Category Archives: United States Justice Department

U.S. Attorney

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Tommy Lee States Jr.
738 Niagara Street Apt #3
Buffalo, New York 14213

William J. Hochul, Jr.
The United States Attorney’s Office
Western District of New York
138 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202

Cc: Erie County District Attorney’s Office
25 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202-3926

Office of Children and Family Services
P.O. Box 4480
Albany, NY 12204
Dear Sir,

Since filing a civil rights complaint with the U.S. District Court Western District New York there has been a continuation of the stalking and harassment detailed in the complaint.  The complaint alleges federal crimes and civil rights violations.
 
States v. Kussman 10-CV-335

The stalking and harassment has taken many forms including enticements of various kinds offered through means and persons enlisted to monitor and or record my communications and movements.  I believe that the stalking, harassment, enticements and menacing behavior is intended to repress and oppress me into abandoning the court action that I am pursing against the persons mentioned in the complaint.

On two occasions, I was questioned by Douglas James Warren of 100 Norwood Ave Apt #4 about what type of automobile I would want. 

• Within 24 hours after my having given a detailed description indicating a desire for a car that was similar to the make and the model of my former neighbor’s car, an automobile matching the description down to the last detail was parked in my driveway.

As I have done with other matters related to the circumstances detailed in my civil rights complaint, I chose not to acknowledge the ‘coincidence’ of the appearance of the car in my driveway or the context of the conversation in which an automobile fitting the exact description was had. The context of the conversation was of my ceasing to take legal action against the persons listed in the complaint and of my forgiving and moving on.

• The second attempt was even more direct than the first. It occurred within 72 hours of the first. Douglas J Warren asked me to accompany him to the Sonic Car wash on Delaware Ave.  In an ensuing discussion about automobiles, I revealed a preference for the aesthetics of a Lexus. That evening I accompanied Mr. Warren to his home on Norwood Ave. We parked across the street from his home in front of a house that is under construction.  Within less than a minute of parking, a Lexus fitting the exact description of what I had indicated as my preference pulled into the drive way of the vacant home that is under construction. Mr. Warren turned to me and said, “There is your Lexus.” 

Again, I refused to acknowledge in any way what was ‘apparent’ to me. 

Since the beginning of this matter, I have been subjected to what I call a ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ approach presumably by persons that I have identified in complaints, letters, and court filings over the last 16 months.  The modus operandi of the ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ approach has been such that the bigger the ‘carrot’ the bigger the ‘stick’. The stick has been an escalating demonstrative stalking in a manner designed to intimate me.  In other words, I have been under ‘surveillance with intent to harass’. I am motivated to write this letter out of concern for the ‘stick’ that could follow my cold reception of the ‘carrot’ tendered by proxy of the automobiles.

If based on the substance and circumstances listed and detailed in my court filing, I am under some legal form of surveillance, I assume that this can and should take place in a proscribed manner fitting the alleged act or actions that initiated the ‘writ’ sanctioning the surveillance or monitoring.  I assume that not even an ‘extra ordinary writ’ would sanction wrongful allure, appeal, inducement, seduction or invitation in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A.

Related to the subject of wrongful allure, appeal, inducement and seduction let me add that I suspect that there has been a repeat here in Buffalo of a pattern of attempts at entrapment using underage prepubescent boys. I can only assume that someone is confusing my being homosexual with ‘pedophilia’. Either that or in my neighborhood and at cafes that I often frequent to read, ‘pretty little boys’ can’t help but throw themselves at me or put themselves in my way as I am walking down the street.

My suspicions of a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A in the case of using minors as ‘bait’ is because this particular form of ‘surveillance with intent to harass’ fits the modus operandi of similar efforts and lines of inquiry that occurred in Toronto and which are now part of the human rights compliant that I have filed with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Background information to this aspect of my concern is in the documents that I filed here in Buffalo with the U.S. District Court.

In addition to the total lack of judgment that it would take to intentionally place underage minors in what the person(s) doing so presumed to be a dangerous situation and the sexual discrimination of the implication that being gay equals ‘pedophilia’, I am concerned as a gay male about the impression and prejudices that would be necessary to communicate to the minors in preparation for their role as ‘bait’ if what I am suspecting and alleging here is true.

This concern is multiplied if one of the minors happens to be gay and loses the struggle with himself at a later date because of an experience in which his identity was equated with ‘pedophilia’.  Those young boys that happen to be straight would have had their first lesson in hunting and targeting gays for sexual harassment that could lead to violence. When the heterosexual boys are teens and show an equal lack of judgment, as that shown by adults who would put them in such a situation, we have a recipe for violence against gays.

Children are children not ‘bait’ or ‘carrots’ to be used in a desperate attempt to try to realize a wild pretense in an effort to find ‘dirt’ on me that would allow those responsible to moot the legal action that I have initiated in Toronto and in Buffalo against an insipid effort to cover-up a vigilante investigation that centers in part around the transportation of one pound of marijuana from Canada across the U.S. border by train. Details pertaining to the drug trafficking are in the documents that I have filed in support of my filing with the U.S. District Court. 

What I name above as the ‘stick’ refers to a continuation, here in Buffalo, of the stalking and harassments across state lines and international borders. The nature, type and varying intensity of the harassment that I detail in my complaint have been identical (with exceptions) to what I have suffered and endured in Toronto, ON – New York City, NY – and currently in Buffalo, NY. 

After the most recent incident occurring a few blocks from my current residence in Buffalo at the Rite Aid, I have decided to carry a digital video camera to record the pattern of behavior that carefully skirts legal limits pertaining to my privacy and my access to forms of public accommodation. The incident in question, here, went further than any other to-date and involved being stalked by one black male inside the store and approached in an aggressive and intimidating manner by Latino male as I exited the store. 

I can’t say that I fear for my life or even that I am afraid. This type of harassment has been going on for so long that I figure if there was any serious intent to cause me bodily harm, it would have occurred by now. That said, there is the matter of what I refer above as the ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ approach escalating to me now feeling a need for video evidence and my considering applying for a license to own and carry a weapon.

I assume that the ‘surveillance’, stalking, harassments etc. are intended in part to coerce inaction as it pertains to the complaints I have filed and or to induce actions that would negate my ability to pursue the substance and circumstances detailed in various and pending judicial venues.

Letters such as this one have become ‘bread crumbs’ of sort. The question is whether they are leading away from a set of unfortunate incidents and circumstances to a judicial remedy or to a set of related unfortunate incidents and circumstances requiring a judicial remedy.  I fear the latter if the outcome is limited to deliberations of the technicalities of the law in spite of intent and not the enforcement of the laws as they are intended.
Sincerely,

Tom States

P.S. I am no angel but I am not the devil in the details of this matter either! If I were deserving of the attention appertaining any sort of ‘writ’ whether it involved law enforcement or not, I would expect a higher level of impersonal competence.