(continued)
A Federal Case
In August 2000, Costerus filed a civil rights suit in U.S. District Court in Boston against the Town of
Concord and the State of Massachusetts. In the 40-count suit, Costerus, who is not an attorney and is
representing himself, charged several police officers and the police chief, as well as then-Gov. Paul Cellucci
and several state officials, with numerous violations of the Second, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. The suit also cites violations of the Declaration of Rights and the Privacy Act of 1974
and it charges conspiracy, fraud, larceny through illegal conversion, negligence, false arrest, false
imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
"In a nutshell, this is what I'm looking for," Costerus explained to MassNews. "From the Concord
defendants, I want recovery of actual, compensatory and punitive damages. I'm seeking an injunction as
well. I want my property back. It was illegally obtaine. It was stolen from my house without due process.
"From the state defendants I am seeking Declaratory Relief, which basically says to the state, 'You were
wrong.' I'm also seeking Prospective Relief, in that I'm seeking that all of Chapter 180 be declared
unconstitutional in all of the aspects I specifically address."
Costerus believes he is fighting for more than money. He is fighting for the U.S. Constitution. He said, "I
deeply regret the time that fighting to preserve our Constitutional rights has diverted from my family and
other pursuits. But any right not worth fighting for is not worth having. If I do nothing, then I would not be
worthy of exercising those rights, and what kind of example of civic responsibility is that? As long as the
egregious acts of the Concord police remain unchallenged, we, all of us, as a lawful society, suffer and
share in my doom. And as long as the Commonwealth enacts laws, such as Chapter 180 of the Acts of
1998, that strip away rights that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then we as a body of citizens
must defend our rights."
He believes that licensing gun owners at the discretion of local police chiefs is discriminatory. It can be used
as a racist, anti-Semitic or anti-female tool in the hands of an unscrupulous police chief.
A federal judge, Morris E. Lasker, granted a motion by the state last month to dismiss part of the case.
According to Costerus, "The judge said I would be entitled to Prospective Injunctive relief, but only when
there's a valid, Constitutional claim. He said there is no individual right under the Second Amendment for an
individual to keep and bear arms. So the counts of the original complaint were dismissed to the extent that
they make Second Amendment claims." Costerus has filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit."