Free Affidavit - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cv—00687-Gl\/IS Document 16 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 1 of 4
TL., J ;_.- { _‘

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS `iiii
FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ?)r ' __
Dennis Shipman, CP
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se Circuit Court Docket p jig
No.
District Court Docket
Civil Case No.: 07-CV-00687 4<-»¤‘ iii
vs. Affidavit In Support
The State ofDelaware; Delaware State Police;
Corporal Vincent Terranova, individually and in his ojjicial capacity;
Trooper John Doe, individually and in his ojjicial capacity; Reynolds Towing
Defendant(s)-Appellee(s)
l. Plaintiff-appellant being duly sworn does dispose and says,
2. That I am the plaintiff-appellant, pro se in the aforementioned action;
3. And, that, as such, I am familiar with all of the facts and circumstances
therein; and,
4. that "A inagistrate 's determination is presently subject to review before trial as to
sujficiency without any undue interference [438 US. I54, l70_/ with the dignity ofthe
inagistrate'sfunction. (emphasis) Pp. 155-156; 164-172. [438 U.S. 154, 156] “. .
.where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement
knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by
the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to
the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated in the
Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a hearing be held at the defendant‘s request."
Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (l978)."
5. Plaintiff-appel lant has by virtue of the underlying civil rights complaint made an
affirmative factual showing ". . . of irreparable harm, and immediate danger." No
professional law enforcement agency swears out an arrest warrant for clearly trumped
up charges after plaintiff-appellant showed that he had been maliciously detained and
assaulted at the hands of a member whose confederates deliberately provided
misinfonnation to a Justice ofthe Peace Court magistrate in order to obtain a
retaliatory arrest warrant; repeatedly calls a plaintiff-appellant who does not reside in
the State of Delaware to answer a warrant for minor but also fraudulent disorderly
persons offenses; and, deliberately harasses his ex-wife, herself a supervisory peace
officer who works in New York but resides in Delaware, to the degree she was forced
to contact a heretofore unresponsive Delaware State Police Superintendent Col.
Thomas Mac Leish.
..1-

Case 1:07—cv—00687-Gl\/IS Document 16 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 4
6. The arrest warrant was predicated on misleading information sworn out to by the
affiant before a State of Delaware Justice of the Peace Court Magistrate. Therefore, the
Younger abstention (Younger v. Harris, 401 US at 37, 45 (1971) employed by Judge
Sue L. Robinson, cannnot survive the supremacy of Pranks v. Delaware. Franks
governs challenges to ex parte warrants (see Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978),
which is what plaintiff-appellant is narrowly challenging; and, clearly establishes the
Court’s authority to issue the extraordinary relief requested being the case law relied
upon is a United States Supreme Court precedent that overturned the Supreme Court of
Delaware in a strikingly and imminently more relevant matter to instant appeal.
7. The District Court's decision relied heavily on an inartfully crafted pleading, by a pro
se litigant — e. g., layman — justifiably frightened out of his wits by rogue elements of a
maj or law enforcement agency, which caused him to neglect to detail all of the elements
required for an affinnative factual showing ". . . of irreparable hann, and immediate
danger" given the threat _of imminent physical harm. Plaintiff-appellant did provide
additional details in support of his motion to Judge Magistrate Stark, in a letter dated
November 22nd, which was not reviewed by Judge Robinson, however.`
8. Nevertheless, In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading
standards than duly licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings,
pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit [additional] evidence in support
of their claims. In re Platsky et al: the court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant’s
pleading(s) without instruction of how pleading(s) are deficient and how to repair
pleadings. In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courts
depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated. All litigants have a
constitutional right to have their claims adjudicated according the rule of precedent. See
Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000). Statements of counsel, in their
briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. Haines v Kenner, 404
US 519, (1972).
10. Therefore, the situation by which plaintiff—appellant comes before this court is
positively terrifying demonstrating out-of-control Delaware State Police whose
outrageous conduct shocks the conscience and illustrates a hidden agenda by vindictive
members, which may have at its core a scenario in which plaintiff—appellant is taken
into custody, and then is either injured or killed by members who are confederates of
defendant—appe1lee Vincent Terranova under the guise of j ustifiable use of force or
homicide as the complained about member has already shown a predilection for
unprovoked use of force.
-2,

Case 1:07—cv—00687-G|\/IS Document 16 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 3 of 4
ll. The warrants are for clearly trumped up ~ i.e., obscene language, littering,
vandalism, destruction of property, and criminal mischief ~— minor disorderly persons
offenses that cannot survive either a vigorous defense, or the scrutiny of an impartial
court. Plaintiff-appellant respectfully asks the Third Circuit to reverse the District
Court's decision, remand, and order the Court to enj oi · from executing the
fraudulently obtained warrant, and to schedule an ev`dentiary earing.
7r
\_L
Signed and sworn to this
l. B day ofDecember 07 Q De C
is- Lin; , in •·
CARGUNE LGLLEY
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF DELAWARE
My Commission Expires April 15, 2008
-3-

Case 1:07—cv—00687-Gl\/IS Document 16 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Dennis Shipman,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se Circuit Court Docket
No.
District Court Docket
Civil Case No.: 07-CV-00687
vs.
The State of Delaware, Delaware State Police;
Corporal Vincent Terranova, individually cmd in his ojjicicil ccipczciiy; ‘
Trooper John Doe, individually and in his ojjicinl cczpcicity; Reynolds Towing
Defendant(s)-Appe11ee(s)
MOTION FOR STAY AND TEMPRORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
P1aintit`t`-appellant having filed his civil rights complaint for a permanent injunction and
other equitable relief in this matter pursuant to §42 USC 1983, now does hereby move
this court for a stay of the judgment or order ofthe District of Delaware pending appeal
pursuant to 8(a)(1) Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Dated: December 12, 2007
Dennis Shipman
231-27 Merrick Boulevard
Queens, New York 11413-21 1 1
347-251-6140

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 16

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 16

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 16

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 16

Filed 12/18/2007

Page 4 of 4