Nolen v. Aldrich Public Library et al

Filing 3

COMPLAINT against Aldrich Public Library, Barre, City of, Timothy Bombardier, Jane Doe 1-20, Karen Lane, Andrew Marceau, Nancy F. Pope, Ross Weiland filed by Wallace S. Nolen. Summonses issued. (law)

U.:; .

~J I~~

l

r::.~;srr:~c-r

-.

i C'·;·

.:~

('

T

· -~r;:~;--:: . .4t··t t
")

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

DOCKET# __________________
i:._····:~

-----------------------------------------------------------}(
WALLACE S. NOLEN for himself and all
other persons similarly situated herein who
have been or will be patrons of the ALDRICH
PUBLIC LffiRARY,

JURY TRW.,DEM4JYPEP.. --··--·-

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT

-againstALDRICH PUBLIC LffiRARY, NANCY F.
POPE, KAREN LANE, "JANE DOE 1-20..
names fictitous and intended to be paid staff or
volunteers employed by Defendant ALDRICH
PUBLIC LffiRARY, CITY OF BARRE,
TIMOTHY BOMBARDIER, ANDREW
MARCEAU, and ROSS WEILAND,

Defendants,

-------------------------------------------------------------}(
STATE OF VERMONT, COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN ss.:
WALLACE S. NOLEN, being duly sworn deposes and says complaining of the
defendants as follows:
1. At all times herein complained of the Plaintiff, WALLACE S. NOLEN, was and still

resides in the City of Barre, County of Washington, State of Vermont.
2. The residence of the Plaintiff forms the basis of venue of this proceeding.
3. This proceeding is being brought for compensatory and punitive damages sustained by
the Plaintiff against the Defendants for violating the civil and other rights of the Plaintiff and all
other persons similar situated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq, the U.S. Constitution's First
and Fourteenth Amendments, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act- 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c),

the U.S. Patriot Act, and title 22, Chapter 4 §§ 172 and 173 of the Vermont statutes.
4. Plaintiff hereby is seeking damages against the individual Defendants in both their
official and individual capacities.
5. Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants to
restrain or otherwise prevent them from committing unlawful acts/omissions against the Plaintiff
and all other persons similarly situated and to compel them to perform certain acts/duties which
they are required to do and/or to restrain them from certain acts that they are not permitted to do.
6. This court has jurisdiction based upon violations of federal law.
7. At all times herein complained of the Defendant ALDRICH PUBLIC LffiRARY
hereinafter referred to as "ALDRICH" was and still is upon information and belief a Vermont
Corporation in good standing authorized to do business within the State of Vermont.
8. At all times herein complained of Defendant, NANCY F. POPE, hereinafter referred to
as "POPE" was and upon information and belief still is the Chairman of the ALDRICH PUBLIC
LffiRARY.
9. At all times herein complained of Defendant, KAREN LANE, hereinafter referred to as
"LANE" was and upon information and belief still is the Library Director of the ALDRICH
PUBLIC LffiRARY.
10. At all times herein complained of Defendants "JANE DOE 1-20" were and upon
information and belief still are paid employees or volunteers employed by Defendant ALDRICH
PUBLIC LIBRARY.
11. At all times herein complained ofDefendant, City ofBarre was and still is a
municipal corporation in good standing within the State of Vermont.
12. ALDRICH, POPE, LANE, and "JANE DOE 1-20" hereinafter are referred to as the

"LIBRARY STAFF."
13. At all times herein complained of ALDRICH was funded in part by the CITY OF
BARRE and TOWN OF BARRE through taxpayer funding.
14. At all times herein complained of the municipal taxpayers in CITY OF BARRE and
TOWN OF BARRE contributed approximately 50% of the net income to ALDRICH.
15. At all times herein complained of ALDRICH was a public library located in the City
of Barre, County of Washington, State of Vermont.
16. At all times herein complained of TIMOTHY BOMBARDIER hereinafter referred to
as "BOMBARDIER" was and upon information and belief still is the Chief of Police of the City
of Barre Police Department.
17. At all times herein complained of ANDREW MARCEAU hereinafter referred to as
"MARCEAU'' was and upon information and belief still is the Deputy Chief of Police of the City
of Barre Police Department.
18. At all times herein complained of ROSS WEILAND was and upon information still is
employed by the City of Barre as a police officer assigned to patrol duties in the City of Barre
Police Department.
19. At all times complained of and upon information during the entire time that
ALDRICH has existed it has been open on a regular basis and makes available on site, or
circulates, materials to the public without a fee.
20. From approximately December 1st, 2005 until June 3rd, 2011 Plaintiff frequented
ALDRICH's facilities.
21. From approximately January 17, 2006 to the date of this complaint and continuing
forward, the Plaintiff has owned and continues to own the premises commonly known as 22

Gallow Ave locate within the City of Barre, County of Washington, State of Vermont.
22. As such some of the Plaintiff's taxes has gone to and has been used by ALDRICH.
23. As a resident of the City of Barre, the Plaintiff is entitled to full use of the public
facilities, services, etc. of ALDRICH.
24. Pursuant to the customs, policies and/or procedures of ALDRICH in order to use
certain access to computerized information including but not limited to the ALDRICH's public
computers including access to the Internet, LffiRARY STAFF required Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated patrons to sign into a paper register.
25. Such register was and upon information still is on public display so that any other
patron could view any patron so registering to use such computer access/services.
26. Unless a patron signed such register, such patron was not permitted to use such
computer system.
27. Such custom, policy, procedure, etc. clearly violates Title 22, Chapter 4 § 172 of the
Vermont statutes,
28. Title 22, Chapter 4 § 172 of the Vermont statutes states:

"§ 172. Library record confidentiality; exemptions"
"(a) A library's patron registration records and patron transaction records shall remain
confidential."

"(b) Unless authorized by other provisions of law, the library's officers, employees, and
volunteers shall not disclose the records except:"
"(1) with the written permission of the library patron to whom the records pertain;"
"(2) to officers, employees, volunteers, and agents of the library to the extent necessary
for library administration purposes;"
"(3) in response to an authorized judicial order or warrant directing disclosure;"

"(4) to custodial parents or guardians of patrons under age 16;"
"(5) to the custodial parents or guardians of a student, in accordance with the federal

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, by the library at the school the student
attends."
"(c) Statistical records pertaining to the patronage, circulation activities, and use of any
service or consultation the library provides, provided that they do not contain the names
of patrons or any other personally identifying information, shall be exempt from the
provisions of this chapter."
29. At no time whatsoever has the Plaintiff, nor upon information and belief any other

patron of ALDRICH has provided permission for ALDRICH to waive any provision of said
statute permitting disclosure that Plaintiff or anyone else have permission for such patron's name
to be disclosed to anyone looking at such "sign in sheet".
30. Section 171 of said chapter goes on to define the various terms used in such section

as:
"(1) 'Library' means a public library as defined in subdivision
101(2) of this title, any college, university, or school library, or any
other library or archive that is open on a regular basis and makes
available on site, or circulates, materials to the public without a
fee."
"(2) 'Patron registration records" means library records that contain
information a library patron must provide in order to be eligible for
borrowing privileges at a library."
"(3) "Patron transaction records" means library records that contain names
or other personal identifying information that discloses an individual's
activities within a library, including the materials that have been viewed in
print or electronic form, research questions posed, materials in any format
that the patron has requested through interlibrary loan or has borrowed, or
any other library service or consultation that the patron has requested."
31. Section 173 of said chapter states:
"Any person whose confidential patron registration records or
patron transaction records have been disclosed, except as provided
in this chapter, is authorized to bring a civil action against the

library that disclosed the records."
32. The customs, policies, rules and/or procedures of ALDRICH also violate provisions
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act- 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c).
33. The rules, regulations, customs, policies and/or procedures of ALDRICH and the
LIBRARY STAFF in requiring all patrons of its facilities including Plaintiff to sign a "sign in
sheet" in order to avail themselves of the use of any of ALDRICH's computers and the
accompany services offered through the same including Internet clearly violate the
aforementioned sections for which the Plaintiff is entitled to relief as so requested herein
including damages stemming from the unlawful relief.
34. The Plaintiff and all other patrons of ALDRICH are therefore entitled to a
preliminary and permanent injunction barring ALDRICH and the LffiRARY STAFF from either
requiring that they sign a "sign-in sheet" which permits any other patron or other person to view
the prior sign-ins or in the alternative, if they choose to simply have a single use sign up form
which its inspection is limited to a selected number of key staffers.
35. The public display of all sign-ins serves no valid purpose and clearly violates the
aforementioned sections.
36. The Plaintiff therefore seeks actual and punitive damages in the sum of$5,000,000
against ALDRICH, POPE, LANE, the LffiRARY STAFF, and the members of the Board of
Trustees in their individual as well as their official capacity .
37. In addition the Plaintiff hereby requests that this court issue a preliminary and
permanent injunction barring the requirements for any patron to either have to sign in to receive
access to any services or in the alternative, to bar the Defendants from permitting anyone other
than supervisory personnel to view and/or otherwise have access to such information.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
3 8. Plaintiff repeats paragraphs numbered as if stated herein in full.
39. Approximately August 2010, the Plaintiff, as a valid library patron, requested that he
receive a copy of the 2009 Vermont State Bar directory which lists law ft.rms and practicing
attorneys throughout the entire State ofVermont.
40. Defendant ALDRICH supplied such books to the Plaintiff.
41. Approximately one week after being given said books, said book was returned by the
Plaintiff depositing the same into a receptacle reserved specifically for the purposes of returning
of previously checked out books which is located immediately outside of the front door of the
building of said library.
42. Such book was returned prior to the date set forth by library personnel in which such
book was due back.
43. In approximately October 2010, the Plaintiff received a notice that said book was not
returned as agreed.
44. Such notice also set forth a fee almost three times the amount of the actual cost of
such book and whatever extra handling fee that the staff of the library might reasonably expect to
charge for such already outdated and untimely directory.
45. Plaintiff immediately called the main number for defendant ALDRICH and spoke to a
female who refused to give her name but did state that she was one of the "librarians" of
ALDRICH.
46. After explaining why Plaintiff was calling the Plaintiff asked such person if a librarian
of other person so designated had checked to see if the book was "shelved" into their library
collection or perhaps was returned to the original library which upon information and belief was

from the State Library archives without proper recording.
47. She said she would write down Plaintiff's name and telephone number as well as the
information about the book and get back to me "shortly" within the same business day.
48. Not receiving any call back, Plaintiff went to the library the very next date and spoke
with a librarian who agreed to check the shelf where such book would have been shelved if it
wasn't for the fact that such book was an "inter-library loan" from another library.
49. As soon as she went to the shelf, she found the subject book in question.
50. Plaintiff asked her if it was the routine of the library for whomever receives a book
from a different library under the inter-library loan program through the outside book drop
whether or not it was customary for the person checking in the book to note that it was an interlibrary loan book and take appropriate steps to insure that the book would not be reshelved at the
Defendant's library.
51. Plaintiff also asked her if it was customary for whomever was sending out notices to
patrons whose books are overdue to check the shelves to make sure that the library was not in
possession of the book and/or that the book was misshelved or other similar clerical error.
52. She replied that she was not sure what the procedure was but that she would check on
it forme.
53. Plaintiff then spoke to other library personnel including defendant LANE about
Plaintiff's concerns as aforementioned.
54. Staff told Plaintiff that the price of the book was dictated by the State Library and that
it was the State Library that determined the rate of reimbursement.

55. Plaintiff contacted the State Library and inquired as to the methodology of how they
calculated the replacement price that they demand or charge a patron for a lost or missing book.

56. Plaintiff was provided a chart or schedule of such rates.
57. Plaintiff actively pursued an attempt to the State Chief Librarian as well as the
ALDRICH library to review the reimbursement schedule, but in each case they refused to do so
or otherwise change/alter the schedule to make the reimbursement rate more reasonable.
58. A few months before the book incident above, Plaintiff had a need to use the library's
public computers on a longer time period than usual, and so asked library staff if during off-peak
periods (when there were a sufficient number of computers to provide any person so requesting
to use any computer access.
59. LANE and other librarians granted such requests and in a handful of cases told
Plaintiff that there were other patrons who needed to use the computer assigned that day to the
Plaintiff and Plaintiff promptly stopped using such computer.
60. There came a time about a month after Plaintiff's book incident in which LANE and
other LffiRARY STAFF revoked the special access permission which granted Plaintiff extra time
to use a vacant computer for longer than the customary time period.
61. Plaintiff was told that because Plaintiff was protesting various customs, policies
and/or procedures that the staff felt that Plaintiff should not be given such "special treatment".
62. Again, Plaintiff complained to supervisory personnel including but not limited to
LANE, but was denied reconsideration.
63. On or about June 1st, 2011 Plaintiff, while using his own personal computer (not the
library's) at a table provided therefore, Plaintiff received two urgent telephone calls within a few
minutes apart relating to the results of medical testing of Plaintiff.
64. Each time, the Plaintiff told the caller that he could not talk and asked that Plaintiff
call the caller back after a few minutes.

65. Plaintiff immediately began putting his computer, power supply and related items into
his computer bag in anticipation of leaving the library to make such calls.
66. A librarian came over to Plaintiff and began yelling at the Plaintiff that he should not
use his cell phone in the library.
67. Plaintiff apologized and tried to explain that he was in the process of leaving to go
outside the library to call these persons back, but she insisted that Plaintiff leave the library.
68. Plaintiff immediately left the library and made such calls back to the callers who had

just called immediately outside of the library's building.
69. Upon successful completion of such calls Plaintiff left the premises.
70. On or about June 8th, 2011 the Plaintiff returned to the library.
71. Plaintiff followed the standard procedure to sign in on the sign-in sheet and was
provided a special password to sign into the computer.
72. As is the current policy a patron who needs more than initial 30 minutes can request
prior to the expiration of the 30 minutes an additional 30 minutes, so the Plaintiff went up to the
desk approximately 10 minutes prior to the expiration of the 30 minutes to renew such time.
73. The same person who was involved in the cell phone incident above, told plaintiff
that she would add the time so that Plaintiff would not have to re-sign into the system using a
different assigned password.
74. Plaintiff returned to his seat at the public computer but found that the necessary
"reset" was not performed as required.
7 5. Plaintiff returned back to the librarian's desk and inquired as to why the extension
hadn't been processed or otherwise did not take effect.
76. Plaintiff was given a new password on a slip of paper and was told to sign in again.

77. Plaintiff signed in and used the computer for the 30 minute time period.
78. After finishing Plaintiff returned to the librarian desk and asked to be provided with a
list of the board members of said library.
79. The librarian began to rant on that Plaintiff was given special privileges and that she
had "checked out" Plaintiff on the Internet and that she saw that Plaintiff was a ''trouble maker".
80. After leaving the library, Plaintiff telephone POPE and began to explain the various
issues as so stated herein and ask POPE to intervene and to resolve these issues.
81. POPE indicated that these policies were in existence for a considerable length of time
and that she would need time to consult with LANE and/or other LIBRARY STAFF.
82. Plaintiff advised POPE that the library was clearly in violation of state statutes and
even federal statutes with respect to the unauthorized release of Plaintiff's name by reason of the
sign-in sheet procedure.
83. Plaintiff advised POPE that Plaintiff was prepared to "seek judicial intervention" to
resolve the issues presented to POPE and that Plaintiff felt that since other patrons were similarly
situated that the matter should be dealt with expeditiously with the goal to correct these illegal
and/or otherwise improper customs, policies and/or procedures.
84. On June 3nt, 2011 in the afternoon of said day, POPE telephone Plaintiff and said that
she and the LffiRARY STAFF had met and that I would be receiving a letter "shortly".
85. When Plaintiff inquired as to what the contents of such letter might be POPE
repeatedly refused.
86. A short time later, while Plaintiff was at his residence, defendant ROSS ran the front
door bell of Plaintiff's residence.
87. When Plaintiff went to the door, ROSS handed the Plaintiff a piece of paper annexed

hereto as Exhibit"A" entitled "NO TRESPASS ORDER".
88. Ross advised Plaintiff that he was not permitted to enter onto the premises of the
ALDRICH PUBLIC LffiRARY under any circumstances.
89. Plaintiff advised ROSS that he was violating Plaintiff's rights including that of free
speech [pursuant to the US Constitution's First Amendment] and unless ROSS retracted such
order, it was the intention of the Plaintiff to seek judicial relief including but not limited to
damages against ROSS in ROSS' individual capacity
90. ROSS smirked and told Plaintiff to have a good day.
91. A few days later Plaintiff received via US Mail a copy of the same ''No Trespass
Order".
92. The Defendant's have violated Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights under the equal
protection clause of the US Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against the
Plaintiff in its alleged enforcement of unwritten rules and regulations for which the Plaintiff has
never ever received a copy of the same assuming that they exist as applicable to the
acts/omissions complained of herein.
93. The Barre City Police Department has created a customs, policies and/or procedures
in which they routinely advise complainants to serve a "no-trespass order" even if, as in the
instant case, the premises are a public place.
94. The Barre City Police Department has created customs, policies and/or procedures in
which they routinely violate the civil and/or other rights of individuals such as the Plaintiff by the
service of a "no-trespass order".
95. The Barre City Police Department has created a customs, policies and/or procedures
in which they encourage complainants to retaliate against the subjects of the "no-trespass order"

by so doing in retaliation for the subject exercising of his/her constitution, civil and/or other
rights and/or privileges.
96. The Defendants BOMBARDIER MARCEAU the CITY OF BARRE~ knew or
should have known that their staff was routinely instructed to violate the rights and/or privileges
of individuals as the Plaintiff served with their issuance and subsequent service of "no trespass"
orders on individuals.
97. The defendants BOMBARDIER MARCEAU and the CITY OF BARRE failed to
properly train and/or otherwise supervise its staff thereby which gave rise to the acts/omissions
complained of herein.
98. The defendants BOMBARDIER MARCEAU and the CITY OF BARRE failed to
properly train its personnel leading up to the acts/omissions complained of herein.
99. The defendants BOMBARDIER MARCEAU and the CITY OF BARRE failed to
remedy the acts/omissions complained of.
100. The acts/omissions complained of herein have been found by various courts within
the State of Vermont~ the 200 Circuit, and elsewhere to be illegal and/or otherwise improper
therefore such conduct was established as being illegal and/or improper long before such
acts/omissions took place as complained of herein.
101. The defendants individually and in concert acting under color of state law violated
Plaintiff's Constitutional Right and other rights by retaliating against the Plaintiff for his attempts
to exercise his federal and state rights.
102. The board members and other LffiRARY Staff acting individually violated
claimants rights by forcing claimant and all other persons similarly situated to sign their sign-in
sheet which clearly violated federal and state laws including privacy laws.

103. The board members and other LIBRARY Staff knew or should have known that
such acts/omissions complained of herein violated federal and state laws but despite having the
authority and duty to do so failed to remedy the same after Plaintiff complained or attempted to
complain about such illegal acts/omissions.
104. The defendants acting individual and/in concert intentionally inflicted emotional
distress by engaging in outrageous conduct, done intentionally and/or with reckless disregard
resulting in the suffering of extreme emotion distress and/or actually approximately caused by
such outrageous conduct.
105. During some of the incidents complained herein third parties not employed by the
Defendants observed and/or overheard said conversations by the defendants which served no
other legitimate purpose and which caused Plaintiff damages including slander, defamation of
character.
106. The acts and/or omissions of the defendants as complained herein constitute slander
and/or libel against the Plaintiff and his reputation.
107. The public utterances by the Defendants complained of herein served no legitimate
purpose.
108. The public utterances complained ofherein were uttered to inflict severe emotional
distress and/or otherwise cause damage to the Plaintiff.
109. The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff hereby requests that this court:
a) Enter judgment against the defendants in both their individual and official capacities as
well as a preliminary and permanent injunction to permit the Plaintiff to receive all rights and
privileges as a resident and taxpayer of the City of Barre in terms of access to the Aldrich Public

Library and its grounds as any other resident/taxpayer is so entitled and to vacate the "no trespass
order".
b) That this court declare that the customs, policies and/or procedures of ALDRICH and
its staff with respect to requiring the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated patrons to sign-in on
a publicly available log or sign-in sheet which is visible to other patrons in violation of federal
and state statues as aforesaid.
c) That this court issue a temporary and permanent restraining order barring the
defendants, each of them from restraining or otherwise prohibiting the Plaintiff from entering
upon the premises commonly known as the Aldrich Public Library and restricting the Plaintiff
from the use of any library materials and/or other services provided to persons similar situated to
the Plaintiff;
d) That this court issue a temporary and permanent restraining order barring the
defendants, BOMBARDIER, MARCEAU, THE CITY OF BARRE from issuing "no trespass
orders barring the Plaintiff and/or anyone else from entering upon any public premises including
but not limited to the Aldrich Public Library premises and/or otherwise violating the
Constitutional and/or rights/privileges of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

e) And whatever other and further relief this court feels just and proper herein together
with costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees necessary to prosecute this action
Dated: July 14, 2011

WALLACE S. NOLEN
Mailing Address: PO Box 1025
Montpelier VT 05601-1025

Physical Address: 22 Gallow Ave
Barre VT 05641

Telephone: [phone]