Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kennedy v. At&T, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

May 28, 2019

EDWARD THOMAS KENNEDY, Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T, INC., et al., Defendants.

          Edward Thomas Kennedy, Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. Pro Se Plaintiff.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Edward Thomas Kennedy proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This original Complaint was dismissed on November 27, 2018, without prejudice for want of jurisdiction and for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff was given leave to amend. The Amended Complaint, filed January 4, 2019;: invokes the jurisdiction of this Court by reason of diversity of citizenship of the parties. (D.I.13). It also raises a federal question. (Id.). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has sued AT&T, its chief executive officer, general counsel, and chief financial officer. The Amended Complaint contains nine counts, titled as follows: Count One, Trespass; Count Two, RICO; Count Three, Trespass on the Case Vicarious Liability; Count Four, Failure to Provide a Republican Form of Government; Count Five, Action of Trover; Count Six, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count Seven, Breach of Contract; Count Eight, Fraud Material Omission; and Count Ten, Violation of Whistleblower Retaliation Provisions.[1]

         The Amended Complaint is very similar to the original complaint with the exception of the RICO count and the omission of claims for trespass on the case and defamation. New allegations include that in 1983 in San Francisco, Plaintiff was first damaged by AT&T by his male boss for not being a homosexual. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that Pacific Telesis CEO Samuel Ginn[2] damaged and injured him by "constructive discharge and employment blacklisting," that Ginn retaliated against Plaintiff and "stole cellular telephone technology, cellular hardware and regulated monopoly Pacific Bell," and that Ginn is a "traitor to the United States in support of the British crown." (Id.).

         Count Two, the RICO Count, alleges that Defendants systematically and continuously, over the last ten years, conducted a corrupt enterprise in violation of RICO, with all acts continuing in nature. (Id. at 6) The Amended Complaint alleges that "Stephenson misstated, misinformed and filed fake financial records on government websites, supported by self-authenticating digital evidence," and AT&T CEO Stephenson used "alternative metrics to avoid generally accepted accounting principles." (Id.).

         Plaintiff once again alleges the following: Each Defendant "either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another [caused him] to be unlawfully injured against his will." (D.I. 13 at 3). From the moment he was harmed, until present, he was kept in "constructive financial imprisonment." (Id. at 4). Defendants caused his "unlawful loss of liberty [and affected] his good reputation, and his ability to earn a living." (Id. at 5). Defendants lied, misled, misconstrued, misrepresented, and filed false paperwork on reports to federal agencies, commissions and agents of the U.S. government. (Id. at 6).

         State and Federal agencies "deregulated regulated inside wire assets of AT&T, Inc., through firewalls, but/and neglected to enforce their rules for 40 years," which allowed Ginn and Stephenson "to steal assets and/or cash from we the people for personal financial gain." (Id. at 8). Plaintiff complained to Ginn, who retaliated, injured and damaged Plaintiff, breached Plaintiffs "contract promise of a career," damaged his good name, and "obstructed his ability to earn a living in violation of whistleblower retaliation provisions." (Id.).

         Ginn and AT&T stole his trade secrets. (Id. at 9). AT&T promised him a career and job security after legal and ethical violations by its corporate officers. (Id.). Ginn breached the contract, stole Plaintiffs trade secrets, and forced Plaintiff into "mind control torture or so-called 'Krone Training,' and/or 'Kroning' and/or 'leadership development'" that caused his emotional distress. (Id.). Plaintiffs family name -Kennedy - was stolen without permission or authority, and Plaintiff explains he is part of the "Kennedy family bloodline with common law copyright of the name Kennedy for thousands of years." (Id.).

         Ginn and AT&T breached the contract concerning Plaintiffs career. (Id. at 10). Defendants injured him by fraud. (Id. at 10-11). All individual directors violated whistleblower retaliation provisions. (Id. at 11-12).

         Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.