dru 2 motion for reinstatement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Deanne Rose Upson )

Plaintiff )

v. )

The District of Columbia, ) Case No. 10-CV-360

The Commonwealth of Virginia, )

The State of Maryland, et al., )

Defendants )

Motion for Reinstatement

COMES NOW your Plaintiff, Deanne Rose Upson (hereafter "Mother") and respectfully

requests this Honorable Court grant her Motion for Reinstatement of this Case and respectfully

states the following.

1. This Case may have been improperly dismissed previously due to the Rooker-Feldman

Collateral Attack Doctrine (March 1, 2010 Ruling and Order attached) and other reasons.

2. The biological father, William Earl Wallace III, of Mother's Child filed his own Federal

case' concerning the very same matters at dispute, filing his case against Montgomery

County, Maryland, and members of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Police. His case

was filed in Federal District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, and was presided over by

Judge Deborah Chasanow and went to a jury trial and the jury awarded Mother's Child

$2.5 million for less than one day's separation from William Earl Wallace III under the

faulty premise that William Earl Wallace III had a valid child custody order. The jury

awarded Mr. Wallace $1.

3. Therefore, Mother's Federal Case herein was dismissed due to ongoing state proceedings,

specifically with Judge Kennedy mentioning the Rooker-Feldman Collateral Attack

Doctrine. However, the biological father's case was not dismissed by Judge Chasenow

1 Case # 8:08-cv-00251-DKC Wallace v. Poulos et al before Judge Deborah K. Chasanow in Federal District Court in

Greenbelt, Maryland

of 5

in the other Federal Court; despite the exact same circumstances of ongoing state

proceedings.

4. Therefore, Mother requests her Case be Reinstated through this Motion due to this

conflict between the two different Federal Courts handling of these two cases. If the

biological father's Federal case was allowed to proceed by Judge Chasenow, Mother's

Case should have not been dismissed by Judge Kennedy and should be reinstated.

5. Moreover, the Ruling in this Case also mentions ongoing state cases. Mother appealed

those state cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court (Case 10-11020) and

the Committee decided not to Review Mother's case. Therefore, now all the prior

pending cases Judge Kennedy considered in Ruling on March 1, 2010 are all now final;

despite that the DC Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court never addressed the

crux of the issue regarding Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

(UCCJEA) jurisdiction between the courts of DC, VA, and MD and improper forum

shopping in these matters concerning Mother's minor Child, GRU.

6. Because all the prior cases are now final, Mother has filed a brand new child support,

child custody, and protection order case in DC Superior Court (DC SC Case 2011-DRB-

1797) and that case is "open" and "pending."

7. The Ruling in this Case mentions the District of Columbia as a Defendant and uses that

fact to also dismiss the case stating this is a matter within the District of Columbia.

However, the crux of the issues of this Case concerns the four states of District of

Columbia, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, and State of Florida (Florida

never prosecuted Wallace's false residency and domicile claims or his fraudulent tax and

federal voting in Florida that he did to attempt to justify his forum shopping in VA and

MD). Moreover, as the biological father sought and obtained relief against the State of

Maryland on the very same issues in dispute during the pendency of state proceedings,

clearly this Court should acknowledge that more than just the District of Columbia is

involved in this suit and Federal issues are the crux of the issues in this Case.

8. Mother also states that her Complaint involves Federal Civil Rights Violations (42 USC

1983) clearly in the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Simply because the complaint

partially includes child custody issues and child support issues, does not preclude it from

Federal jurisdiction over Civil Rights and other Federal violations.

of 5

9. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper in the District

of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). This is the jurisdictional district in which the

Plaintiffs resides and/or previously resided, including during the times the Plaintiff's

causes of action arose, and/or the jurisdictional district in which the injuries suffered by

Plaintiff were sustained, and in which all the events giving rise to the Plaintiff claims

occurred.

10. Mother also makes Complaint against these Defendants for Violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Constitution of the United States of

America, Tortious Interference with Custodial Rights, Fraud, Breach of Duty of Good

Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Lawful Duty (Negligence), Breach of Written, Oral and

Implied Contract; Common Law Conspiracy; Racketeering; and Extortion. These are

matters of Federal Jurisdiction.

11. Mother will seek to Amend her Complaint upon Reinstatement to seek relief in the form

of an order requiring the immediate return of the Plaintiffs' minor Child to the full sole

legal and physical custody of the Plaintiff and other relief by way of back and front lost

income, back and front medical and mental health expenses, actual, compensatory and

punitive damages, and all legal fees and costs. Because the jury awarded Mother's Child

$2.5million for less than one day separation from the biological father — despite that the

custody order was and is still in dispute on Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) grounds as lacking UCCJEA jurisdiction — Mother will

Amend her Complaint to seek $2.5million per day against each defendant from the time

each Defendant became involved in these matters, seeking award of $2.5million per day

against each, and treble damages against each state and Judges Pamela Young-Diaz,

Nolan Dawkins, Donald Haddock, and Richard Jamborsky with treble damages against

each of $7.5million per day since the initial date of each Judge's involvement in these

matters.

12. This Child has been kidnapped and concealed since December 22, 2006 — nearly 6 years

ago and is now 8 years old.

13. The initial commencement of proceedings in DC Superior Court for child support and

child custody was on August 16, 2004 when this Child was just over 2 months old. As of

of 5

the date of this Motion for Reinstatement, that puts the damage request at $730 Billion

approximately against the District of Columbia, for example.

14. As Child's next best friend and proper sole legal custodian, Mother seeks the same

damages on behalf of her Daughter against all Defendants as stated above.

15. In the further interests of the ends of justice, Mother prays this Court consider in ruling

on this Motion for Reinstatement that this Child is the result of internet sexual predation

and rape by the biological father who is a $50 million net worth well-connected

Washington DC litigation lawyer who evidence indicates bribed DC, VA, and MD judges

and officials to achieve this now coming 6 year kidnapping and concealment through

improper forum shopping back and forth across the Potomac River through bribing

judges to hear cases with promises of political favors including assistance with

recommendations for higher court appointment. Evidence was presented to the state

courts and officials of the biological father's pattern and practice of forum shopping and

fraud upon the courts and criminal activity, but that evidence was completely ignored

resulting in a striking lack of empathy for this Mother and Child who are victims of his

internet sexual predation and rape, clearly extreme animosity, and harmed by Mother's

refusal to be coerced into aborting this Child by William Earl Wallace III.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff in the above-captioned cause of action and hereby demand trial

by jury in each of the foregoing causes so triable should this Ho

for Reinstatement.

le Court grant this Motion

Respectfully submitted this 16 th day of August, 2012.

DEANNE ROSE UPSON individually and as next friend of G' U, minor Child.

By:

Deanne Rose Upson (Pro Se) PO Box 75281 Washington, DC 20013 7653 Anway Drive Battle Creek, MI 49014 P: 202-370-7756 [email protected]

of 5


Deanne Rose Upson )

Plaintiff )

v. )

The District of Columbia, ) Case No. 10-CV360

The Commonwealth of Virginia, )

The State of Maryland, et al., )

Defendants )

Motion for Reinstatement

For good and sufficient cause stated in Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement, is is hereby

ORDERED the Complaint is REINSTATED.

Date: United States District Judge

of 5

Deanne Rose Upson,

FOR STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILD

MAR 0 5 2010 Clerk, U.S. District

Bankruptcy Courts Plaintiff,

v .

The District of Columbia et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.

it 0360

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Deanne Rose Upson has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a pro

se complaint, and an emergency motion seeking "Immediate Federal Action to End 3+ Year

Kidnapping and Concealment of Child from Mother." The in forma pauperis application will be

granted and the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The lengthy complaint, which results from plaintiff's dissatisfaction with other courts'

actions in a child custody dispute between the plaintiff and her child's father, purports to sue the

District of Columbia, three states, and numerous judges and persons involved in state agencies

relating to child protective services. See Compl. at 1-2. The father is not identified as a

defendant in this action. The plaintiff seeks an order from this Court that reunites her with her

daughter, that clarifies the intent of the Constitution with respect to the controversy, that

identifies a state jurisdiction to resolve the custody dispute, that protects her and her child from

the father, that provides other injunctive relief, and that awards her $1100 per day from the time

the father gained custody of the child. See id. at 61-65; Emergency Mot. at 20. The pro se

complaint includes references to a custody order issued by an unidentified court of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, see Compl. at 4, a custody case identified as No. 2004-PCS-1375 in

ihe Superior Court for the District of Columbia, id, at 6, 24, and an appeal that is currently

pending in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, id. at 7. The complaint also refers to other

courts involved in matters relating to her daughter: City of Alexandria Juvenile and Domestic

Relations Court, City of Alexandria Circuit Court, Montgomery County Circuit Court. Id. at 25.

Essentially, it appears that the plaintiff asks this Court to vacate certain state court orders and to

enforce others.

A federal district court is a court of expressly limited jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction in

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §

1331. The allegations in the complaint, however, do not appear to arise under federal law, but

instead under state domestic relations law and perhaps common law torts of kidnapping or false

imprisonment. To the extent that the plaintiff thinks a federal court has jurisdiction to supervise

state courts or the conduct of state judges, she is mistaken. In any case, the complaint does not

establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Furthermore, to the extent that

the plaintiff asks this Court to entertain a case that is "inextricably intertwined with the questions

ruled upon by a state court[,] in other words, cases functionally equivalent to an appeal from a

state court[,]" this Court would be prohibited from doing so by the so-called Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. Nader v. The Democratic National Comm., 555 F. Supp. 2d 137, 153 (D.D.C. 2008)

(quoting Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A federal district court also has jurisdiction over civil actions in matters where the

controversy is between citizens of different states and exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Here, however, the complaint identifies the plaintiff as a resident of the District of Columbia, and

2

identifies the District of Columbia as one of several defendants. Therefore, there appears to be

no diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a).

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: 34424ve

tes District Judge Unit


FILED MAR 0 5 2010

Clerk, U.S. District arw Bankruptcy Courts

Deanne Rose Upson,

Plaintiff,

v .

The District of Columbia et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.

0 360

DISMISSAL ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and it

is further

ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is a final

appealable order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

Date: $/.26/e)

Ind

dru 2 motion for reinstatement

Documents