CASE N0: 98-20868
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUITExplaination of the Case and Directions for Joinder You may review the entire case at PFFCJ.COM. The Original Petition (Case #CA-981520) was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The district court dismissed the case after I filed a Motion for Default against two Family Court Services workers failed to answer the petition (4 million dollars). The judge was then faced with having to make a decision. I argued slavery the other side argued personal-jurisdiction. The said that since they were in California and I was in Texas I could not sue them. I was prepared for this.
I suspect that the judge did not want to make a ruling on the issue of slavery; but to pass it on to a higher court to decide. He took it upon himself to rule on an issue that was not argued by either party. He ruled that the court had a mandate to determine if the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction. He ruled that:
"The Congress of the United States has not granted the courts the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case."
In other words, the Congress of the United States has not granted the courts the subject-matter jurisdiction to determine if this is or is not a new form of slavery.
That is what is on appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
We have to prove that this is a National Issue and that the incidents of slavery occur in every state.
The appeals case number is Case # 98-20868.
At the 5th Circuit the other side continued to argue personal-jurisdiction. I argued slavery. I have discovered that the other side has no other option but to argue the personal-jurisdiction issue at the appeals level or they lose the right to argue it at the lower court level if it goes back to the lower court for trial.
Therefore, I file a Motion to Strike all of the oppositions briefs. A single judge of the 5th denied the motion, eventhough, cases in the 5th and 9th Circuits in 1998 ruled that the courts must first establish subject-matter jurisdiction prior to any ruling on personal-jurisdiction. I filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court (Case # 98-1727).
The US Supreme Court will not hear on this administrative procedure and will send it back to the 5th Circuit for an en banc review. That is why the joinders are being filed in the 5th. The writ to the US Supreme Court serves two tactical purposes:
To put them on notice that a slavery lawsuit is coming to them in its full form.
To put the 5th Circuit on notice that I will appeal to the US Supreme Court any ruling that I do not agree with.
This case has been three (3) years in the making and considerable time and effort was spent in researching the issues. I reviewed over 600 cases in the preparation of this case. I reviewed 8 RICO (Racketeering) case and 10 class actions cases. Originally, I considered each of these as the way to file in the Federal Court.
I came to the conclusion that we cannot win by filing in either of these categories. Federal RICO is almost impossible to win. The required evidence to prove Racketeering can only be done with the resources of agencies like the FBI and the Department of Justice. Class action is even harder. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 governs class actions brought in federal court. The right of a litigant to employ FRCP 23 is a procedural right only and therein lies a major problem. FRCP 23 states:"One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."
At what point are the numbers so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable? In review of many civil rights class actions the number seems to be between 300-1000 members.
Remember this statement for later in this document!
FRCP 23 does not permit a plaintiff, who alleges that he represents the class, to sue defendants against who he himself has no claim. The courts then use the "divorce excuse" to defeat the claim. It's your divorce case and not a class action. The other requirements such as shear numbers of people and advertising costs associated with a class action prohibit it's practical use in our movement. We can not even agree on one issue, much less on a class action lawsuit. Therefore, I sought to file a lawsuit and an issue that would encompass all of us and all of the issues we have.
The Issue: A New Form of Slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment with our divorce cases as evidence of the slavery and of the tools of the slavers.
I discovered a "BACK DOOR" to the class action lawsuit that will overcome all of the prerequisites to a class action. By filing in federal court a lawsuit that encompasses all of our concerns under the single issue of slavery with my case as evidence of the enslavement; I have opened the door for joinders of others as FULL PLAINTIFFS. When the "numbers of joinders are so numerous that it becomes a BURDON on the court and too numerous to be practical the case will be restructured as a class action.
Voluntary joinders are almost always manditory as long as a single question of law is present in each joinder. FRCP 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties states:"All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief, jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of these persons will arise in the action."
Thus the questions of law:
New Form of Slavery
Fraud
Perjury
False Allegations
Parental Alienation
Supervised Visitation
These are common in all of your cases. Is that not true? At least one is common. And that is all we need.
The joinders are already becoming so numerous the court itself will probally make a move to make it a class action. The tactic is to bombard them with joinders.
Voluntary joinders are far more effective than a class action. In joining the case as a plaintiff we are asking that you be allowed to file a brief, joinder defendants, as for monetary relief, and have all the privileges of the original plaintiffs. In a class action, I would represent you and you would not be able to present your case.
To put more pressure on the court to act to protect our "due process rights" I have filed a motion under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 2 to suspend all of the rules. FRAP 2 states:"In the interest of expediting decision, or for other good cause shown, a court of appeals may, except as otherwise provided in Rule 26(b), suspend the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a particular case on application of a party or on its own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with its direction."
I would suspect that I may be one of very few that have put the court into the position of having to rule on a motion to suspend "all of the rules" and demanded a fair trial...Let the matters be heard! This puts the otherside on the defensive in that if the rules are suspended they cannot have the case thrown out on technical issues. Of course, we also cannot use the rules either. We will use our combined strength and the fact that we are right to win.
There is no case law that the other side can use to counter the fact that we are claiming that this is a NEW FORM OF SLAVERY! Father's, mother's, and grand parent's: We have the advantage if we unite behind the enslavement of our children.
You can join my case. I will file a Motion of Joinder on your behalf at no cost to you with the exception of one (1) notorized copy of your affidivat in support of joinder.
At the proper time, I will restructure the case to a class action; if the joinders are left "intact". In a class action joinder under FRCP 20 "relating to permissive joinder, in that such Rule does not apply to members of the class in an action brought pursuant to FRCP 23" When a class action is filed the joinders are nullified (normally), but I have requested suspension of this rule.
It is time to stand up and commit yourself. Help me to get a ruling that the "children of divorce" are being made slaves and we will take down the family court system in all states with a single ruling. If they cannot use perjury, fraud or false allegations because it is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment they will have "no conflict" and no money. You will not get this chance. WARNINGBEWARE OF ATTORNEY'S ON THE INTERNET ATTEMPTING TO SCARE YOU AWAY. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCOVERED SOME. BEWARE OF THE QUASI-PARENTS RIGHTS GROUPS WHO FEED ON OUR MISERY AND MAKE THEIR LIVING SELLING LEGAL ADVISE TO US. THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO STOP WHAT IS GOING ON. IF IT ENDS, SO DOES THEIR INCOME. YOU KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE. PARENTS FOR FAMILY COURT JUSTICE IS MAKING A LIST OF THESE PEOPLE AND WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.
Join me. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Anyone else doing that for you? Those who know me also know I made this promise three (3) years ago. The reality is here. It is time to "WALK THE WALK"! NOTICEOn 6-14-99 the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were served with a motion to join them to the case on the behalf of the United States and all parents in this lawsuit. They are required to file an objection within 30 days of service. They have not filed an objection. The Department of Justice has assigned the case to Albert N. Moskowitz, Section Chief, Criminal Section, Civil Rights Division. He is the one person who can request the FBI to investigate and file criminal charges based upon that investigation. I know of at least one FBI field office who is involved in the case (Sherman, Texas) and maybe others. I have no idea what they may or may not do; but your joinder and your case info will go directly to him and the Director of the FBI.
Bob Hedrick
Managing Director
Parents For Family Court Justice