suspects in the murder of Christa Worthington a Truro fashion writer.
Suspects Arnold and Jacket were vilified in local and national press via the misdirected focus
of local law enforcement.

12) After purchasing Five Star, Boyle attempted to move King’s Coach to Falmouth to consolidate
his business operations. After applying Boyle was notified around December of 2005 by
Falmouth Town Manager Whitenour that King’s Coach could not obtain a license in Falmouth
due to prejudice of then Falmouth Police Chief David Cusolito, and was advised by Town
Manager Whitenour to withdraw application. Reluctantly, Boyle withdrew the
application.

13) Due to the ongoing bad publicity of Five Star and eventual financial considerations, Boyle
placed King’s Coach and Five Star up for sale.

14) Boyle contacted the Licensing Division of Barnstable who agreed to allow Boyle an extension
on renewing his limousine license because of a potential sale.

15) Boyle continued his normal course of affairs while having no less than three meetings with
the director of Barnstable Licensing, Tom Geiler, where Boyle discussed the extension and
was told things were OK “But you should get it done at some point”.

16) The winter of 2005/2006 was a financially difficult one for King’s Coach and Trash Guy.

17) The Cape Cod times continued publishing its ongoing series of the “Reines”, and Boyle asked
Lehmert to cease mentioning Five Star as it hurt business. Lehmert agreed.
18) Cape Cod is a seasonal economy, and Boyle looked forward to increased King’s Coach sales
come the summer of 2006.

19) Boyle sold Five Star on or about May 1, 06.

20) On May 9, 2006, the one year anniversary of Shirley Reine’s murder, Cape Cod Times
published an anniversary feature of the Reines. For the first time, the amount Boyle
purchased Five Star was made public in violation of the agreement between Boyle and Cape
Cod Times.

21) Around June 1st 2006, Boyle returned to a King’s Coach operation that was much different then
when he left it to operate Five Star.

22) On May 22 2006, Carmel Fisher called King’s Coach and reserved transportation from Boston
to Hyannis for August 16 2006. Her credit card was charged the 22 nd of May.

23) On July 11 2006, Richard Fisher (no relation) called King’s Coach to reserve transportation
from Centerville to Logan Airport for 7/14/2006. Mr. Fisher’s card was charged on the 16 th of
July.

24) About July 2 2006, without notice, warning or probable cause the Barnstable Police
Department stopped a King’s Coach Vehicle and proceeded to put passengers on the street,
towing and impounding the vehicle. Subsequently upon investigation, it was determined that
a MA Turnpike Authority vehicle transponder had malfunctioned causing Fast Lane too
erroneously cancel the vehicle’s registration without notice.

25) On July 21 2006, the Cape Cod Times wrote a scathing front page article about Boyle’s
limousine company and Boyle himself. Said article was inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented
and untrue. The article was also malicious and libelous and contended among other things
that Boyle operated without a limousine license for over six months. This article is the subject
of a $12.5 million dollar law suit brought by Boyle.

26) As Town Councilor Boyle had approved the hiring of Barnstable Chief of Police John Finnegan
in 1999. Boyle called Finnegan numerous times over multiple days asking him for a meeting
around July 23 2006 to discuss the conduct set forth at paragraph 24 and allegations set forth
in paragraph 25.

27) Finally, after about the fifth day of multiple calls by Boyle trying to secure a meeting,
Finnegan called and said he “can’t meet with me…” Boyle did not understand.
28) Simultaneously Boyle made numerous attempts to contact the Town Manager and Director
of Licensing to discuss the Police Department and Licensing issues but no one would return
phone calls.

29) Upon information and belief Klimm, Finnegan and others met or communicated to conspire
against Boyle and King’s Coach. These are people Boyle often approached on a first name
basis.

30) The inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented and untrue article by the Cape Cod Times
mentions King’s Coach, Inc. failed to provide pre paid services among other matters. The
Defendants conspired against Boyle from this article when they should have known that it
was inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented and untrue.

31) Due to conduct of the Police Department & Town officials King’s Coach suspended operations
on July 26, 2006. The Town of Barnstable forced King’s Coach and Boyle to not be able to
service reservations.

32) King’s Coach had many reservations that were not fulfilled. Almost all of those reservations
credit cards were charged at the time of making the reservation.

33) Because of decreased cash flow, King’s Coach couldn’t make payments to vendors and
employees. The bulk of the fleet was repossessed, leaving King’s Coach unable to operate.

34) On August 29th 2006 the Barnstable Police filed criminal complaint’s and summonsed John
Boyle to court for the following:

DOCKET NO. 0625 CR 003197 BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT

1. 266/30/A LARCENY OVER $250

On August 16, 2006 did steal the property of CARMEL FISHER, such property having a value
of more than $250, in violation of G.L. c.266,30(1).
(PENALTY: state prison not more than five years; or jail not more than 2 years and not more
then 25,000.00)

2. 40/21/B MUNICIPAL BY-LAW OR ORDINANCE VIOLATION

On AUGUST 16, 2006 did OPERATE A BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE, in violation of a
municipal ordinance or by-law of TOWN OF BARNSTABLE adopted pursuant to G.L. c. 40, 21.
(PENALTY: not more than $300.)
 DOCKET NO. 0625 CR 003196 BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COURT

1. 266/30/C LARCENY UNDER $250

On July 17, 2006 did steal the property of Richard Fisher such property having a value of
$250 or less, in violation of G. L. c.266, 30(1) (PENALTY: jail not more than 1 year; or not
more than $300.)

2. 40/21/B MUNICIPAL BY LAW OR ORDINANCE VIOLATION

On JULY 17, 2006 did OPERATING A BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE, in violation of a
municipal ordinance or by-law of TOWN OF BARNSTABLE adopted pursuant to G.L. c. 40, 21.
(PENALTY :not more than $300.)

35) The defendants conspired to bypass an evidentiary magistrates hearing and proceed right to
arraignment. Even though two of the charges are civil code violations and one is a
misdemeanor, the last being a felony.

36) On September 8, 2006 the Cape Cod Times wrote a second article which too was inaccurate,
incorrect, misrepresented, untrue, malicious and libelous and stated among other facts that
Plaintiff Boyle was charged with larceny among other crimes

37) On September 13, 2006 Defendant Caido of the Barnstable Police Department is reported to
have said in a MA Department of Industrial Accidents investigator’s report that “…he didn’t
want us to drop anything on this John Boyle because everybody in the department knows all
about him and his going ons”.

38) Around this time, a letter emerged showing the Barnstable License Authority granted King’s
Coach a limousine license extension through June 20, 2006. Unfortunately, the letter was
sent to an address that Boyle hadn’t occupied for over four years. Boyle never received the
letter. Boyle never received notice.

39) Boyle will introduce approximately 30 plus criminal and administrative charges brought
against him by defendants and others. Boyle was found not guilty in every instance. In fact a
Judge asked the prosecutor as to “Why is this man here? He has committed no crime…” Boyle
was not convicted of a single crime.

40) Harassment, petty prosecutions and failure to protect Boyle and his family have ruled the
day. From Boyles personal vehicle, all four tires lug nuts being loosened, to all of King’s
Coach’s vehicles license plates being stolen, to a car smashing through his fence, his office
being burglarized, threatening phone calls, and much more the Barnstable Police, refused to
assist, and, further, outright avoided protecting Boyle and his family while simultaneously
seeking to convict him of crimes he never committed among other infractions.
 COUNTS

COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983: RETALIATION FOR

PETITIONING

41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 40 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

42. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants was subject to 42 U.S.C.
§§1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.

43. Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial of Boyle’s rights,
privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law, to
wit, by retaliating against him because he was subject of false, inaccurate, untrue and
libelous media exposure. And because he spoke contrary to the prosecutors then
prevailing thought of an ongoing murder investigation. Defendants conspired for the
purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny Boyle
equal protection of laws.
 

44. As a result of the retaliation by the Defendants for Boyle exercising his First
Amendment right, Boyle has been deprived of his right to equal protection of the laws,
and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C.

1983 by all the Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special,
compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 and further demands judgment
against each of said Defendants jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the
amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such
other relief deemed to be just and equitable. 

COUNT 2: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §§1983 AND 1985:

45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 44 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

46.As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious conspiracy of all

Defendants, Boyle was deprived of his right to equal protection of the laws, and the due
course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the conspiracy against all the
Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in
the amount of $1,000,000 and further demands judgment against each of said
Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus
the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just
and equitable. 
 

COUNT 3: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §1983:

REFUSING OR NEGLECTING TO PREVENT

47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 46 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

48. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant’s Caido and Morse of the
Barnstable Police Department and John Finnegan as Chief in the Barnstable Police
Department was acting under the direction and control of the Barnstable Town Manager
John Klimm and the Defendant Town of Barnstable.

49. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, the Barnstable
Police Department and the Town of Barnstable knowingly, recklessly, or with gross
negligence failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis the
Defendant’s in their duties, to refrain from:
 

(a) unlawfully and maliciously harassing a citizen who was acting in

accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and
immunities, 

(b) unlawfully and maliciously prosecuting a citizen who was acting in

accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and
immunities, 

(c) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges, and immunities

guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States
and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and
 (d) Otherwise depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory
rights, privileges, and immunities.

50. The Defendant Town of Barnstable had knowledge, or should have had knowledge
-- had it diligently exercised its duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a
continuing basis -- that the wrongs conspired to be done, as heretofore alleged, were
about to be committed. The Defendant Town of Barnstable had power to prevent or aid
in preventing the commission of said wrongs, could have done so by reasonable
diligence, and knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence failed or refused to do
so.

51. The Defendant Town of Barnstable, directly or indirectly, under color of law,
approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct
of Defendant’s heretofore described.

52. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligent and intentional acts of
Defendant’s. Plaintiff suffered physical injury, loss of income, and severe mental
anguish in connection with the deprivation of his constitutional and statutory rights
guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and protected by 42 U.S.C. §1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all the Defendants for actual,
general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000 and further
demands judgment against the Defendant’s for punitive damages in the amount of
$100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief
deemed to be just and equitable. 
 

COUNT 4: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 52 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

54. Defendants instituted criminal process against the plaintiff with malice: Defendants
played an active part in the criminal process denying due process.

55. Caido and Morse played an active part in the initiation and proceedings of the
criminal Complaints; and signed the criminal Complaints against Boyle.

56. The charges were not based upon probable cause, that is, the state of the facts in the
mind of the prosecutor would not lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to
believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that Boyle was guilty.

57. Defendants had a duty to ascertain whether there was reasonable and probable cause
for a prosecution. To wit, to learn whether Boyle had purposely deprived subject
individuals of their monies or whether it was carried out in the normal course of
business. Further reservations were made prior to notice of licensing matter as well as
charging of credit cards.

58. Defendants Morse, Caido and Finnegan breached their duty.

59. Defendants had a duty to ascertain the truth of the information they had been
supplied and failed that duty.

60. Cape Cod Times recklessly published false categorical statements as fact upon
which the Defendants relied, accusing the Plaintiff of violating the most basic and
trusted tenets of commerce and those statements resulted in defendants charging Boyle
with multiple crimes.

61. The criminal proceeding terminated in favor of Boyle when the court dismissed all
charges after a hearing to Dismiss. 

62. Defendants Town of Barnstable, Klimm, Finnegan, Mc Donald, Murphy, Caido and
Morse are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior or partnership by estoppels.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Boyle demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive
relief and actual, special, compensatory damages in an amount deemed at time of trial
to be just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 5: MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS

63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 62 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

64. Defendants maliciously used a "legal process `to accomplish some ulterior purpose
for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not the legitimate purpose of
the particular process employed.'"

65. Defendants knew that the complaint initiated was groundless and made
misrepresentations to the court to gain a collateral advantage in further investigative
process. 
66.Defendants knew that the complaint initiated was groundless and made
misrepresentations for revenge upon Boyle for (a) Speaking publicly against an
investigation(b) Being the subject of Libelous media coverage, (c) Addressing Police
officers in the same manner and effect in which they opted to address Plaintiff.

67. Defendants knew or should have known that the complaints were groundless but
still sought to use the process for an ulterior purpose, including, but not limited to,
launching multiple investigations, on many levels to target the individual by use of
confidential informants and electronic means designed to entrap Boyle.

68. Defendants used the legal process with the ulterior purpose, to wit, for personal
political vendettas and published name recognition.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief
and actual, special, compensatory damages, in an amount deemed at time of trial to be
just, fair, and appropriate.

COUNT 6: CONSPIRACY

69. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 68 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

70.All the Defendants (a) had an object to be accomplished; (b)had an agreement on the
object or course of action; (c) performed one or more unlawful overt acts; and (d)
caused Boyle damages that were a direct result of those acts. 

71. In furtherance of their object, defendants did two or more overt acts against the
plaintiff. Those unlawful overt acts include, but are not limited to, the following:

A) Defendants knew or should have known that Cape Cod Times had intentionally
misrepresented facts.

B) In concert with Cape Cod Times who set the tone trough sensational journalism
defendants prosecuted on the grounds that Boyle did steal the property of another
although they knew or should have known Boyle could not have stolen monies as he
simply was conducting himself in a normal course of business. The defendants agreed
that the object or course of action was to charge and prosecute him maliciously with
crimes.
 

72. Plaintiff suffered harm and damages that are a direct result of those acts. 
 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for injunctive relief
and actual, special, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs,
expenses, and interest in an amount deemed at time of trial to be just, fair, and
appropriate.  

COUNT 7: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

73. Boyle repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 72 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

74. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Boyle by

maliciously prosecuting Boyle, or by abusing the lawful process by unlawful purpose,
or by violating Boyle’s constitutional rights, or by conspiring against Boyle. 

75. Defendants knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result
of their conduct.

76. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of
decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

77. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of Boyle’s distress.

78. Boyle is a reasonable man.

79. The emotional distress sustained by Boyle was severe and of a nature that no
reasonable man could be expected to endure.
 
80. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiff was, is, and
with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to the
intentional commission.
 

81. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Boyle has suffered
and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma,
embarrassment, and humiliation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, including interest, jointly and severally

against all Defendants in an amount deemed by this Court to be just and fair and in any
other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

                                                                      

COUNT 8: LIBEL, SLANDER, DEFAMATION

Boyle repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs
1 through 81 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

82. Both the first and the second Cape Cod Times articles, or either of them, was of and
concerning the Plaintiff, and were inaccurate, incorrect, misrepresented, untrue, malicious
and libelous and stated facts that Defendants knew or should have known that Cape Cod
Times had intentionally misrepresented facts.

83. Defendants used the media Cape Cod Times with the ulterior purpose, to wit, for
personal political vendettas and public condemnation of Boyle.

84. Said articles, individually and collectively, have prejudiced Plaintiff Boyle in his
profession and business and or impute upon him an unfitness to conduct business.

85. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted irreparable harm on Boyle by

maliciously prosecuting Boyle, or by abusing the lawful process by unlawful purpose,
or by violating Boyle’s constitutional rights, or by conspiring against Boyle by
publication of falsehoods that Defendants should have known to be false.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment, including interest, jointly and severally

against all Defendants in an amount deemed by this Court to be just and fair and in any
other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,
                                                                      JOHN E BOYLE
                                                                      By himself,
 

                                                                      _____________________
28 August 2009                                     
                                                                      8 Seabrook Road
                                                                      Hyannis, Ma 02601
                                                                      508-648-7000
                                                                     

PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that I am the Plaintiff herein, and
have read the foregoing pleading filed on my behalf, and the facts stated therein are
true.

28 August 2009                                    _________________________

                                                                   John Boyle. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of August 2009. 
                                                                   ______________________

Notary Public