Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

VERMIN LOVE SUPREME, an )

individual; )
) Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-670
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) VERIFIED 42 U.S.C. 1983
) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
) RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
THE CITY OF CONCORD; BRADLEY C. DAMAGES
OSGOOD in his official capacity as )
the Chief of Police of the City of )
Concord Police Department; )
POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES and ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
JANE ROES NOS. 1-4, in their )
individual and official capacities as )
employees of the City of Concord )
Police Department; EUGENE BLAKE )
in his individual and official capacity )
as Health and Licensing Officer at )
the Health and Licensing )
Department and/or the Code )
Administration Department at the )
City of Concord; JOHN DOES and/or )
JANE ROES NOS. 1-4, in their )
individual capacities as employees )
of the Code Administration )
Department and/or Health and )
Licensing Department at the City of )
Concord; )
)
Defendants. )
)

COMPLAINT
(INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED)
Plaintiff Vermin Love Supreme (Plaintiff or Mr. Supreme) brings this civil

rights action for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. This is an action

under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to address violations of his rights secured by the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution and the rights secured under the

-1-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 13

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Article 22. Plaintiff seeks a permanent

injunction, declaratory relief, and should be awarded damages, costs, attorneys

fees, and any other relief to which he is entitled as a victim of civil rights violations.

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Vermin Love Supreme is a political activist who has run for

various elected offices since the 1980s including President of the United States.

2. Mr. Supreme wishes to exercise his First Amendment Right to engage

in political speech by protesting outside of bookstore where former Presidential

Candidate Hillary Clinton will be signing her new book on Tuesday, December 5,

2017. However, the Defendants are using state power to frustrate that wish.

3. Hillary Clintons book engages in a direct attack on to Mr. Supremes

long standing political platform, as described in more detail below, wherein he

advocates for the socialized distribution of equine companions1 to every

American.

4. Mr. Supreme wishes to engage in constitutionally protected free

speech by protesting outside on the public pathway with two live ponies as a

symbol of his key political platform and a center point of his political message.

5. Mr. Supreme has been warned by the Defendants that if he wishes

to engage in this kind of political speech, he will need a permit.

6. Mr. Supreme attempted to obtain permits, and despite the fact that

ponies are allowed outside at the location of the protest, Defendants have

denied Mr. Supremes request for a permit the day of Mrs. Clintons book signing,

offering instead to issue a permit for the ponies on a different day in the same

location.

1 Mr. Supremes long standing platform has been centered on free ponies for
all Americans, which would include a federal pony identification system and a
law that each American must have their pony with them at all times.

-2-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 3 of 13

7. Mr. Supremes message will be lost if he is not able to protest Hillary

Clinton outside near the book signing.

8. Defendants have chilled speech that lies at the core of the First

Amendment and imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on Plaintiff as he will

be unable to engage in protected political speech if he follows the defendants

mandates. Defendants should be enjoined from further infringing Plaintiffs

constitutional rights, made to pay damages for the violations that have already

occurred, and made to pay attorneys fees to compensate Plaintiff for the

expense of vindicating his constitutional rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the federal

Constitutional violations alleged in this Complaint pursuant to the provisions of

42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 & 1343. This Court has jurisdiction to issue

injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

10. Plaintiffs claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief are

authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

11. Venue is proper in the District of New Hampshirepursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1391. All Defendants reside in New Hampshire and all actions pertinent to this

complaint occurred in Merrimack County, New Hampshire.

THE PARTIES

12. Plaintiff Vermin Supreme is a resident of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. He is a civically concerned individual who regularly engages in

political speech and political campaigns.

13. Defendant City of Concord (the City) is a municipal corporation

duly incorporated and authorized under the laws of the State of New Hampshire

pursuant to its Charter. The City of Concord is authorized under the laws of the

-3-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 4 of 13

State of New Hampshire to maintain a police department, the Concord Police

Department (CPD), a code administration department and a health and

licensing department, the Concord Code Administration Department (CAD),

and the Concord Health & Licensing Services Department (CHLSD); (known

collectively as the Departments). These Departments act as Concords agent

in the area of law enforcement, licensing, and health inspections, and for which

the City is ultimately responsible.

14. The City assumes the risks incidental to the maintenance the

Departments and the employment of all individuals in these Departments. At all

relevant times, the City and its Departments hired, employed, supervised, and

controlled the individual Defendants.

15. Defendant Bradley C. Osgood (Chief Osgood), is and/or was at all

times relevant herein, the Chief of Police of the CPD, an officer, employee, and

agent of the CPD, a municipal agency of the City. He is duly appointed and

acting as an officer of the CPD. Chief Osgood is sued in his official capacity.

16. Defendant Police Officers John Does and/or Jane Does Nos. 1-4, are

and/or were at all times relevant herein officers, employee, and agents of the

CPD, a municipal agency of the City. They are duly appointed and acting as

officers of the CPD. They are each sued in their individual and official capacity.

17. Defendant Eugene Blake (Mr. Blake) is and/or was at all times

relevant herein, a Health and Licensing Officer at either CAD and/or CHLSD,

employee, and agent of CAD and/or CHLSD, a municipal agency of the City. He

is sued in his individual and official capacity.

18. Defendants John Does and/or Jane Roes Nos. 1-4, are and/or were

at all times relevant herein officers, employee, and agents of CAD and/or CHLSD,

municipal agencies of the City. They are each sued in their individual and official

capacity.

-4-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 5 of 13

STANDING

19. Plaintiff is directly affected by Defendants unlawful activities

because he is the direct target of Defendants unlawful prior restraint of his free

expression and right to petition.

20. Defendants activities have caused a violation of Plaintiffs rights

under the U.S and New Hampshire Constitutions. Thus, the requirements for Article

III standing have been met.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

21. Vermin Love Supreme spent several decades running for political

office and has run for President of the United States seven times.

22. Mr. Supreme has always had a groundswell of support in New

Hampshire, and in fact he placed fourth in New Hampshire's Democratic primary

election in 2016.2

23. Part of Mr. Supremes long standing campaign platform has

centered on socialized distribution of equine companions which some have

interpreted as commentary, satire, and political parody about a political system

that rewards candidates who promise free benefits without discussing cost or

practicality.3

2 See Rebecca Kaplan, Vermin Supreme finishes fourth in N.H. Democratic

primaries CBS NEWS (Feb. 10, 2016) available at
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vermin-supreme-finishes-fourth-in-new-
hampshire-democratic-primary/>
3 See Megan Specia, A man with a boot on his head got more primary votes
than Jim Gilmore in New Hampshire, Mashable (Feb. 10, 2016) available at
<http://mashable.com/2016/02/10/vermin-supreme-new-hampshire-
primary/#nnczONU_UgqY>

-5-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 6 of 13

24. Hillary Clinton (Mrs. Clinton) is a long-serving politician and she was

the 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate, and she recently wrote a book,

called What Happened about the 2016 Presidential campaign.4

25. In part of the book, Mrs. Clinton criticizes her main Democratic rival in

the campaign, Bernie Sanders, with a passage that describes a Facebook post

she agreed with:

Bernie: I think America should get a pony.
Hillary: How will you pay for the pony? Where will the pony come
from? How will you get Congress to agree to the pony?
Bernie: Hillary thinks America doesn't deserve a pony.
Bernie Supporters: Hilary hates ponies!
Hillary: Actually, I love ponies.
Bernie Supporters: She changed her position on ponies!
#WhichHillary #WitchHillary
Headline: HILLARY REFUSES TO GIVE EVERY AMERICAN A PONY.
Debate Moderator: Hillary, how do you feel when people say you
lie about ponies?5
26. Mr. Supreme, and his supporters, immediately understood this

passage to be a direct comment on Mr. Supremes long standing platform, since

giving every American a pony has long been associated with Mr. Supremes

political platform.

27. Recently, Mr. Supreme, and his supporters, learned that Mrs. Clinton

will be giving a book signing at Gibson's Bookstore in Concord, New Hampshire.

28. The book signing will take place on Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at

1:00 p.m.

4 See Hillary Clinton, What Happened, SIMON & SCHUSTER (Sept. 12, 2017).
5 See the full book excerpt at Madison Malone Kircher, Because Politics in the
21st Century Is an Endless Meme War, Hillary Clintons Book Features at Least One
Viral Facebook Post, NY Mag (Sept. 5, 2017) available at
<http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/09/hillary-clinton-publishes-pony-facebook-
post-in-new-book.html>.

-6-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 7 of 13

29. Mr. Supreme wishes to organize a peaceful protest outside of the

book signing event to criticize Mrs. Clintons criticism of his political platform.

30. To ensure that his message is understood, he has procured live ponies

to bring with him to the outdoor protest, because they are symbols of his political

platform.

31. Mr. Supreme asked one of his political organizers, Keith Yergeau (Mr.

Yergeau), to call the CPD to inquire about any requirements for the protest on

his behalf, which included obtaining a permit to bring the live ponies.

32. On November 20, 2017, Mr. Yergeau called the CPD at Mr. Supremes

direction and spoke to Officer John Doe.

33. When Mr. Yergeau inquired about obtaining a permit for the ponies,

Officer John Doe told Mr. Yergeau that he would need to call CAD to obtain a

permit for the ponies.

34. Mr. Yergeau complied with Officer John Does direction and

contacted the CAD to inquire about obtaining the needed permit for the ponies

immediately afterwards. He left a message at CAD.

35. On November 21, Eugene Blake (Mr. Blake) called Mr. Yergeau

back and identified himself as a Health and Licensing Officer with the CHLSD;

however, Mr. Blake did not make it specify how he was associated with CAD.

36. Mr. Blake told Mr. Yergeau that there were no general restrictions on

having ponies outdoors at that location, and that ordinarily he would grant the

permit to have the pony at that location.

37. However, Mr. Blake said that the CPD directed him not to grant a

permit for the ponies on that day, and at that location, specifically because no

one wanted to interfere with Mrs. Clintons book signing.

-7-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 8 of 13

38. Mr. Blake mentioned that the CPD mentioned something about

coordinating with the Secret Service, given Mrs. Clintons status as the former First

Lady she would be accompanied by them.

39. Mr. Blake said that Mr. Yergeau could obtain a permit to have the

live ponies at that location on another date or time, but noted specifically that

Mr. Yergeau could not have a permit to bring the live ponies outside of Mrs.

Clintons book signing.

40. Mr. Yergeau attempted to negotiate with Mr. Blake, and asked him

if there were any circumstances whereby he would grant the permit for the ponies

on the same date and location of the book signing.

41. Mr. Blake refused, and said that he would not issue the permit on the

date and location outside the bookstore under any circumstances.

42. Given that Mrs. Clinton will likely only have a book signing of this

particular book in the City of Concord once, and given that Mr. Supremes

groundswell of support is in New Hampshire, the ability to share his political speech

at this protest is a sui generis opportunity.

43. Since the ponies are symbols of Mr. Supremes political speech, the

message will be lost if Mr. Supreme cannot obtain a permit to bring the ponies to

the scheduled protest outside of the book signing on the public pathways on

December 5, 2017, and Mr. Supremes First Amendment freedom of expression

will be denied.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
under 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Free Speech)
44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

-8-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 9 of 13

45. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct of refusing to issue him a

permit and censoring his right to engage in direct political expression is

unconstitutional and violates his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and

expression, and freedom of petition.

46. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct, wherein Defendants

directed Plaintiff not to engage in specific and politically motivated speech, is

unconstitutional and violates his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and

expression, and freedom of petition.

47. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have not provided an administrative

appeal process.

48. Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of New Hampshire Const., Article 22
(Free Speech)
49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

50. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct of refusing to issue him a

permit and censoring his right to engage in direct political expression is

unconstitutional and violates his rights to freedom of speech and expression, and

freedom of petition protected by New Hampshire Const., Art. 22.

51. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct, wherein Defendants

directed Plaintiff not to engage in specific and politically motivated speech, is

unconstitutional and violates his rights to freedom of speech and expression, and

freedom of petition protected by New Hampshire Const., Art. 22.

52. Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

-9-
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 10 of 13

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Substantive Due Process)
53. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

54. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct, wherein Defendants

directed Plaintiff not to engage in specific and politically motivated speech by

refusing to issue a permit on a targeted date and time is unconstitutional and

violates his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

55. Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of New Hampshire Const., Art. 15
Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Substantive Due Process)
56. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

57. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct, wherein Defendants

directed Plaintiff not to engage in specific and politically motivated speech by

refusing to issue a permit on a targeted date and time is unconstitutional and

violates his due process rights under the New Hampshire Const., Art. 15.

58. Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Procedural Due Process)
59. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

- 10 -
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 11 of 13

60. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct, wherein Defendants

directed Plaintiff not to engage in specific and politically motivated speech by

refusing to issue a permit on a targeted date and time is unconstitutional and

violates his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

61. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants appeared to have unfettered

discretion and lacked a procedure to guide their decision making when they

denied the permit.

62. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have not provided an

administrative appeal process to challenge what Plaintiff perceives as a targeted

and unfair decision.

63. Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of New Hampshire Const., Art. 15
Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Procedural Due Process)
64. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

65. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct, wherein Defendants

directed Plaintiff not to engage in specific and politically motivated speech by

refusing to issue a permit on a targeted date and time is unconstitutional and

violates his due process rights under the New Hampshire Const. Art. 15.

66. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants appeared to have unfettered

discretion and lacked a procedure to guide their decision making when they

denied the permit.

67. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have not provided an

administrative appeal process to challenge what Plaintiff perceives as a targeted

and unfair decision.

- 11 -
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 12 of 13

68. Plaintiff has been injured, or reasonably fears imminent injury, by

these constitutional violations, and Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully seeks judgment as follows:

a. A declaration that the Defendants conduct is unconstitutional under

the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States, and

Articles 15 and 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution;

b. A preliminary and permanent injunction compelling Defendants to

issue a permit to Plaintiff so that he may engage in First Amendment

protected activities and enjoining each Defendant from interfering

with Plaintiffs right to lawfully engage in constitutionally protected

expression and activity within Merrimack County;

c. Damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

d. An award of attorneys fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. 1988;

and

e. Any further relief the Court deems appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands

a trial by jury on all causes of action.

Dated: December 1, 2017. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Arpiar M. Saunders

Arpiar M. Saunders
(NH Bar No. 265178)
SAUNDERS & SILVERSTEIN LLP
14 Cedar Street, Suite 224
Amesbury, MA 01913
Tel: 978-463-9100
Fax: 978-463-9109
Email: [email protected]

- 12 -
Complaint
 Case 1:17-cv-00670 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 13 of 13

Marc J. Randazza
Pro Hac Vice forthcoming
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
4035 S. El Capitan Way
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Tel: 702-420-2001
Fax: 305-437-7662
Email: [email protected]

- 13 -
Complaint