PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO MGL C. 214: S. 3B & MGL C. 249: S. 5

Now comes the petitioner, Linda Hamilton of Shelburne, Ma. seeking a writ of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General to investigate civil rights violations by the Mass. State police, et. alleged by Linda Hamilton.

1. This is a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a summary writ issuing from the proper court, commanding the official board to whom it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Chicago R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v State (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 255, 258.
2. The plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth and resides at Nine Wilde Rd., Shelburne Falls, Ma.
3. The Defendant is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
4. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision of the Defendant, declining to investigate the conduct of state and local police officers and others occurring between March 1, 2000 and January 31, 2001.
5. The Defendant's decision is contrary to constitutional standards because Article 1X of the Massachusetts State Constitution guarantees that every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs that he may receive in his person, property or character.
6. The Attorney General has four broad missions: investigate and prosecute violations of state criminal law, promote effective law enforcement and criminal justice, crime prevention, and provide assistance to crime victims.
7. The criminal bureau within the office of the Attorney General investigates and prosecutes crimes that compromise the public's confidence in the government or harm public agencies. These include crimes committed against state and local public agencies and government employees, agents, and contractors. Specifically the Attorney General is charged with investigating and prosecuting the crimes of perjury, tax evasion, larceny, bribery, accepting unlawful gratuities, identity fraud, conspiracy, and procurement fraud.
8. The Defendant's decision is contrary to law because MGL 12: Section 11H guarantees the citizen appropriate equitable relief when the constitutional rights of the citizen have been violated .
9. There is a presumption that public officials perform their duties in an honest and impartial manner. LaPoint v. License Bd. Of Worcester, 389 Mass. 545, 459 (1983); see also Konover Mgt. Corp. v. Planning Bd. Of Auburn, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 319, 326 (1992)
10. Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of rights guarantees, to every citizen of the Commonwealth, that officers of government vested with authority are at all times accountable to them.
11. Mandamus is a remedy for (administrative) INACTION and is not available where action has already been taken. Town of Reading v. Attorney General, 362 Mass, 266, Rines v. Justices of the Superior Court, 330 Mass. 368, 373, 113 N.E. 2 817, 820. The Attorney General clearly states in his letter that is will not take any action.
12. There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign Cooper v. O'Conner, 99F. 2d 133
13. There is a presumption that public officials perform their duties in an honest and impartial manner. LaPoint v. License Board of Worcescester, 389 Mass. 545, 459 (1983); see also Konover Mgt. Corp v. Planning Board of Auburn, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 319, 326 (1992)
14. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "No State (jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges or immunity of citizens of the U.S. nor deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,... or equal protection under the law" this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. Marbury v Madison 5U.S. (2 Cranch 137, 180 (1803)

1. This Honorable court compel Attorney General Thomas Riley to conduct his ministerial duty and to protect the Constitutional rights of the plaintiff.
2. This Honorable court compel Attorney General Thomas Riley to thoroughly investigate any person involved as a public official or government employee concerning an illegal stop of the plaintiff by Mass. State Police on March1, 2000 and further violations of the plaintiff's rights by the police and other government employees as a result of that stop.

Respectfully Submitted,
Linda Hamilton, pro se

February 1, 2005