Petition — Avedisian v. Hubbard

Supreme Court, U.

FILED

APR 12 1979

b MICHAML RODAK, JR., CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1978

no. 7871560

Saranelle Avedisian,

Petitioner

Vv.

Mr. and Mrs. George C. Hubbard, et al

Respondents

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Saranelle Avedisian

14613 Melinda Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20853

Pro Se

Ct nds 3 eceunn ome 2

ge 2

Question Presented........cccceees 3

Constitutional Provisions and

Statutes Involved............ 3

DEO Ge GOs Fh bce Nb tsaneeees 4

Reasons for Granting the Writ..... 29

GIs 6 656d5 06s b0eeeb ees teas Te

Appendix A

Memorandum and Order of the

United States District Court.... 32

Appendix B

Unpublished Per Curiam Order of

the United States Court of Appeals

. for the Fourth Circuit.......... 35

Appendix C

Order of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 37

Appendix D

United States Constitutional

, and Statutory Provisions........ 39

CITATIONS

Cases:

Thomas v. State, 2 Md. App. 502

re eee ee Ty seo ' Oe

Smith v. . Ross, 482 F. 2d ee

Bennett v. Gravelle, D.C. Md.

1978 323 F.Supp. 203, Aff'd

&$i F.2¢ FOLL..... eeTTeT TTT rTTTT 15

Schoonfield v. Mayor and City

Council of Baltimore, 399 F.

ww

ii

CITATIONS (Cont'd)

ee Se ee

U.S. v. Hough, D.C. Cal 1957,

Be Mar OMe dbase ccccvccces

Katz v. United Spates. 389 ‘U. s.

| ee. ee a ae

Baker v. Howard, C. A. Ok. 1969,

cc ccgces

Rent-a-Car Co. v. Globe and

Rutgers Fire Ins., 156 A. 847

BIE Ts BP secs ce rccccocccccccces

Lankford v. Gelston, C.A. Md.

1966, 364 F.2d 202-204..........

United States Constitutional

Provisions:

US Comet, Am Leccccccccccccccccs

a US Const, i ee | le 19,

US Const, EE

United States Statutory Provisions:

USCA Title 42 § 1983..........15,

USCA Title 42 § 1985............

22

q IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1978

No.

a

Saranelle Avedisian,

Petitioner

Vv.

a

A

Mr. and Mrs. George C. Hubbard, et al

Respondents

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner, on her own behalf,

respectfully petitions this Honorable

Court to issue'a writ of certiorari to

review the judgment of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

entered in the above case on January 12,

1979.

i 2

OPINIONS BELOW

The United States District Court

for the District of Maryland dismissed

petitioner's Complaint, Civil Action No.

M-78-1227, on July 11, 1978. Petitioner

entered a Notice of Appeal in the district

court which was filed July 19, 1978. The

United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished Per

Curiam Order, Docket No. 78-1643, affirm-

ed the district court's judgment. Peti-

tioner filed a Petition for Rehearing on

December 15, 1978, which was denied in

the form of an Order filed January 12,

1979.

Copies of the above-named orders

are attached herein in the form of Ap-

pendices A through C.

JURISDICTION

The United States Court of Appeals

unpublished Per Curiam Order was entered -.

November 15, 1978, and its Order denying

Petition for Rehearing was filed January

12, 1979. The jurisdiction of this

Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.A.

1254(1).

QUESTION PRESENTED

As a person who has made formal

charges in a court of law and amply il-

lustrated them with supporting facts

and figures of a loss of liberty and

security, and other rights, privileges,

and immunities, am I to have a proper

redress of grievances?

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

AND STATUTES INVOLVED

The federal constitutional pro-

visions involved in this petition are

US Constitution Amendments I, IV, VII,

and XIV attached hereto as a part of

Appendix D. Also attached in Appendix

D are the federal statutory provisions

as set out in USCA Title 42 § 1983 and

§ 1985 (2, 3).

iit icc Bitoni me

STATEMENT OF FACT

Petitioner, along with her family,

moved into a new house when the develop-

ment was still under construction in Oc-

tober, 1966. Eight years prior to that

(excluding a four-month term in Rhode

Island where my husband investigated

managerial entrepreneurship), we lived

in an apartment complex where the trans-

iency was conducive mainly to casual re-

lationships. Toward the last two years

of our residency, I publicly took to

task a couple of the women who attempted

to pre-empt my role and mind my young

children without my consent.

The gossip stemming from those en-

counters--beginning as idle gripes--tak-

ing on drama and depth through the re-

peating, relaying, and over-reacting--

was the little squall that has become

the hurricane.

Emotions ruled the day, and pos-

tures of offended sensibilities were

struck in an unsettled neighborhood

weathering its first storm. The insight

that hindsight has provided into the

ways of social expertise was lacking at

the critical moment, and in the two

years following our arrival resentments

failed to recede and neighborhood sus-.

. picions were set.

Meanwhile, a next-door neighbor

and I had become friendly, but the rela-

tionship was shaken when I suspected

that a confidential relationship had

been invaded, and accused her of inva-

sion of privacy. She denied it, and I

was obliged to channel my suspicions

elsewhere, but invaded it had been; and

subsequent invasions of privileged rela-

tionships leave no doubt in my mind that

such occurrences are not isolated or

rare.

Following this episode, I felt con-

strained to explain the absorption of

some of the apartment dwellers with my

husband's income and our ages and educa-

tion and how they had creatively elici-

ted the desired information via the de-

vice of a fictitious survey over the

telephone. The news of these old con-

flicts had filtered into the new neigh-

borhood, but she said she was not aware

of them.

Instead of smoothing things over,

this news, along with our previous dis-

agreement, and possibly an instance of

a careless mode of dress when I went

into the dining room for a soup spoon

for my kindergarten son, may have pro-

vided excuses for pursuing an old line.

6

Three months later, under similar

conditions, a few minutes before noon,

rushing so I could walk with my son to

kindergarten, I received a telephone

call. The man purported to be an insur-

ance agent in need of personal informa-

tion. A few red flags waved to caution

me: he had mispronounced my husband's

name; I recalled my naive response to

my nosy neighbors' survey; and we had

dealt with one insurance agency for

years. I referred him back to my hus-

band, pleaded too busy to talk, and

waited for him to close. Instead, he

countered with an obscene suggestion.

Quite a while later, I was told by a

neighbor that "we have all been getting

obscene phone calls."

My son and I dropped by next door

for his kindergarten playmate and I cas-

ually mentioned it to my neighbor. She

responded that she had received .a call,

too, but the caller had hung up without

a word.

Another neighbor stopped to pick

me up, and as it was fresh in my mind, I

told her about it and the conversation.

Not until the next morning with time e-

nough to reflect did I deduce his iden-

tity, and the neighborhood as well had

made its own deduction. A subsequent

discussion with my next-door neighbor

conclusively supported my deduction.

7

Besides my husband, my mother and a

possible witness knew these facts

What follows from the time of the

obscene call as set out below is verifi-

able, and such excesses have borne home

to me the reasons such calls have been

declared illegal.

A few months following the call, a

neighbor whom I had not met (supporting

my allegation of the pervasiveness and

tone of the gossip) from his yard--across

two yards and an intersection--serenaded

me with the tune of the theme song "Never

on Sunday" from the movie of the same

name. The movie portrays the immorality

of some women, and the song has been

played regularly over the past four

years in business establishments when-

ever I shop. Since neither my husband

nor I discussed it outside the family,

the news of it had to have come from him.

A former friend, later in the year,

passed along information necessary to

enable the neighbors, a school adminis-

trator among them, to raid "confidential"

high school records of my family. One

of them contained allegations of teen-

age indiscretions of my middle sister

who refused to utter a single word in

her own behalf. In the harsh light of

my own experiences with the public

school's personnel in total participa- °

8

tion, I now question the authenticity

of those allegations (however, the

motive is clear), but along with the

fever-pitch local gossip, they provided

the impetus for further investigation.

The general public should have confi-

dence that teachers and administrators,

and other school personnel, will not en-

gage in activities that are considered

by civilized people to be prejudicial

to their children. The school should

remain an educating organization and

not an extracurricular investigating

one.

Following our attendance at a fam-

ily reunion in Oklahoma, in the summer

of 1972, our young children came back

full of names and places. The network

of spies was beginning to operate rather

efficiently by this time with the aid of

the neighbors, the school personnel, and

my husband's associates, and later it

became a machine when the press, the

police and all the henchmen they have

at their disposal from the various

government agencies, the corporations,

my in-laws, and (probably after 1974)

my own family, I think, were assembled.

A neighbor, after vacationing in

California, brought back an interesting

report from the school my sister's chil-

dren attended by way of a post-high

school check-up. The momentum of the -

9

gossip attained a velocity that has not

abated in over five years. It has con-

sumed my immediate family, causing my

children anguish and heartache. On a

summer tour, the police followed me a-

round the country, scandalizing my ex-

tended family, and finally arrested and

jailed me on July 26, 1974, which had

the earmarks of a set-up: locked motel

doors at 9:00-9:30 p.m. and no room

available, two lookouts to report our

direction, a police van conveniently

deployed within a mile to pull out-a-

head of me from an access road--which

was in keeping with their acts of prova-

cation, and the driver stopped me when I

turned on my bright lights and passed

him.

In my complaint filed July 7, 1978,

and in still more detail in a letter to

the president of the motel chain appeal-

ing for witnesses which I filed in sup-

port of a petition for rehearing in the

United States Court of Appeals on Dec-

ember 15, 1978, I set forth the circum-

stances of that incident which I feel

violate statutory and Constitutional

rights of equal protection and due pro-

cess. I was deprived of my liberty

"without due process" and "equal pro-

tection of the laws" was absent as I was

the object of illegal surveillance and

harassment resulting from a conspirator-

ial arrangement originating in my neigh-

10

‘borhood, and in violation of Fourth

Amendment rights as there was no "prob-

able cause" for stopping me.

My husband flew down the next day

to bail me out, but along with the chil-

dren, didn't want to stay over until

Monday to contest it, so we left for

home.

During the ride to the station, I

revealed the identity of the policeman

who had recruited his buddies from, the

Montgomery County police to attempt to

intimidate and to harass me. I realized

it was probably unnecessary as they were

probably a part of it, but at the time,

it seemed advantageous to let them know

that I knew what they were up to. With

that information in hand, the local

powers that be turned somersaults to

cover up for him. The difference in the

activity to an e.ght-year resident was

immediately apparent. Lookouts had to

be posted, and each advance farther a-

field to vary the rotation was obvious

and, therefore, equally liable with the

police since "bne who keeps watch or

guard...is clearly a principal.'" Thomas

v. State, 2 Md. App. 502 p. 33.

Were they chagrined at my having

acquired an arrest record? Quite the

opposite. I was sitting in my backyard

reading sometime after my return, and -

11

the neighborhood children were gathered

together in the front yard two houses

down to sing in exuberant unison "We've

Got the Whole World in Our Hands." The

cop wasn't so sure though. There was

an unmistakable firing of a gun from

the vicinity of his’ far back yard one

day when I went into ours not long

after we returned, and there have been

many instances since of gun reports

from various directions interspersed

with the pops of firecrackers to try to

convince me I was mistaken. Then, too,

there was the mini-explosion right out-

side my bedroom window at 3:13 a.m. one

morning coinciding with the bombing of

a house in a nearby subdivision. The

smell of gunpowder when I threw open

the dining room window in the course of

an immediate investigation was also

unmistakable.

On the radio stations at appropri-

ate times "It's a Small World After All"

was another favorite song, thus contin-

ually and calculatingly invading the

privacy of my home in a one-way commu-

nication. But it got much stronger--

the allegation of immorality was taken

as gospel. Songs with "cat" references

were popular, songs to make me feel

left out, songs with subjects we'd dis-

cussed were all utilized, and "Gotta

Good Reason for Taking the Heat" was a-

nother one played occasionally for my .

12

benefit. And it was true, I had my

reasons--not the least of which was

that I didn't think bullies should pre-

vail. There was also the daily appear-

ance of reminders that our conversations

in house and cars were being intercepted

and were being printed in that other

popular medium--the newspaper. Lately,

say the last two years, the pressure

tactics of power politics have gotten

to be so widespread that they encompass

the national media in a constant bom-

bardment of feedback from the "bugs."

A citizen of the United States is

immersed in the promises of freedom and

justice for all propounded by our be-

loved documents--the Declaration of In-

dependence, and the Constitution--from

the day he enters kindergarten. How is

it then that there are so many people

willing to disregard the spirit of fair

play with which they are imbued for the

thrill of getting away with murder, as

the loose expression goes. Nor is it

too far amiss--character assassination

is its practical equivalent and is re-

cognized as such in the saying "take

away my good name, take away my life."

It does not occur to most of us

that we may have to fight a personal

revolution to establish a personal free-

dom. We all, have we not, grown up

under the same promise of protection .

13

from tyranny? We adhere to the demo-

cratic tenet of the "majority rules"

becaus® we assume that it will effect

results that will be for the common

good, or pro bono publico, as Judge

Welch neatly put it during the McCarthy

hearings.

I find myself, then, in an unenvi-

able position: the position of being

a minority of one in a tight little is-

land of people who have voluntarily re-

linquished their personal freedom--and

are, therefore, undeserving of it--to

deprive me of mine. In the best George

III tradition, my neighbors have organ-

ized recruits outside of the immediate

neighborhood who have no personal inter-

est in the outcome of its struggle vis-

a-vis myself, but have been unable to

resist the social pressure because ev-

erybody's doing it. An invitation to

become a member of the group is flatter-

ing--no matter the route--their compunc-

tions no doubt allayed by assurances

-that the recipient deserves the odds.

Belonging socially, belonging at

any price, is the motive, even when the

purpose of the mob clearly be coercion,

coercion to attain dominance through

assumed moral superiority, coercion to

obtain a denial or a confession of

moral turpitude, coercion via the ages-

old political method of muckraking and

oe

14

pooling of efforts. Coercion, with the

aid of police, acquired with apparent

ease through the cunning of neighborly

pressure on the neighborhood cop, and

implemented with alacrity throughout

the brotherhood of police. Mr. Justice

Brandeis has stated that civilized men

value the right to be let alone above

all others. And Greta Garbo has made

a nice distinction between being alone

and being let alone when she contradict-

ed the popular exclusive attitude at-

tributed to her, saying "I never said

I want to be alone. I said I want to

be left alone." Friendships and associa-

tions cannot be forced. The following

nursery rhyme expresses the situation

very well "All the king's horses and

all the king's men, cannot put" a

broken neighborhood together again.

Had he been a responsible police-

man, he had the perfect out--he could

lose his job--as he cannot deny know-

ledge of laws prohibiting such personal,

extra-judicial involvement. As stated

in Smith v. Ross, 482 F.2d 33 "...the

Supreme Court has often emphasized in

related contexts, state officials are

not entitled to rely on community hos-

tility as an excuse not to protect by

inaction or affirmative conduct the ex-

ercise of fundamental rights." By ex-

tension, we can apply the meaning of

"state" to any of its political subdiv-

15

isions. And in Bennett v. Gravelle,

D.C. Md. 1978 323 F.Supp. 203, affirmed

451 F.2d 1011 "liability will only lie

where it is affirmatively shown that

the official charged acted personally

(emphasis supplied) in the deprivation

of a person's rights" which is present

in the instant case.

And again in Smith ao supra,

iting Byrd v. Brishke, ‘ » 9

10 ae remedies provided in § 1983 are

most appropriately extended to persons

who, because of the unpopularity of

their lifestyles" i.e. my withdrawal

from an uncongenial attitude, and are

not protected in their attempt to enjoy

peacefully and on an equal basis the i

civil rights guaranteed them under law.

In Schoonfield v. Mayor-and City

Council of Baltimore, 399 F.Supp. 1068,

1087, "A violation of equal protection

would be shown if the actions against

plaintiff were part of a general pattern

‘ (emphasis supplied) of discrimination

...,"' which is the case here, quoting

from Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436,

447.

Apparently, there are no demurrers.

How else to explain its success? It

reminds me of two convulsive historical

counterparts, their larger scale not-

withstanding: the American Revolution

16

and the Nazi subjugation of the Jews.

All three have the Similarity of one

human being organizing supporters to

exert personal power and control seated

in ego. The development of an oppres-

sive policy encroaches gradually and

envelopes the unwitting because a free

citizen in a free country cannot take

it seriously. Recall the female pro-

tagonist in the television dramatiza-

tion Holocaust who says "Things will

get better, you'll see," juxtaposed

against a worsening of the situation

because of a lack of organized resis-

tance. I lost valuable ground by over-

rating the basic integrity and common

sense of my co-residents.

Never for an instant did I enter-

tain the idea of capitulation to bend

to their will or to provide them with

the information they tried to force

from me by the recruitment of police

and their legions of "mercenaries."

These mercenaries being the busybodies,

short on scruples, who gained their

coin in satisfaction rather than in

Silver. Satisfaction gained in part

from the very illegality of the activi-

ty, affording the feeling of getting

away with something--"under color of

law" as the police protection they have

enjoyed is known--as well as the satis-

faction from being involved in the

community. Satisfaction from being in-

volved on such a level? I have been

17

under the misconception that people

aspire to higher ideals.

Those who are not in the know,

generally speaking, the insulated af-

fluent citizens of the United States,

pride themselves on the country's not

being a police state. However, one of

our foremost criminal lawyers has pro-

nounced us well on our way to becoming

one. Having personally experienced

the mailed fist of illegal police ac-

tion based on the gossamer thread of

gossip inflated with each recounting

and therefore without the Constitution-

al safeguards of warrants issued "upon

probable cause, supported by oath or

affirmation," "due process" and "equal

protection," I can attest to his view.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Going on your own way, minding

your own business is no assurance that

you will not be engulfed by some catas-

trophe. The catastrophe, in this in-

‘stance, being neighborhood guerrilla

warfare--conquest and conformity to

its substandards being the objective,

public embarrassment, the means of at-

taining it. Their excuse for activi-

ties in this regard stem from invasions

into "confidential" records of members

of my extended family from which ac-

tivities I infer bad conduct. Their

ways of letting me know are legion.

18

Who, with a smidgeon of self-respect

would go snooping into another's per-

sonal and confidential records without

official authorization? In my opinion,

it is those snoops, spurred by gossip

and smarting from rejection (not in-

curred in a vacuum) sanctioned by

those similarly disposed toward me for

similar reasons. At least one import-

ant allegation printed in a newspaper

advertisement for a television play,

using a variant spelling of my sister's

name, following soon after one of my

early unsuccessful (obstructed) at-

tempts to hire a lawyer, was unequivo-

cally denied--which leaves me to de-

cide who is lying.

"Comes the Deluge," we used to

say when we were young and generously

disposed to overlook annoyances and

things we felt we could not change,

"things will be different." I have

been late in realizing that there is

always the possibility that it will

‘come into anyone's life at any tim.

At last, the "Deluge" has come for me.

I find that my requested responsibility

is overwhelming when it comes to inter-

preting the legal lingo, the rules and

regulations and their exceptions, in

tandem with the consciousness that if

I err in format or formality, it's back

to the books for more relevant extrac-

tion. My untutored understanding and

19

my education have limits--so many gaps,

so little time to close them.

My mind, in a legal maelstron,

whirling, trying to focus on a land-

fall of watertight law that will hold

the parties guilty as alleged, I flail

about for brief snippets of first this

flotsam of "without due process" and

that jetsom of "purposeful discrimina-

tion" or “under color of law," grabbing,

collecting, and hoping eventually to

arrange them into meaningful, convinc-

ing order. So, it seems at this point

appropriate to invoke the "in propria

persona" provision of 28 U.S.C.A. 1654,

as set out in U.S. v. Hough, D.C. Cal

1957, 157 F. Supp. 774.

Even without the surreptitious

recruitment of police--in direct viola-

tion of our precious Constitutional

Amendments IV and XIV and the United

States Code Annotated, Title 42, Sec-

tions 1983 and 1985--to help pressure

and oppress petitioner into unwilling

‘ compliance with the neighborhood's un-

spoken but obvious objectives, the

practice of ganging up for whatever

end, if focussed on a single individual,

is at the very least questionable. In

legal terminology, it is referred to as

"conspiring,'' and is actionable, there-

fore in an "action at law.'' Would the

defendants, as parents, stand and

watch two or more children beat up

Peter

20

one of theirs?

To paraphrase Jefferson's lucid

language in the Declaration of Inde-

pendence, it is with "a decent respect

to the opinions" of my family, but es-

pecially of my suffering children, who

will one day read this, to declare "the

causes which impel" me to this entirely

necessary action. The tactics outlined

in the facts he submitted "to a candid

world" are so similar and apropos to my

case that I repeat some of the phrase-

ology here with some parenthetical

qualifications: "...for the sole pur-

pose of fatiguing them into compliance

with his measures"; "He has obstructed

the administration of justice,..."; "He

has made judges dependent on his will

alone,..."; "...and sent hither swarms

of officers to harass..."; "For protect-

ing them...from punishment,..."; "cutt-

ing off our trade (substitute associa-

tions) with all parts of the world";

".,.depriving (thus far) of the benefit

of trial by jury"; "...transporting

large armies of foreign mercenaries to

complete the works of...tyranny...with

circumstances of cruelty and perfidy

(breaking and arranging friendships)...,

and totally unworthy...a civilized na-

tion (substitute neighborhood)"; "...we

have petitioned for redress..."; and

",,..attempts...to extend an unwarrant-

able jurisdiction over us...usurpations

%@

21

which would inevitably interrupt our

connections...have been deaf to the

voice of justice and consanguinity."

The "circumstances of cruelty and

perfidy" to which I refer are the de-

priving my children of their "rights

and privileges," one of which is free-

dom of association" a First Amendment

right, and not to have friends arranged

for them. The choice has to be mutual,

and friends provided by the mothers who

can be controlled by the group are no

friends at all. But because of my lack

of status--bestowed gratuitously and

vociferously promoted--they had no

meaningful choices to make.

The following is an excerpt from

an essay written by my older daughter

required as part of one of her applica-

tions to early admission to college.

It speaks from the heart from more than

one traumatic experience.

"One who has experienced the loss

of a friend by death of that person or

by the death of the rapport between the

two knows best the value of friends.

The worse of the two losses is certain~-

ly the dissolving of close ties rather

than in death of a friend because one

or both halves relinquishes the other's

soul. to circumstance and then the

union of two hearts is dissolved in the

ne rey sane TaN

22

schism and, so, the mutual acceptance

is lost. This loss is the emptiness of

heart and depression caused by depriv-

ing the accompanying soul of some of

its lifeblood. Hatred and vengefulness

may temporarily mask the void, but in

the end, the stark hollowness is felt

in one's heart. In addition to that,

one feels abandoned, deserted, or

cheated out of something rightfully his.

One may conclude that he does not de-

serve friendship or is not good enough

to be loved and this makes life as

black as death. And then, how the

price of a priceless friend does grow:

One cannot give as freely of his heart

on the second time around. Shattered

hearts are not easily glued back to-

gether, and some of the pieces may never

be recovered. It is unfortunate, but

only then is the true worth of a friend

made perspicacious to people."

Had the Declaration of Independence

been written today, it would doubtless

‘contain references to electronic snoop-

ing devices which have been employed re-

lentlessly 24 hours a day against us.

The Supreme Court took a strong posi-

tion on this in Katz v. United States,

389 U.S. 507, 1967, saying that it

(bugging) amounts to "search and seiz-

ure" which is proscribed by the Fourth

Amendment, except upon “issuance of a

warrant,...''

23 |

"Under some circumstances there I

can be such a gross abuse of privacy

as to amount to abridgement of funda-

mental constitutional guarantees."

Baker v. Howard, C.A. Ok. 1969, 419

F.2d 396. The circumstances described

herein surely meet those conditions.

Following a car accident in Feb-

ruary, 1977, in which I was involved

under odd circumstances--teenagers

smiling and snapping pictures of me out

the rear window after I had hit them, --

I requested a police check from Mont-

gomery County police. The request was

refused by a sergeant of the Vice and

Intelligence unit, and I never heard

from the chief of police after having

left a telephone message twice and

following up with a letter request,

thus denying “equal protection."

Concomitant vigilantes (including

spies who look over my shoulder at the

law library--which I almost take as a

compliment--and mind readers: One of

the latest proofs of their emp loyment

was the placing of a bottle of Welch's

grape juice in a cart at a supermarket

check-out counter after I had written

of Judge Welch's statement) are always

ready to perform whatever tactic that

is decided previously. These include

making various kinds of noises--a veri-

table Anvil Chorus if you will--designed

24

to coincide with my activities.

There are also visual references

to my presupposed status, such as trash

trucks--which have appeared in groups

as many as six together--cats, tag mes-

sages, commercial vehicle display and

junk mail pertaining to subject matter

picked up by their "bugs" planted in

our cars and in or near our house. Al-

so, there are other physical bits and

pieces of objective evidence which have

been provided by eavesdropping inter-

ceptors to pressure me, as well as a

bundle of newspaper clippings which re-

fer likewise to activities, even the

most private, and to our conversations.

All of these things together fulfill

the description in Rent-a-Car Co. v.

Globe and Rutgers Fire Ins., 156 A. 847

161 Md. 249 which states that "any evi-

dence having natural and apparent ten-

dency to establish ultimate issue of

conspiracy is admitted."

All of the above is part of their

policy of pressure to force action that

will meet with their approval. My de-

cision on whether to be pressured pre-

maturely into divulging all the facts,

or otherwise acquiescing as a result

of their deceptive tricks, arrived

simultaneously with the police cruisers

and I have never altered my stance at

the extreme pain and hardship of my

25

family. There is no way to appease

tyranny, and I felt they should get the

attention they deserve--a full jury

trial. To make each and every one of

them individually accountable is the |

only sure way to break their strangle-

hold on me and my family. I know there

are multitudes who support my view.

Fortunately, I kept a daily log,

the contents of which I will submit to

the test of cross-examination, and the

statistics of which took more than a

week to compile before starting this

. petition. The figures are simply

staggering and, yet, represent only a

fraction of the total. The streets are

Saturated with their emissaries--satura-

tion being a part of their strategy so

I can't fail to notice. For instance,

one time no less than five cars pulled

up at one stop light with ARS prefixes,

and I recorded them all, every one,

along with about 100 others the last few

years. One can imagine what effect this

kind of long-term unseemly publicity has

had on my family's relationships.

I have recorded 3,250 police ve-

hicles since the harassment began in the

fall of 1973. My two next-door neigh-

bors have checked me in and out a re-

corded total of 745 times, and the

neighbors in my block alone (12 houses)

a recorded total of 2,324 times since

26

my arrest and incarceration in 1974

in Nashville. May I suggest the de-

fendants try to remember the number of

times of arrival and departure at the

same time as their nearest neighbors,

and double or treble it for the forgot-

ten times to arrive at an answer to com-

pare to the figures above. Thus have I

been educated into the ways that hype

can transform a silk purse into a sow's

ear.

Although there appears to be a

definite reduction in the numbers of

some of the named defendants, including

a studied spacing out of police cruisers,

the degree of impaction or proliferation

is not the issue. It is that there is

any occurence at all for the purpose of

surveillance or harassment or to keep up

the sham that it exists only as an imagi-

native flight of petitioner. To quote

from Lankford v. Gelston, C.A. Md. 1966,

364 F.2d 202-204 "...reform timed to

anticipate or blunt the force of a law-

suit is of insufficient assurance that

similar raids (the case deals with un-

lawful search of innocent homeowners)

will not ensue...."' And "Lack of res-

pect for the police is conceded to be

one of the factors generating violent

outbursts in Negro communities....Under-

standably, they feel that such illegal

treatment is reserved for those elements

who the police believe cannot or will

27

not challenge them. (Emphasis supplied.)

It is of the highest importance to com-

munity morale that the courts shall

give firm and effective reassurance,

especially to those who feel that they

have been harassed by reason of their

color or their poverty." And I might

add, or any other disadvantage.

, And to continue from the same case

The police department is society's in-

strumentality to maintain law and order,

and to be fully effective it must have

public confidence and cooperation. Con-

fidence can exist only if it is gener-

ally recognized that the department uses

its enforcement procedures with integ-

rity and zeal, according to law and

without oppressive measures. Law ob-

servance by the police cannot be di-

vorced from law enforcement. When

official (I am forced to conclude the

behavior described in this petition

has official approval) conduct feeds

a sense of injustice, raises barriers

between the department and segments of

the community and breeds disrespect for

the law, the difficulties of law en-

forcement are multiplied...."

"Moreover, appellants' counsel

forcefully argue that...invasion of

the privacy of his home is unaffected

by the object of the policeman's search."

The time has come then, for me to

28

deliver myself of this pestilence, and

so, again, I find it befitting to point

out another singular position, and I

think anyone would agree--should he

find himself in a like position--that

this one is more comfortable than the

one previously described. The position

I refer to this time, is one of my be-

ing the only one who can save the

defendants--from themselves, and from

each other. I must have been thinking

strongly along these lines back in

February, for one morning (I think it

was the same morning a neighbor was

reading the Gospel According to Luke

shortly after I'd stayed up late watch-

ing Paul Newman's movie, Cool Hand Luke),

on my way to work on the bus, I sat next

to a woman who was reading a pamphlet--

Morning Prayers. Quite conscious of the

nearness of her quarry, she turned to a

page with a heading, as I recall, "The

Savior Comes." I could be amused at

their creativity were the general con-

sequences less severe.

It has been said to me that I take

things too seriously (someone has to);

but I fail to see the humor in ruined

lives. I told my husband recently it's

like being buried alive. With referen-

ce to that sentence, I would like to

quote a wonderful Chinese proverb I

ran across in another lawyer's book:

"When you go to dig a grave for your

29

enemy, dig two." The time has come for

me to dig us out of ours.

The truth has been told, nine

months ago in my complaint. Can I help

it if the defendants were unable or un-

willing to recognize the truth when

they saw it? Can I help it if they pre-

ferred to think it was a joke? To sus-

pect me of playing games with the law

is to suspect me of feeling disrespect

for it. Contrary to their entrenched

beliefs, I have the utmost respect for

the Body of Law, and for the Truth;

and yes, the reference in the man's

serenade to my possible past career as

a woman trading on the needs of men is

a Lie. And the whole of this is the

Gospel Truth according to me.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Petitioner is loathe to criticize

the judgments of the lower courts for

saying my case has no merit, but they

sound like my advisor-husband who pro-

nounced it likewise. Now my husband

who is an intelligent man would not go

to the judges to dispense medicine any

more than they who are also intelligent

men would come to him to dispense law.

So, when my husband who was trained in

pharmacy and not in law says my case

has no merit and those judges echo that

view, I must appeal "to a higher au-

30

thority," as the kosher commercial puts

it. Nor was petitioner trained in the

law, but I was exposed to its technical

aspects as a legal secretary when I had

to type briefs which seemed to be close-

ly reasoned logic based on rules.

When I was forced to put my mind to

it, I found that I could understand the

law. And I did have to put my mind to

it because all the lawyers seemed to

have taken a vacation from giving as-

sistance to the oppressed. The process

of making head and tail out of it was

fascinating and I was reassured that

there have been people- looking out for

civilization, which means living by the

law, for thousands of years. One knows

that in only a vague way, but I think

it is good that we live in a democracy

where we can take it for granted that

there are those who are looking out for

our welfare, even if occasionally we

have to see to it. In Russia, they

know better.

It is painful to run 2foul of the

law, or to be suspected of it; and it

is also painful to have to apply the

law in the face of a strong lobby.

But the law is meaningless if it is not

going to be applied, and we all run

amuck as we please, abridging our civic

duties to our neighbors by denying their

civic rights--even their divine right

31

to freedom--without due process. And

so, even in the face of this formidable

lawless lobby, though it may appear

otherwise because of police involvement,

we have to see that the law prevails,

which in the end governs us all. For

this reason, to avoid a miscarriage of

justice which would result from the

failure to heed the facts set forth

in the body of the statement, petitioner

respectfully urges this Honorable Court

to grant this petition.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is

respectfully submitted that this peti-

tion for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

bo

Saranelle Avedisian

Petitioner

14613 Melinda Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20853

Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of

the foregoing Petition For a Writ Of

Certiorari’To he United States Court

of Appeals For The FourthCircuit was

sent to each defendant by United States

first class mail, postage prepaid, on

this 12th day of April, 1979.

‘aranelle Avedisian

32

APPENDIX A

Memorandum and Order, July 11, 1978

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SARANELLE AVEDISIAN )

)

Vv. )CIVIL ACTION

YNO. M-78-1227

MR. AND MRS. GEORGE C.)

HUBBARD, et al )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, acting pro se, has paid

the appropriate filing fees and has

filed this suit against approximately

150 defendants. No specific relief has

been requested. No jurisdictional al-

legations have been cited in the com-

plaint, and it does not appear that

this court has jurisdiction over the

complaint.

The complaint consists of a mish-

mash of paranoic assertions and is

clearly legally frivolous.

Even though plaintiff has paid her

filing costs, this court has an inher-

ent and broad power "over (its) own

process, to prevent abuses, oppression,

Ja

and injustice.'' Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124

U.S. 131 at 144 (1888); 1 Moore, Federal

Practice, P. 0.60(6) at 612-614 (2d ed.

1964); O'Connell v. Mason, 132 Fed. 245,

247 (lst Cir. 1904). See also Brinkley

v. Louisville and N.R. Co., 95 Fed. 345

at 348-349 (W.D. Tenn. 1899), aff'd 100

Fed. 1006 96th Cir. 1900). Such power

may be invoked by the court on its own

motion and exists independent of stat-

ute, and is not impaired or limited by

Federal Rule 12(b), F.R.Civ.P. 1 Moore,

Federal Practice, supra. In addition,

the court has the power, on its own mo-

tion, to dismiss a suit for lack of

jurisdiction.

The clerk will be ordered to with-

hold the service of process in the above

case and to dismiss the case for lack of

jurisdiction as well as to prevent a-

buse of process.

It is so ORDERED this llth day of

July 1978.

/s/ James R. Miller, Jr.

James R. Miller, Jr.

United States District Judge

I hereby attest and certify

on 7-12-78 _ that the fore-

going document is a full,

true and correct copy of the

35

34

APPENDIX B

original on file in my

office and in my legal Unpublished Per Curiam Order decided

custody. November 15, 1978

Paul R. Schlitz UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Clerk, U.S. District Court .

District of Maryland | FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

By_/s/ C. A. Halecki Deputy No. 78-1643

Saranelle Avedisian,

Appellant,

Vv.

Mr. and Mrs. George C. Hubbard, et al

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland, at

Baltimore.

James R. Miller, Jr., District Judge.

Submitted: October 2, 1978

Decided: November 15, 1978

36

Before WIDENER, HALL and PHILLIPS,

Circuit Judges

(Saranelle Avedisian, Appellant Pro Se.

Mr. and Mrs. George C. Hubbard, et al,

Appellees Pro Se.)

PER CURIAM:

Upon careful review of the record

in this case, we find the appeal from

the District Court's denial of relief

to be without merit. Accordingly, the

judgment is affirmed for the reasons

stated by the district court.

Avedisian v. Hubbard, C/A No. M-78-1227

(D. Md., July 12, 1978).

AFFIRMED.

‘

ee een °

° .

37

APPENDIX C

Order filed January 12, 1979

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 78-1643

SARANELLE AVEDISIAN

Appellant

Vv.

MR. AND MRS. GEORGE C. HUBBARD, ET AL

Appellees

ORDER

We have considered the petition for

rehearing and allow its filing out of

time. However, we are of opinion the

petition is without merit.

It is accordingly ADJUDGED and

ORDERED thet the petition for rehearing

38

shall be, and the same hereby is, denied.

With the concurrences of Judge Hall

and Judge Phillips.

/s/ H. Widener, Jr.

For the Court

A True Copy, Teste:

William K. Slate, II, Clerk

By /s/ Carol Temm a

39

APPENDIX D

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

US Const, Am I:

Congress shall make no law respect-

ing an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercixe thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or

of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the government for a redress of griev-

ances.

US Const, Am IV:

The right of the people to be se-

cure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be vio-

lated, and no warrants shall issue, but

upon probable cause, supported by oath

or affirmation, and particularly de-

scribing the place to be searched, and

the persons or things to be seized.

US Const; Am VII

In suits at common law, where the

value in controversy shall exceed twenty

dollars, the right of trial by jury shall

be preserved, and no fact tried by a

jury shall be otherwise reexamined in

any court of the United States, than ac-

cording to the rules of the common law.

40

US Const, Am XIV

Section 1. All persons born or

naturalized in the United States and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

are citizens of the United States and

of the State wherein they reside. No

State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United

States; nor shall any State deprive any

person of life, liberty, or property,

without due pracess of law; nor deny

to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.

UNITED STATES STATUTORY PROVISIONS

USCA 42 § 1983

Any person who, under color of any

statute, ordinance, regulation, custon,

or usage, of any State or Territory, sub-

jects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other

person under the jurisdiction thereof

to the deprivation of any rights, privi-

leges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable

to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper

proceeding for redress.

a

41

USCA 42 § 1985 (2, 3)

Obstructing justice; intimidating

party, witness, or juror y

(2) TE two! or more persons in any

State or Territory conspire to deter, by

- force, intimidation, or threat, any

party or witness in any court of the

United States from from attending such

court, or from testifying to any matter

pending therein, freely, fully, and

truthfully, or to injure such party or

witness in his:person or property on ac-

count of his having so attended or testi-

fied, or to influence the verdict, pre-

sentment, or indictment of any grand or

petit juror in any such court, or to in-

jure such juror in his person or property

on account of any verdict, presentment,

or indictment lawfully assented to by

him, or of his being or having been such

juror; or if two or more persons con-

spire for the purpose of impeding, hin-

dering, obstructing, or defeating, in

any manner, the due course of justice in

any State or Territory, with intent to

deny to any citizen the equal protection

of the laws, or to injure him or his

property for lawfully enforcing or at-

tempting to enforce, the right of any

person, or class of persons, to the

equal protection of the laws;

42

USCA 42 § 1985

Depriving persons of rights or

privileges

(3) If two or more persons in any

State or Territory conspire or go in

disguise on the highway or on the premi-

ses of another, for the purpose of de-

priving, either directly or indirectly

any person or class of persons of the

equal protection of the laws, or of

equal privileges and immunities under

the laws; or for the purpose of prevent-

ing or hindering the constituted au-

thorities of any State or Territory from

giving or securing to all persons within

such State or Territory the equal pro-

tection of the laws; or if two or more

persons conspire to prevent by force,

intimidation, or threat, any citizen

who is lawfully entitled to vote, from

giving his support or advocacy in a

legal manner, toward or in favor of the

election of any lawfully qualified per-

son as an elector for President or Vice

President, or as a Member of Congress of

the United States; or to injure any citi-

zen in person or property on account of

such support or advocacy; in any case of

conspiracy set forth in this section, if

one or more persons engaged therein do,

or cause to be done, any act in further-

ance of the object of such conspiracy,

whereby another is injured in his person

or property,.or deprived of having and

43

exercising any right or privilege of a

citizen of the United States, the party

so injured or deprived may have an ac-

tion for the recovery of damages, oc-

casioned by such injury or deprivation,

against any one or more of the conspira-

tors.