After an intensive FBI investigation which included a search of his home, Mr. Tenenbaum was absolved of any wrongdoing. But he still faces the loss of his job.
Mr. Tenenbaum has brought suit, alleging among other things that his polygraph examiner falsely attributed admissions of security violations to him. See especially paras. 29-46 of this complaint. The polygraph examiner, Albert D. Snyder of the Defense Security Service (then the Defense Investigative Service) is a named defendant in this suit.
If you have any information that may be relevant to this case, or have shared a similar experience that would help to establish a pattern of governmental wrongdoing, please contact David Tenenbaum.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID AARON TENENBAUM and
MADELINE GAIL TENENBAUM,
Plaintiffs,
-v- No. 98-74473
LT. COL. JOHN SIMENINNI; Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
ALBERT D. SNYDER; MARK
P. YOURCHOCK; ROBERT M.
RILEY, Individually and
in their Representative
Capacities as Employees
for the Various Federal
Agencies that Employ Them;
and THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
JUAN A. MATEO (P-33156) GEORGE LA PLATA (P16416)
SHEREEN L. SILVER (P-40640) Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
JAMES C. HOWARTH (P-15179) 370 E. Maple
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Birmingham, MI 48009
645 Griswold, Suite 2000 (248) 644-8910
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 962-3500
_____________________________________
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, DAVID AARON TENENBAUM and MADELINE GAIL TENENBAUM, by their attorneys, JUAN A. MATEO, SHEREEN L. SILVER, GEORGE LA PLATA and JAMES C. HOWARTH, in support of their Complaint against the above defendants, state:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. That plaintiff DAVID AARON TENENBAUM was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a resident of the City of Southfield, Michigan, and employed by the United States Army Tank Automotive Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan.
2. That plaintiff MADELINE GAIL TENENBAUM was, at all times relevant to this complaint, plaintiff David Tenenbaum's spouse, and a resident of the City of Southfield, Michigan.
3. That defendant LT. COL. JOHN SIMONINI was, at all times relevant to this complaint, employed by TACOM and was the Director of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence.
4. That defendant ALBERT D. SNYDER was, at all times relevant to this complaint, assigned to the Defense Investigative Service and was a polygraph examiner.
6. That defendant MARK P. YOURCHOCK was, at all times relevant to this complaint, an agent with the Department of Defense, Defense Investigative Service (DIS).
7. That defendant ROBERT M. RILEY was, at all times relevant to this complaint, an agent with the Defense Intelligence Investigative Service.
8. That defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a sovereign government.
9. That this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ß1331; 28 U.S.C. ß1346; 28 U.S.C. ß1442; and the Federal Tort Claims Act. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ßß 1981, 1983, 1985 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
10. That venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ß1391.
11. That the amount in controversy is in excess of $1 million.
FACTS
12. That plaintiff David Aaron Tenenbaum, an American citizen, is a devout orthodox Jew.
13. That plaintiff David Aaron Tenenbaum obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree from Wayne State University in Chemical Engineering in 1978. In 1982 he obtained a Master's Degree from the same university in Chemical Engineering.
14. That in 1984 plaintiff was employed by the United States Army Tank Automotive Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan. Mr. Tenenbaum was first assigned to the armor group within the Survivability Division in December, 1984. His last assignment was with the Combat Vehicle Team. These assignments were within the Research Development and Engineering Center at TACOM. One of the principal reasons TACOM originally hired Mr. Tenenbaum was to develop international survivability programs, specifically with the Israelis. The fact that plaintiff had lived in Israel and was fluent in the Hebrew language made him an ideal candidate for the position.
15. That throughout his tenure at TACOM plaintiff's religious convictions were well known by his superiors and co-workers. Plaintiff often spoke Hebrew; would not eat in non-Kosher restaurants; wore a kipa/yarmulke (religious headcovering); and was devout in his faith in every respect.
16. That throughout his tenure at TACOM plaintiff was a highly productive and conscientious employee. He developed programs in armor survivability; he came up with ideas and proposals to buy-test armor and equipment which the United States Government did not have, in order to better protect combat vehicle troops; he saved the United States Government large amounts of money in research and development projects by taking a common sense approach to purchasing and testing equipment that had already been certified as battle worthy.
17. That one of Mr. Tenenbaum's assignments was to manage the TACOM Armor Conference (now called the Combat Survivability Conference). This Conference is an international program that brought together experts from all over the world to discuss the current state of the art in combat vehicle survivability. Plaintiff managed this conference for five years.
18. That in and around December, 1985, Mr. Tenenbaum was assigned to travel to Israel on a factfinding mission concerning areas of vehicle survivability. He remained there for approximately six weeks.
19. That Mr. Tenenbaum was also assigned as the armor engineer to a Bradley (fighting vehicle) Task Force. This assignment sent him to Israel in approximately December, 1986, for two weeks to discuss the Bradley fighting vehicle and other combat vehicles with the Israeli Army, including General Israel Tal.
20. That plaintiff developed the Light Armor System Survivability Program (L.A.S.S.), an unclassified program which allowed him to work and cooperate with German and Israeli nationals.
21. That Lt. Col. John Simonini denied plaintiff participation in an engineer exchange program even though plaintiff had been specifically chosen by a higher ranking government official for the position. Defendant Simonini specifically stated that he "didn't trust Tenenbaum, or the Israelis."
22. That Lt. Col. Simonini accused plaintiff of not cooperating with the security personnel and threatened to take away plaintiff's security clearance. Furthermore, Lt. Col. Simonini and others wanted plaintiff to sign off on a program he was no longer working on, and if he did not, this would cause him major problems. This gave plaintiff great concern about the motivations of Lt. Col. Simonini.
23. That in late 1996, plaintiff was prohibited from traveling to Israel. This order apparently came from security personnel in Lt. Col. John Simonini's office.
24. That in January, 1997, plaintiff participated in an interview with the Defense Investigative Services agents who claimed that interview was to upgrade plaintiff's security classification. In reality, plaintiff had been labeled a suspect in an espionage investigation.
25. That when Plaintiff was introduced to DIS special agents Yourchuck and Riley these defendants referred to themselves as "special agents" and produced badges with identifications. The agents also produced a business card which has a gold shield and identifies them as "special agents". These agents gave plaintiff every indicia that they were law enforcement officials who had the power to put him in jail. Plaintiff further presumed they were armed.
26. We now know that plaintiff and other Jews were targeted by the United States Government pursuant to the United States discriminatory counter-intelligence policy which specifically targeted Jews employed by United States Government agencies.
27. That during the aforementioned interview process, plaintiff was accused of passing classified information to the Israeli government. Plaintiff was accused of using his home illicitly to meet with foreign intelligence officers.
28. That plaintiff protested to defendants that he had not passed classified information to the Israelis, that he rarely dealt with classified information, and that, from time to time with the knowledge of his superiors, he had socially entertained foreign nationals at his home. At no time did anyone on behalf of TACOM or the United States Government ever complain of this activity, even though they were well aware of this personal entertaining.
29. That at the interview referred to in Paragraph (24) above, the DIS Agents told plaintiff that if he did not submit to a polygraph examination, it would be an admission of guilt and he would be fired. He was also told to resign at this meeting.
30. That in a follow-up meeting at the DIS office in Livonia, Michigan, plaintiff was coerced into signing a written notice indicating that he was being officially advised that he was under investigation for espionage. Again, plaintiff was told that if he did not sign the notice and submit to a polygraph examination it would be an admission of guilt and, at a minimum, he would lose his job and suffer further consequences.
31. That because of this coercion plaintiff had no choice but to participate with the polygraph examination. For his own protection plaintiff requested to tape record the examination. He was not allowed to do so.
32. That Defense Investigative Services polygraph examiner, Agent Albert D. Snyder, administered the polygraph test.
33. That the defendants insisted on a polygraph examination even though they are well aware that polygraph tests conducted to screen personnel on matters such as espionage have no validity. For quite some time now the United States Government has known that there is almost universal agreement that polygraph screening is completely invalid and that there is virtually no probability of "catching a spy" with the use of polygraph screening techniques. Furthermore, the government has known that persons can be taught to easily pass these types of polygraph tests. Notwithstanding this, the government proceeded with the polygraph examination.
34. That Agent Snyder indicated to plaintiff that he had "done other Jews before," including one Jew who married an Israeli. Agent Snyder claimed to have gotten all of these "Jews" to confess, even though in some cases it may have taken months. Agent Snyder claimed he would get plaintiff to confess, no matter how long it took. Agent Snyder called plaintiff a liar and said he could tell plaintiff was a spy just by looking into his eyes. Further, Agent Snyder claimed that all plaintiff had to do was confess and he would suffer only a "slap on the wrist." Agent Snyder also spoke about his involvement with the Jonathan Pollard case. Jonathan Pollard (also a Jew) was a navy intelligence officer who is serving a life sentence for his conviction of spying for Israel. In spite of these accusations, plaintiff nevertheless tried to cooperate with defendant Snyder. Afterwards, defendant Snyder asked plaintiff to write out a confession, which plaintiff refused.
35. That upon returning to work the day following his polygraph examination, plaintiff found his computer had been confiscated. Plaintiff was humiliated by a cadre of agents, presumably from the FBI and DIS. Plaintiff was stripped of his badge and sticker which allowed him access to his work site. He was suspended.
36. That according to FBI documents, defendant Snyder, based on the previously referred-to polygraph interview, conveyed to FBI Agent Sean Nicol information that was later reduced to writing in an affidavit and sworn to by FBI Agent Sean Nicol. The affidavit indicates in pertinent part as follows:
(1) Your Affiant is a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and has been so employed for one and a half years. Affiant is currently assigned to the Detroit Office of the FBI and his duties include investigating espionage, computer crimes, and counter intelligence, including violations of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 793, 794 and 798.
(2) In conjunction with a single scope background investigation conducted by the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), Livonia, Michigan, as part of a security clearance upgrade for David A. Tenenbaum, Mechanical Engineer, Combat Vehicle Team, tank Automotive Research and Development Engineering Center (TARDEC), US Army tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM), Warren, Michigan. Tenenbaum consented to a polygraph examination. On February 13, 1997, a polygraph examination was administered to Tenenbaum by Special Agent Albert D. Snyder, polygraph examiner, DIS.
(3) During an interview of Tenenbaum by Snyder, after the examination, Tenenbaum admitted to divulging non releasable classified information to every Israeli Liaison Officer (ILO) assigned to TACOM over the last ten years. Tenenbaum stated that he inadvertently provided his Israeli contacts, specifically the ILOs and Dr. Reuven Granot, Scientific Deputy Director, Israeli Ministry of Defense (MOD), classified information from the three Special Access Program (SAP) projects to which he had access. The non releasable classified information provided to the Israelis by Tenenbaum includes hydra codes from the Light Armor Systems and Survivability (LASS), ceramic armor data, Advanced Survivable Test Battery (ASTB) data, Heavy Survival Test Battery (HSTB) data, and patriot missile countermeasures data. Additionally, tenenbaum admitted providing the Israelis with unreleasable classified information regarding the Bradley tank and the HUMV.
Tenenbaum admitted that he has taken documents classified "For Official Use Only" from TACOM to his residence, that he has taken cover sheets labeled SECRET from TACOM to his residence, and that he has taken TACOM computers to his residence, and currently has a TACOM computer at his residence.
(4) Arthur Young, Chief of Physical Security, TACOM advised affiant that their records indicate the residence of Tenenbaum is 25168 Ridgecliff Dr., Southfield, Michigan.
(5) Based on the aforementioned facts, your affiant has reason to believe that there is classified government documents and/or information at the residence of David R. Tenenbaum, and that Tenenbaum has violated Title 18 United States Code sections 793, 794 and 798.
Almost the entire contents of this affidavit are false.
37. Plaintiff never consented to a polygraph examination. He was coerced/threatened into taking a polygraph examination.
38. Plaintiff did not admit to divulging non-releasable classified information to any Israeli liaison officer assigned to TACOM over the last ten years. Plaintiff merely informed defendant Snyder that he had worked with other engineers and scientists in various other countries and they shared information. They shared only non-classified information and shared this information after it was cleared by their respective superiors.
39. Plaintiff never indicated to defendant Snyder that he "inadvertently provided Israeli contacts, specifically, the Israeli Liaison Officers and Dr. Reuven Granot, Scientific Deputy Director, Israeli Ministry of Defense, classified information from three Special Access Programs projects to which he had access." In fact, plaintiff had very limited access to Special Access programs and had eventually withdrawn from working on these programs with his supervisor's permission. Certainly, plaintiff never provided classified information from Special Access Programs or classified information from any other program to anyone.
40. Plaintiff denied indicating that he had provided non-releasable classified information to the israelis, including HYDRA codes from the Light Armor Systems Survivability (L.A.S.S.). Plaintiff did not have access to HYDRA codes, and furthermore, L.A.S.S. was not a classified program. This was a project that the United States, Germany and Israel were working to jointly develop.
41. Plaintiff denied giving any classified Ceramic Armor Data to anyone. The Ceramic Armor Data referred to in the affidavit was to be part of the D650 Foreign Material Acquisition Program whose funds Mr. Tenenbaum competed for and "won" and were approved by TACOM. The purpose of this program was to buy specific ceramic armor from a company in Israel for testing purposes. Again, this was a totally unclassified program that had not even begun at the time of the DIS interview process or the polygraphs. Mr. Tenenbaum did not have access to classified information involving Ceramic Armor Data.
42. Plaintiff denied giving any advance survivable test battery data. To the best of plaintiff's knowledge, the type of program referred to in the affidavit does not even exist.
43. Plaintiff denied giving any information regarding patriot missile countermeasures data. Plaintiff has no knowledge of patriot missile countermeasures data.
44. Plaintiff did not indicate to defendant Snyder that he had given the Israelis non-releasable classified information regarding the Bradley Tank and the HUMV. There is no such thing as a Bradley Tank. This vehicle is referred to as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Plaintiff reiterates that he never provided any type of classified information to the Israelis.
45. Plaintiff denied indicating to defendant Snyder that he had taken documents classified "For Official Use Only" from TACOM to his residence. Plaintiff did not take classified information to his residence. Plaintiff did have a TACOM computer at his residence, but he possessed that computer with his superiors' permission and approval so that he could work out of his home. Plaintiff could not have taken any classified documents from TACOM since he did not have access to the safes that contained the classified documents.
46. That in light of the false information given by defendant Snyder to the FBI, FBI Agent Sean Nicol either knowingly swore out a false affidavit or had been purposely mislead by defendant Snyder. In any event, based on this affidavit, a United States Magistrate Judge authorized the search of plaintiff's residence at 25168 Ridge Cliff Drive, Southfield, Michigan.
47. That the search was conducted on February 15, 1997, which was the Sabbath, the most religious day of the week for Mr. Tenenbaum and his family. On this date, the FBI and possibly other agencies searched plaintiff's home for hours, humiliating plaintiff and his family.
48. On February 21, 1997, Defendant Lt. Col. John Simonini informed the U.S. Army Control Personnel Security Clearance Facility (CCF) at Fort Mead, Maryland that plaintiff had violated the security procedures, failed to report foreign contacts and that Plaintiff had admitted he probably passed on classified information to the Israelis. By this action, Defendant Lt. Col. John Simonini was requesting the revocation of plaintiff's security clearance.
49. That somehow, after the search, information had been leaked to the media indicating that classified information had been found in various locations of plaintiff's home, including his baby's bedroom, laundry room and under the basement steps. All of this information is false since no classified information was present in plaintiff's home or could have been seized from plaintiff's home.
50. That when the investigation became public, plaintiff was forced to go into hiding. He could not return home and was unable to see his family for days due to the media attention generated by the search. He was vilified in the media, reporters went through his mailbox, and he feared for his life and the lives of his wife and children because he had been labeled a spy and a traitor.
51. That agents from various government agencies began an intense 24-hour surveillance of plaintiff's home and neighborhood. The surveillance lasted for approximately 3-4 months. During this process agents threatened and harassed plaintiff's neighbors as well as plaintiff and his family.
52. That at one point during the surveillance, plaintiff was almost run over by a surveillance vehicle.
53. That the ongoing surveillance literally terrorized plaintiff's family. They could not understand why they were being followed even when they went on social outings with their children.
54. That as the criminal investigation continued, plaintiff and his family were forced to expend large sums of money in legal fees.
55. That plaintiff has been under the intense scrutiny of a federal criminal investigation for approximately one year. Late in 1997, plaintiff was informed that the FBI concluded he had not violated the espionage laws and that plaintiff is not a spy. However, before they could close out the case, the local U.S. Attorneys office was being asked by persons who were specifically unknown to plaintiff but who plaintiff believes are individuals who are behind the DIS investigation if not the DIS agents themselves, that plaintiff should be investigated for making false statements to DIS agents. Nothwithstanding this request, in February, 1998 the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to investigate the case, Michael Liebson, wrote to the FBI declining to present any evidence against Plaintiff to the grand jury on the basis that the FBI agents who were assigned to investigate this matter could not establish any evidence to support the allegation that plaintiff was a spy. Mr. Liebson further indicates in a letter to the FBI "there is no question that if evidence existed which would prove this case, then these agents would have found it."
56. That plaintiff was asked to return to work and he has been working since March, 1998.
57. That the individually named defendants, as well as various other unknown federal employees and agents, have conspired to commit the following civil wrongs which are referred to in the specific counts.
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW - CONSPIRACY
BIVENS CLAIM
58. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (57) as if set forth in full herein.
59. That these defendants, and others, unknown but employed by the federal government, had a duty to not conspire to violate the civil rights of plaintiff and his family.
60. That these defendants, and others unknown, in their various activities, as indicated in the facts of this complaint, have conspired to and/or on their own committed the various violations of both plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights as secured by the United States Constitution and prohibited by 42 U.S.C. ßß 1983 and 1985, in that they have caused the plaintiffs to be subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure of their home, based on false and misleading information that was presented to a United States Magistrate in the affidavit supporting search warrant, and violated the plaintiffs' due process rights by subjecting them to the sorts of oppressive, malicious and unreasonable conduct previously described.
61. That as a direct result of the above, plaintiffs sustained damages, including but not limited to, the following:
(a) Mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, fright, and shock;
(b) pain and suffering;
(c) legal expenses; and,
(d) damage to reputation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $10 million and exemplary/punitive damages in excess of $10 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ß1988.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW - SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION
BIVENS CLAIM
62. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (61) as if set forth in full herein.
63. These defendants had a duty to not violate the civil rights of plaintiff and his family.
64. That these defendants violated this duty by engaging in a series of intentional acts that led to the deprivation of plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights as secured by the United States Constitution and prohibited by 42 U.S.C. ßß 1983 and 1985; by causing the plaintiffs to be subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure of their home based on false and misleading information that was presented to a United States Magistrate; and by violating plaintiffs' due process rights by subjecting them to the oppressive, malicious and unreasonable conduct as previously described.
65. That as a direct result of the above, plaintiffs sustained damages, including but not limited to those previously enumerated in Count I, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $10 million and exemplary/punitive damages in excess of $10 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ß1988.
COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW - CONSPIRACY TO
VIOLATE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
66. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (65) as if set forth in full herein.
67. That these defendants, and others unknown, in their various activities, as indicated in the facts of this complaint have conspired to and/or on their own committed the various violations of both plaintiffs' civil rights as secured by the United States Constitution, First and Fifth Amendments and prohibited by 42 U.S.C. ßß 1983 and 1985, in that they have caused plaintiffs to be subjected to a criminal investigation that was initiated as a result of improper discriminatory animus directed against plaintiffs, violating plaintiffs' free speech and practice of religion by the oppressive, malicious and unreasonable conduct previously described.
68. That as a direct result of the above, plaintiffs sustained damages, including but not limited to, the following:
(a) Mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, fright and shock;
(b) pain and suffering;
(c) loss of employment and promotional opportunities, past, present and future;
(d) loss of economic benefits, including health, life, disability insurance, pension benefits, salary and wages;
(e) legal expense; and
(f) damage to reputation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $10 million and exemplary/punitive damages in excess of $10 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ß1988.
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF STATE LAW - CONSPIRACY VIOLATION
69. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (68) as if set forth in full herein.
70. That these defendants, explicitly or implicitly, in concert, aided or abetted each other in fabricating evidence against plaintiff.
71. That in concert, these defendants conspired to commit the following wrongs:
(a) Violating plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to be free from unreasonable arrests and be allowed due process of law;
(b) By slandering and libeling plaintiffs;
(d) By engaging in grossly negligent acts or omissions against plaintiff; and,
(e) false arrest and imprisonment.
72. That as a direct result of the above, plaintiff sustained damages, including but not limited to those previously enumerated in Count One, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $10 million and exemplary damages in excess of $10 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF STATE LAW - SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS
73. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (72) as if set forth in full herein.
74. That the individual defendants, Lt. Col. Simonini, Albert D. Snyder, Mark P. Yourchock and Robert M. Riley, had a duty and obligation to not violate plaintiff's state civil rights.
75. That these defendants violated plaintiff's state civil rights, including but not limited to, the following manners:
(a) By causing plaintiffs to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure;
(b) by causing plaintiff David Tenenbaum to be subjected to an unreasonable detention;
(c) by causing the false arrest and imprisonment of David Tenenbaum;
(d) by slandering both plaintiffs;
(e) by engaging in grossly negligent acts or omissions against both plaintiffs.
76. That as a direct result of the above, plaintiffs sustained damages, including but not limited to those previously enumerated in Count I, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $1 million and exemplary damages in excess of $1 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees.
COUNT VI
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
77. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (76) as if set forth in full herein.
78. That as a result of plaintiff being under surveillance, he was almost run over by unknown federal agents.
79. That plaintiff had to leap to safety to avoid serious injury or death.
80. That since the surveillance was caused by the illegal conduct of the defendants, and possibly others who are unknown, they are, along with the agent driving the vehicle, responsible for the damages sustained by plaintiff caused by this attempted hit and run.
81. That although plaintiff did not suffer serious physical injury, he did suffer tremendous fright and shock and distress as a result of this incident.
82. That accordingly, plaintiffs demand recovery of all damages compensable under Michigan and federal law for this incident.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $1 million and exemplary damages in excess of $1 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees.
COUNT VII
FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT
83. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (82) as if set forth in full herein.
84. That these defendants had a duty to not falsely arrest and/or falsely imprison plaintiff David Tenenbaum. These defendants violated this duty by engaging in conduct enumerated in the facts of this complaint.
85. That during the aforementioned investigation plaintiff was illegally detained during interview and polygraph processes. While agents searched plaintiff's office and home, plaintiff David Tenenbaum subjectively felt that he was not free to leave and, therefore, felt imprisoned by that conduct.
86. That the defendants are liable to plaintiff for false arrest and imprisonment.
87. That plaintiff has, as a direct and proximate cause of the above, suffered damages previously enumerated in Count I, and incorporated herein.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $1 million and exemplary damages in excess of $1 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees.
COUNT VIII
LIBEL AND SLANDER
88. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (87) as if set forth in full herein.
89. That these defendants owed plaintiffs the duty to not disseminate false and libelous information about plaintiffs, and that some of these defendants, and others unknown, have intentionally spread information to third parties suggesting that plaintiff David Tenenbaum is a spy for the government of Israel.
90. That this information is false and libelous and accordingly, plaintiff David Tenenbaum seeks damages compensable under Michigan law for such conduct, including recovery for the damage to plaintiff David Tenenbaum's reputation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $1 million and exemplary damages in excess of $1 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees.
COUNT IX
UNITED STATES
91. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (89) as if set forth in full herein.
92. That since the United States Government employs these defendants, and others who are unknown to plaintiffs, the United States Government is therefore responsible for the conduct of these individuals pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
93. That the United States Government is further liable to the plaintiffs because of its implementation of the counter-intelligence policy in which Jews are targeted for criminal investigation when there is no rational basis to single out Jews because of their religion.
94. That this Naziesque policy has resulted in the infliction of tremendous damage to the plaintiffs and their families, and therefore, plaintiffs seek all damages compensable under Michigan and federal law, including the damages that are enumerated in Count I, which are incorporated by reference.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the United States Government in an amount in excess of $10 million in compensatory damages and in an amount in excess of $10 million in punitive damages, together with costs, interest and attorney fees.
COUNT X
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
95. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (94) as if set forth in full herein.
96. That defendants engaged in a spy hunt which was conducted in a manner that was grossly negligent, marred by incompetent behavior, reckless and wanton, and in total disregard of the probability of serious injury to plaintiff and his family.
97. That these defendants, by their actions and omissions, were engaging in conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result to plaintiff, and are therefore libel to plaintiff for gross negligence, the particulars of gross negligence include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) By providing false information regarding the underlying matter to others, leading to the charge and/or suspension of plaintiff.
(b) by not reasonably investigating the underlying matter;
(c) by engaging in various other types of conduct intended to further harm plaintiff's emotional state, including disseminating false and misleading information about plaintiff's character and conduct.
98. That as a proximate result of the gross negligence of these defendants, plaintiff suffered the damages previously enumerated in Count I of this complaint, and incorporated by reference.
99. That due to the facts that have been pled and in avoidance of governmental immunity, there is no immunity available to the defendants.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in excess of $1 million and exemplary damages in excess of $1 million, together with costs, interest and attorney fees.
COUNT XI
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
100. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs (1) through (99) as if set forth in full herein.
101. That plaintiff Madeline Gail Tenenbaum, at all times relevant to this complaint, was the wife of plaintiff David Tenenbaum.
102. That as a direct result of the conduct of the defendants, plaintiff Madeline Gail Tenenbaum has sustained the following damages:
(a) The reasonable expenses of necessary medical care, treatment and services rendered to her husband;
(b) the reasonable value of the services of her husband of which she has been deprived;
(c) the reasonable value of the society, companionship and sexual relationship with her husband of which she has been deprived.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a Judgment against the defendants in compensatory and exemplary damages for an amount deemed reasonable by the trier of fact.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, DAVID AARON TENENBAUM and MADELINE GAIL TENENBAUM, by their attorneys, and demand a trial by jury in the above matter.
_________________________ _________________________
Juan A. Mateo (P-33156) George LaPlata (P-16416)
370 E. Maple
_________________________ Birmingham, MI 48009
Shereen L. Silver (P-40640) (248) 644-8910
_________________________
James C. Howarth (P-15179)
645 Griswold, Suite 2000
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 962-3500
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DATED: April 29, 1999