Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:20 PM

Subject: usdistrictcourt: Federal Judge approved the complaint, has offical docket number

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case No. 3:03-cv-109 (AVC)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

________________________________________

THOMAS DUTKIEWICZ, and AIMEE DUTKIEWICZ, and

BENJAMIN DUTKIEWICZ, and MADOLIN DUTKIEWICZ, and GARTH DUTKIEWICZ all three minors, acting by and through their guardians AIMEE DUTKIEWICZ, their mother and THOMAS DUTKIEWICZ their father,

Plaintiffs,

Vs.

RAINBOW IN A TEAR WORKSHOPS, Bristol, Connecticut, and

BONNIE MASKERY, Founder, Director, Counselor, in her individual and official capacity.

________________________________________

COMPLAINT

I

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Thomas Dutkiewicz, and Aimee Dutkiewicz, and Benjamin Dutkiewicz, and Mandolin Dutkiewicz, and Garth Dutkiewicz, through their guardians and next friend, Aimee Dutkiewicz, their mother, and Thomas Dutkiewicz, their father, by and through their counsel of record, Aimee and Thomas Dutkiewicz, Pro-Se, and for their cause of action against the Defendants, would show the Court as follows: Jurisdiction and Venue II

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and under the laws of the United States, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. BB 1983 and 1985.

2. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242.

3. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly Conspiracy Against Rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241.

4. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C., Section 1961-68 (1998).

5. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly The Child Abuse and Neglect Accountability Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C., Section 107(b), 5106a(b)(1) is amended.

III

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Title 28 USC BB 1331 & 1343.

IV

Venue is properly placed in this District Court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. B 1391.

Parties

V

1. The Plaintiff, Aimee Dutkiewicz, is a thirty-six year old female residing at 40 Central Street, Bristol, Connecticut 06010. The Plaintiffs are now, and at all times mentioned, citizens of the United States of America and residents of Bristol, Connecticut.

2. The Plaintiff, Thomas Dutkiewicz, is a forty-two year old male residing at 40 Central Street, Bristol, Connecticut 06010. The Plaintiffs are now, and at all times mentioned, citizens of the United States of America and residents of Bristol, Connecticut.

3. The Plaintiff, Benjamin Dutkiewicz, is a fifteen year old male residing at 40 Central Street, Bristol, CT 06010 and who is presently enrolled in Bristol Public Schools. Benjamin is involved in the Bristol Police Explorers and volunteers at the American Legion halls. Aimee Dutkiewicz is the mother of Benjamin Dutkiewicz, and Thomas Dutkiewicz is the father of Benjamin Dutkiewicz, serving as next friend and guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action. The Plaintiffs are now, and at all times mentioned, citizens of the United States of America and residents of Bristol, Connecticut.

4. The Plaintiff, Mandolin Dutkiewicz, is a ten year old female residing at 40 Central Street, Bristol, CT 06010 and who is presently enrolled in Bristol Public Schools. Aimee Dutkiewicz is the mother of Mandolin Dutkiewicz, and Thomas Dutkiewicz is the father of Mandolin Dutkiewicz, serving as next friend and guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action. The Plaintiffs are now, and at all times mentioned, citizens of the United States of America and residents of Bristol, Connecticut.

5. The Plaintiff, Garth Dutkiewicz, is a ten year old male residing at 40 Central Street, Bristol, CT 06010 and who is presently enrolled in Bristol Public Schools. Aimee Dutkiewicz is the mother of Garth Dutkiewicz, and Thomas Dutkiewicz is the father of Benjamin Dutkiewicz, serving as next friend and guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action. The Plaintiffs are now, and at all times mentioned, citizens of the United States of America and residents of Bristol, Connecticut.

VI

1. Rainbow in a Tear Workshops conducts business at 16 Minnesota Lane, Bristol, CT 06010 and counsels individuals and families. It is also the employer of the Defendant listed herein. Defendant is also responsible for establishing and implementing both official and unofficial procedures and guidelines established and followed by its employees and is therefore a proper defendant in this case.

2. Defendant Bonnie Maskery residing at 16 Minnesota Lane, Bristol, CT 06010 is the acting director, counselor and therapist, and is sued both in her ""individual and official capacity"", and was directly responsible for violating the Plaintiff''s civil rights and is responsible for establishing and implementing both official and unofficial procedures and guidelines for Rainbow in a Tear Workshops at all times pertinent hereto. The Defendant is now, and at all times mentioned, citizens of the United States of America and residents of Bristol, Connecticut.

Cause of Action

VII

1. Plaintiffs sought individual and family counseling with Bonnie Maskery (""Maskery"") at Rainbow in a Tear Workshops. Plaintiffs were going for counseling and therapy to work on normal family issues that arise upon occasion. Plaintiffs went to her as individuals and as a family.

2. During counseling it came out that mother was involved in the Wicca belief. With this knowledge, Defendants conspired to file a complaint to the State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families (""DCF"") stating that mother was practicing Wicca because Defendants deemed such a practice was a danger to mother''s children and family and that she ""could"" cast spells on other people not that she had or was going to.

3. As a result of Defendants filed a fraudulent complaint, DCF ""substantiated"" that mother was studying Wicca and she ""could"" possibly put a spell on other people and put her children at risk as stated in the DCF petition to Superior Court.

4. Now that DCF substantiated that the children were at risk do to mother studying the Wicca religion, DCF submitted a petition to the Court asking Judge, Lois Tanzer, from State of Connecticut Superior Court, Juvenile Matters, to adjudicate this as neglect.

5. DCF also wants Judge, Lois Tanzer to adjudicate father neglect for allowing mother to engage in and/or putting children at risk because of mother''s choice of religion.

6. By Defendants making what was said in private, public, Defendants has breached the counselor patient relationship, the public trust and the right to privacy and violated the patient''s due process rights by not obtaining written permission to disclose or release anything in the patient''s file thus violating the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

7. Plaintiff is protected in the First Amendment to freedom to study and/or choose any religion and has a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

8. The conduct of the Defendants has caused the mother and fathers an extreme amount of emotional upset in that they have suffered continuous physical and emotional pain. Mother has a hard time sleeping not knowing the out come; the father has abdominal pain frequently; children are affected also not knowing what Judge Tanzer and DCF may or may not do. These experiences caused by Defendants have caused the Plaintiffs a great deal of pain, suffering, and anguish, and an inability to live a normal life.

9. Defendants has treated mother differently from father in that father''s religious preference was not an issue or reported. Defendants specifically targeted mother because of their prejudicial stereotypical views of what Wicca is or is not.

10. Defendant''s policies and procedures are unconstitutional because they will decide what religious practices are acceptable and what is not acceptable. And based on those decisions, Defendants decide what religions are harmful to children and which ones are not and will file fraudulent claims to DCF. The Defendants decision was not based on any facts but the prejudicial and discriminatory attitude of their policies and personal views.

11. The actions of the Defendants have specifically violated the mother''s First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the right to privacy, but also the rest of the Plaintiffs.

12. The action of the Defendants have been a deliberate attempt to suppress any religious inclination toward or expression of the religion of Wicca which the mother may have or desire she may have, and have been an attempt to force certain religious concepts upon the mother and keep her from exercising her constitutional right to freedom of religion.

13. The actions on the part of the Defendants have affected the father''s and children''s ability and limited their freedom of choice and an attempt to force certain religious concepts upon them and keep them from exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion. Defendant sent a message to the father and children that if you do not choose the religion we think is appropriate; we will call the authorities on you and have you punished for those choices.

14. The acts of the Defendants have been a conspiracy to violate the mother''s rights, and these acts are so outrageous that all Plaintiffs individually and as a family unit should be awarded both actual damages and punitive damages. All Plaintiffs has suffered past, present and will suffer future emotional and physical damages for which all of the Defendants should be assessed. In addition the individuals sued should be assessed punitive damages for their deliberate and indifferent acts in an attempt to violate the mother''s and the rest of the families constitutional rights and their wanton disregard of the Constitution of the United States.

15. The Defendants have put much inflammatory and prejudicial language in Plaintiff''s personal file that will continue to hurt and harm her throughout the remainder of her life. That material should be expunged and erased from Plaintiff''s file and the Court should enter an order enjoining the Defendants to erase and correct these erroneous entries in the mother''s file.

16. Defendant Maskery knowingly and willingly filed a fraudulent complaint with DCF stating she was a mandated reporter, she was not. Maskery also stated to DCF she was a licensed counselor and therapist, she was not. Maskery also lied to DCF stating there was domestic violence when there was none. Maskery''s whole complaint to DCF was fraudulent from the moment she called them and the written statements she submitted.

17. In Maskery''s verbal and written statements, she made fraudulent diagnosis''s pertaining to the mental and psychological well being of members of the Plaintiff''s family. Those false and misleading diagnoses were given to DCF with the intent to harm the Plaintiff and his entire family, which resulted in false charges. Maskery is not licensed to diagnosis any conditions. Maskery is not qualified to make any diagnoses of conditions. Maskery cannot put forth any form of treatment plan.

18. Defendant''s knowingly and willing advertised in the yellow pages that Maskery and Rainbow in a Tear could provide such services when in fact they can not. Maskery and Rainbow in a Tear has shown a pattern with clear and convincing evidence she has violated the RICO act. Maskery used the false advertisements in the yellow pages and her business cards to defraud unsuspected individuals of money for services they never received. Patients had gotten bogus diagnosis and treatment plans and the Plaintiffs made decisions based on these bogus diagnosis and treatment plans. Maskery profited from this illegal behavior.

19. Defendants have also committed mail and phone fraud by lying and misrepresenting the services she was licensed and qualified to perform over the phone and mail.

20. Maskery also misrepresents her business as an LLC and as a non-profit organization even though she is not registered or approved as a non-profit. She also contradicts herself and says the money she receives is a donation but also a fee for service.

21. On December 18, 2002, DCF and the Assistant Attorney General both withdrew the fraudulent petition do to the fact that Maskery made a fraudulent report, lied and misrepresented her qualifications, and lied about the Plaintiff''s mental and emotional well being which resulted in the false charges that were brought against the Plaintiffs. The petition was also withdrawn because DCF and the Assistant Attorney General made false statements and covered up the fraud perpetuated by Maskery and put known falsehoods in the petition prior to filing the petition. It was a malicious prosecution and sham proceedings.

WHEREFORE plaintiffs demands:

1. The Court should enter declaratory judgments that the Defendants'' actions violate the United States Constitution, as set out in the Plaintiff''s petition.

2. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, enjoining Defendants, its employees and agents from making personal, confidential and constitutionally protected information public.

3. Award Plaintiff their costs, reasonable attorney fees and such other relief, as the Court may deem just and equitable.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Respectfully submitted,

40 Central Street

Bristol, CT 06010

860-585-1136

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that he/she is the plaintiff in the above action, that he/she has read the above complaint and that the information contained in the complaint is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. statutes 1746, 18 U.S.C. statutes 1621.

Executed at Bristol, Connecticut, on January 8, 2003.