Plaintiffs Slaves et al” Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II collective
(Slave Negro Plaintiffs) Further appearances Affirm, State and fully declare
all allegation, contention, disputes, disputation, argument, conflict and disharmony,
fully furtherance’s “Introduction before the “Court Justice “, United States
District Judge,
“Defendant City of Houston, Defendant Texas and Defendant Chief of
Houston Texas “Police Department” “Deidra Norris Sullivan “Attorney in Charge”
seeks statute of limitation on Fraud making “claims” that 5-years old are all
outside the applicable Statutes of limitations, and therefore barred as a
matter of law, with provisions of the
11th Amendment protection, for defendant (Texas), as the question
before the “Court” see Hamilton v. United States of America et al “Chief
Defendant” et al $:2016-CV-01354 filed “May 11th 2016
Defendant (USA) having been proven before Justice, to stand
trial for among other things engaging in Fraud, and Non-Disclosure of the 13th
and 14th amendment being fraud in its representation on its face claiming
Freedom from
“Slavery Servitude” of defendant (USA) on behalf of the Pro Se Plaintiff
here and other similarly the same, the plaintiffs having been fully exercising
“reasonable diligence”
*see Civil Right Attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, In Re
African-American Slave Descendants Litigation. appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al, 471 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.
2006)
As Judicial Fraud, committed to keep Slavery Servitude” still
hidden and ongoing being a party to a fraudulent Judicial Fraud (RICO) acts and
actions to cheat (Nigger/Negro) Slaves Plaintiff(s) by
Defendant CHARLES R. NORGLE , District Judge of defendant “United
States of America et al” muddy up said statue of a claim limitation to still be
fraudulent in 2011
*see Hamilton v. United States of America et al” 1:2010-CV-00808,
as this (Defendant) Federal District Court Presiding Judge: Ron Clark and (Defendant)
Referring Judge: Keith F. Giblin for defendant (USA) “committed to the same
“Judicial RICO Fraud” surrounding keeping some
“44.5” Million Niggers/Negro Plaintiffs and this particular pro se
Nigger/Negro Plaintiff still on or about December 15, 2010 – February 7th 2013
continual Slaves of USA,
Notwithstanding exactly when “legally” do the statute of
limitation of the (Defendant) Federal District Court Presiding Judge: Ron Clark
and (Defendant) Referring Judge: Keith F. Giblin for defendant (USA) ends in
kidnapping and abduction of Pro Se Slave Nigger/Negro Plaintiff “Minor
children”, and further direct fraudulent refusal of“Whites Only” Slave Regime”
to even allow said
Pro Se Slave Nigger/Negro Plaintiff having the possession, custody
and control of his Dead Wife, for proper burial in a grave other than the
Fraudulent continual (RICO) morbid acts in hiding the dead under a assume name
other than the Pro Se Plaintiff to further effect a “White Only Bury ritual of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints, which now bring the real fraud
schemes issue of what kind of required time frame being produce in return of
the dead family statute of limitation while having a possible (RICO) defendant
collective limitation dead line set in a future time frame to even exist in
declaring the
“Pro Se Plaintiff Nigger/Negro Slave herein officially “Dead”, by
the defendant (USA) State of Utah…in 1994 to obtain the “Minor Children” in
this fraud scheme of things?
When “Nigger/Negro Pro Se Plaintiff herein fully “Sucking on air
Alive” before the Honorable Court, as of this undersigned date…? But now several attempt of wrongful death of ‘pro
se’ Plaintiff to the point even appearing shield by “Bob Casey Federal Klansmen
Strong hold Courthouse of defendant “United States of America defendant
Republican GOP Judicial Justices acting under color of law…?
As “White Supremacy Defendant Federal District Court Presiding
Judge: Ron Clark and Defendant Referring Judge: Keith F. Giblin for defendant
(USA) finding Pro Se Plaintiff not entitled to have his dead wife body, or
access to his (MIA) Nigger/Negro children as this is
“Meritless” now before a Texas KKK Red Neck Whites Only District
Court of Law while (Texas) in 2011 fully engaging in posing “Black Codes Laws”,
to keep a “Nigger” from civil prosecution of a White Man”, in Civil court for
among other things “Fraud” as described *see Hamilton v. Arthur et al,
4:2010-V-02709, as
“White Supremacy Federal District Court the Defendant Referring
Judge: Nancy K. Johnson Presiding Judge: Gray H. Miller having committed to the
same (RICO) Judicial Fraud, to cover up the actions of defendant “Harry C.
Arthur Attorney at Law, herein which the actual Fraud being discovery by
defendant (Houston Police) did not occurred till 2016 as evidence filed with
the Federal Clerk of Court showing said Houston Texas Police, seizure of Legal
files, and finally admitted their existence, and still being a party of some
2016 (December) criminal investigation, well within the statute of Limitation
on such fraud, since (December) 2016 have not even arrived, as the Fraud remain
in the abduction/obstruction and actual Defendant “Police” being a party to
theft of among other things said all legal files of defendant (Harry C Arthur
Attorney at Law) being property of Pro Se Plaintiff herein fully port porting
to showing the actual monetary (RICO) racket of among others things in this
grand conspire scheme, the Defendant “Harry C. Arthur” Esq. ability to have the
(RICO) enjoying obstruction of Justice since 2011 in securing by,“White Only
Police” of Houston Texas “Homicide Division” to secure from pro se Plaintiff
herein never to be able to produce even the Federal District Courts” and
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said evidence in the past the
“physical Legal files evidence” and declare them entomb forever as “Fraudulent
terrorizing legal files evidenced” in a Police evidence locker room, since
2011…?
Away from Justice, of the court and the rightful owner
Pro Se Plaintiff (Hamilton) herein but the statute of limitation
has passed on over claim 5 years in this Government having stolen said legal
files evidence being still secured and declare active terrorizing evidence in
an ongoing 2016 (December) Police Investigation since 2010…?
Which White World before the Judicial Branch of Government
producing in the (RICO) endeavor understanding being forced fed down
Nigger/Negro Pro Se Plaintiff (Hamilton) to “imposed slooow
understanding” by “White Man Only World”, Judicial Government as this
particular nigger needs not apply before any defendant USDA Corrupted
Government Court for complaint against the ever so smart special pure white
skin god like specie of this entire Earth.
Defendant, U.S. District Judge Melinda Sue (Furche) Harmon Knowing
before the court Appeals of Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, et al. IN
RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al.
Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266, 05-3305., Decided: December 13, 2006, and
decided acting under color of law conceal enslavement of the “plaintiffs”
despite factual evidence, further, knowing “Plaintiffs” seeking damages as filed
before the court below with the “Entire Bob Casey U.S. Justice “Pool of RICO Sludge
Judges” fully knowing the docket(s) and
the “Nature of Slavery” as “plaintiffs” seeking past and “Present “Emancipation
of “Sovereignty Birth Rights and Emancipation of Negro Plaintiff Slaves
Monetary Taxes Proclamation”, being scuttled against government very own
records “Slavery” ending in defendant 2013, being a direct cause of continue
action as described
Chief Financial
Officer Civil Right Attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, 44.5 Million plus DNA
2016 (July) Slaves Negros Slave Plaintiffs et al “Monetary Best legal Interest”
U.S. Docket No. 4:16-CV-01354, 4:2016-CV-00964, 4:16-CV-01774, 4:2016-CV-00994
In The United
States District Court
For The Southern
District of Texa
Houston Division
Slave Negro Louis
Charles Hamilton II USN SS # 2712
Pro Se
Plaintiff
“Plaintiffs
Slaves et
al” U.S.
Docket No. 4:16-CV-01354
Further
appearances 4:2016-CV-00964
“PLANTIFFS” 4:16-CV-01774
Vs. 4:2016-CV-00994
“Emancipation Negro Taxes Proclamation”
United States of
America et al
United States of
America Supreme Court et al
United States of
America Congress et al
Federal Reserve
Bank et al
Joe Czyzyk,
Chairman, CEO, Board of Directors et a
U.S. Vets
United States Veterans Initiative et al
State Of Texas,
Harris County Texas, City of Houston Texas,
Annise Parker,
Chief of Houston Police Department,
Law Office
of Harry C Arthur, Marine Building LLC, AA Quick Bond,
Mike
Cox's Bail SVC, Lacey's Deli, Jonathan A Gluckman,
Wayne Heller, The
Ring Investigations Mark Thering,
The Ring
Investigations Kandy Villarreal, Mark Thering,
Darrel Jordon,
Daniel Perez-Garcia, Marquerite Hudig,
Carl D Haggard,
F.M. Poppy Northcut,
Sandra Martinez
and Allen J Guidry
“Slave Negro
PLAINTIFF'S August 20th 1619 – 2099 Emancipation Negro Taxes Proclamation”
Respectfully
Appearance Slave Negro (Pro Se Plaintiff) Louis Charles Hamilton II herein
(USN) #2712 before “Honorable Court Justice” “United States Magistrate Judge
Frances H Stacy” presiding herein U.S. Docket No 4:2016-CV-01354 United States
Southern District of Texas Federal Courthouse and U.S.
Honorable Court
Justice Kenneth Michael Hoyt, and To the Honorable Court Justice Melinda Harmon
et al
To: Civil Right
Attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann having after herein received Orders of
appearance’s vis “Subpoena” as guest required for
Initial Pretrial
and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial
Conference set for 10/18/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 704 before Magistrate
Judge Frances H Stacy regarding Plaintiff(s) motions, including
$500,000.00
DEADRIA FARMER-PAELLMANN Legal fees and C/o “Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles
Hamilton, II (USN) #2712 et al to further pursed, in light of the refusal of
all parties to concede admit, acknowledge, accept, allow, grant, recognize,
own, confess; agree
As collectively
We Negro African American Still Slaves Race, suing on behalf of all other
African American (Negroes) Americans in and for the United States of America
being precisely
44.5 Plus
Millions still in plight and sought of seeking such as so required now present
before ”Justice” Freedom as required by World Court Justices of The
Hague,
Collectively 44.5
“Millions” plus (PLANTIFFS) and “Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles
Hamilton, II (USN) #2712 and
Civil Right
Attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, moves for Emancipation of a Negro Race taxes
from Federal Reserve Bank et al and Paid to the order of Civil Right Attorney
Deadria Farmer-Paellmann
Chief Financial
Officer over 44.5 Million plus Slaves Negros Here in Collectively being Slave
Plaintiffs et al “Monetary best legal Interest”
And set forth
effectively immediately, as this understanding is settle in “Law and Equity”,
furtherance’s Plaintiff(s) prepare for Trial of this matter, for past
compensations and also, no needs for other obstruction of justice, of the Future
prosperity of the continual
Slaves Negro Race
herein future date (July) 2016 – 2099 being held by said defendant(s)
collective destructive, gross, hostile, in direct human rights violation,
thievery, fraudulent corrupted RICO manner of a murderous nature direct at
“Slaves”
being continual suffrage as such while taxes being abuse and being used as a
party of Plaintiffs own very doing in the self-destruction, by Defendant(s)
collectively, and no longer can PLANTIFFS further go for that”.
As so indicated
and sworn to before Notary Emancipation Proclamation”, with attached copy of
“Plaintiffs” attached “Unconditional and Immediate Surrender” of Defendant
United States of America et al
Pro Se Slave
Louis Charles Hamilton II and Civil Right Attorney Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann appearances collectively on Behalf of all DNA
“August 20th 1619 – 2016 (December) current
44.5 plus
Millions Slaves legal cause of Civil Rights action appearing before “Justice”
set time 10/18/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 704 before Magistrate Judge
Frances H Stacy
The United States
District Court For The Southern District of Texas Houston Division Honorable
Court Justice Building 515 “Rusk Avenue Houston Texas 77002
Plaintiffs Negro
Slaves 44.5 Million plus requesting all other relief being fair, fully before
the court in “Law and equity” and expedited hearing so heard before Justice
Civil Right Attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann appearances being
Subpoena Duces
Tecum as (Plaintiffs) et al legal Civil Rights Attorney Co-Counsel as descried
in all documentations before the Honorable Court
Subscribed before
a Public Notary, On this __ Day of ____________ 2016
__________________________________
Public Notary
____________________________________
Pro Se Slave
Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN),
2724 61st street
Ste. I-B
Galveston, Texas.
77551
bluefinlch2@gmail.com
832-894-9465
832-344-7134
louishamilton2015@gmail.com
Cc: Civil Right
Attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann “Certified Mail”
Plaintiffs
Slaves et al” collective Further appearances Affirm, State and fully declare
all allegation, contention, disputes, disputation, argument, conflict and
disharmony, fully furtherance’s
Further
appearances cause of action for such Fraud on the court hereby as follows: Notice
of “Motion to Strike” Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al. And Timothy Hurdle, et al. Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266, 05-3305. Decided:
December 13, 2006
"Negro
Slaves “PLANTIFFS” collective official Notice of Motion to Strike Defendant(s)
United States of America et al all “Entire Reply(s) collectively in the matter
as described:
United
States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
IN
RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al.
Nos. 05-3265,
05-3266, 05-3305., Decided: December 13, 2006
Before
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and MANION, Circuit Judges. Bruce I. Afran
(argued), Carl J. Mayer, Princeton, NJ, Roger S. Wareham (argued), Wareham Law
Office, Brooklyn, NY, Benjamin O. Nwoye, Nwoye & Associates, Chicago, IL,
Barbara K. Ratliff (argued), Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Andrew
R. McGaan,
Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, Owen C.
Pell (argued), White & Case, New York, NY, Andrew L. Sandler, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp, Washington, DC, Alan S. Madans (argued),
Rothschild, Barry & Myers, Chicago, IL, Thomas F. Gardner, Jones Day,
Chicago, IL, Heidi K. Hubbard, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC,
Christina M. Tchen, Ryan J. Rohlfsen, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom Llp, Chicago, IL, James A.
Fletcher, Fletcher & Sippel, Chicago, IL, Michael T. Novak, Homewood, IL,
Debra Torres, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York, NY, John
H. Beisner, O'Melveny & Meyers, Washington, DC, Maya M. Eckstein, Hunton
& Williams, Richmond, VA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Nine
suits were filed in federal district courts around the country seeking monetary
relief under both federal and state law for harms stemming from the enslavement
of black people in America.
A
tenth suit, by the Hurdle group of plaintiffs, makes similar claims but was
filed in a state court and then removed by the defendants to a federal district
court.
The Multidistrict Litigation Panel
consolidated all the suits in the district court in Chicago for pretrial
proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Once
there, the plaintiffs (all but the Hurdle plaintiffs, about whom more shortly)
filed a consolidated complaint, and since venue in Chicago was proper and in
any event not objected to by the parties (other than the Hurdle group, whose
objection we consider later in the opinion), the district court was
unquestionably authorized, notwithstanding Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998),
to determine the merits of the suit.
In
re Carbon Dioxide Industry Antitrust Litigation, 229 F.3d 1321, 1325-27 (11th
Cir.2000); cf. Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165,
167-68, 60 S.Ct. 153, 84 L.Ed. 167 (1939).
We
are also persuaded that a district court to which a case is transferred under
section 1407 can rule on a motion to dismiss the case even if the plaintiff has
not agreed to let the court decide the merits. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1230-31 (9th Cir.2006);
15
Charles W. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 3866 (2006). While it is true that the Supreme Court held in
the Lexecon case that a transfer under section 1407 does not authorize the
district court to retain the case for trial, the Court left open the question
whether pretrial proceedings, which are the business (the exclusive business)
of the transferee court, include rulings on dispositive pretrial motions, such as
motions to dismiss.
But
the Court hinted that they do include them. Section 1407(a) states that “each
action so transferred [by the multidistrict litigation panel] shall be remanded
by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the
district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been previously
terminated.”
Concerning
this “provision of § 1407(a) limiting the Panel's remand obligation to cases
not ‘previously terminated’ during the pretrial period,” the Court remarked
that “this exception to the Panel's remand obligation indicates that the Panel
is not meant to issue ceremonial remand orders in cases already concluded by
summary judgment, say, or dismissal,” 523 U.S. at 37, 118 S.Ct. 956 (emphasis
added)-implying that the transferee court can indeed decide the entire case at
the pretrial stage.
And
rightly so.
The
duty to conduct the pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation entails
the transferee court's ruling on a host of pretrial motions, many of which,
whether or not formally dispositive, can shape the litigation decisively.
There is no reason to exclude from the court's
authority rulings on motions to dismiss-especially a motion to dismiss on the
ground that there is no federal jurisdiction. It would be odd to require a
court to transfer a case to another federal court when it was apparent that
neither court had jurisdiction over the case.
Were
it not for the Hurdle suit, we wouldn't have to decide whether the district
judge could have dismissed the transferred suits had the parties not agreed, by
filing a new complaint, to his retaining them after completion of pretrial
proceedings. But the Hurdle plaintiffs did not agree, so we cannot duck the
question.
The
suits are a series of mostly identical class actions on behalf of all Americans
descended from slaves with whom one or more of the defendants or their
corporate predecessors may have been directly or indirectly involved. The
consolidated complaint (the Hurdle complaint is similar, so need not be
discussed separately) alleges the following facts, for which we do not vouch,
but merely summarize, the complaint having been dismissed before the truth or
falsity of the allegations was determined.
The
defendants are companies or the successors to companies that provided services,
such as transportation, finance, and insurance, to slaveowners.
At
least two of the defendants were slaveowners; the predecessor of one of the
bank defendants once accepted 13,000 slaves as collateral on loans and ended up
owning 1,250 of them when the borrowers defaulted, and the predecessor of
another defendant ended up owning 346 slaves, also as a consequence of a
borrower's default.
Even
before the Thirteenth Amendment, slavery was illegal in the northern states,
and the complaint charges that the defendants were violating the laws of those
states in transacting with slaveowners.
It
also claims that there were occasional enslavements long after the passage of
the Thirteenth Amendment and that some of the defendants were complicit in
those too. By way of relief, the complaint seeks disgorgement to the class
members of the profits that the defendants obtained from their dealings with
slaveowners.
The
legal basis for the plaintiffs' federal claim is 42 U.S.C. § 1982, which
provides that “all citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit,
purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”
See
City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100, 119-20, 101 S.Ct. 1584, 67 L.Ed.2d 769
(1981); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d
1189 (1968). A claim based on a federal statute invokes the federal-question
jurisdiction of the federal courts. But since most of the conduct of which
the plaintiffs complain occurred prior to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment,
and indeed prior to the Civil War,
section 1982 does not provide a sturdy basis
for the retention of federal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' nonfederal
claims. A frivolous federal law claim cannot successfully invoke federal
jurisdiction. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39
L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, 111 F.3d 1312, 1317 (7th
Cir.1997); Crowley Cutlery Co. v. United States, 849 F.2d 273, 276-77 (7th
Cir.1988);
Lovern
v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654-55 (4th Cir.1999). So it cannot provide a perch
on which to seat nonfederal claims in the name of the federal courts'
supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. And very few of the plaintiffs
have a nonfrivolous claim under section 1982.
But
with one exception, all the nonfederal claims are within the federal diversity
jurisdiction and so do not require a federal-law handle. The exception is
Richard E. Barber, Sr.'s suit; for both he and Brown Brothers, one of the
defendants in his suit, are citizens of New Jersey.
Since
he thus cannot invoke diversity as a basis for federal jurisdiction and does
not have a colorable section 1982 claim (in fact he makes no section 1982 claim
at all), his suit must be dismissed for want of federal jurisdiction without
regard to the other challenges that the defendants mount to federal
jurisdiction over these suits.
The
district judge ruled that by virtue of both the political-question doctrine and
the requirement of standing to sue derived from Article III of the Constitution,
there was no federal jurisdiction over any of the suits and that in any event
they had no merit because the applicable statutes of limitations had lapsed and
anyway the complaint failed to state a claim.
375 F.Supp.2d 721 (N.D.Ill.2005). The dismissal was with prejudice. But if
the judge was correct that there is no jurisdiction, he should have dismissed
the suits without prejudice and thus not decided their merits.
The
political-question doctrine bars the federal courts from adjudicating disputes
that the Constitution has been interpreted to entrust to other branches of the
federal government. The earliest and still the best example is Luther v.
Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 12 L.Ed. 581 (1849). Rhode Island had not adopted
a new constitution after the break with England, but instead continued to
govern itself under its colonial charter.
Restive
citizens convened a constitutional convention not authorized by the charter.
The convention adopted a new constitution to which the charter government
refused to submit, precipitating rebellion and the establishment in 1842 of a
rival state government. The Supreme Court refused to decide which of the two
competing governments was the legitimate one. It would have been exceedingly
difficult to gather and assess, by the methods of litigation, the facts needed
for such a decision. Id. at 41-42.
It
would have been even more difficult to formulate a legal concept of
revolutionary legitimacy to guide the decision. Formulating and enforcing a
remedy would have presented additional stumbling blocks. The case simply
exceeded judicial capabilities. So the Court left the matter to the
President, to whom Congress had delegated the duty of resolving it. Id. at 43;
see also Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park District, 281 U.S. 74,
79-80, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 710 (1930); Pacific States Telephone &
Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 133-50, 32 S.Ct. 224, 56 L.Ed. 377
(1912).
A
case that sought reparations for the wrong of slavery would encounter similar
obstacles, but the plaintiffs have been careful to cast the litigation as a
quest for conventional legal relief. All they are asking the federal
judiciary to do is to apply state law (plus the one federal statute, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1982) to the defendants' conduct.
They face, of course, formidable obstacles,
quite apart from the severely limited applicability of section 1982. To name
just one of those obstacles, it is highly unlikely that antebellum laws in
northern states were intended to confer financial or other benefits on the
twenty-first century descendants of slaves.
But
the obstacles to the vindication of the plaintiffs' legal claims have the form
at least of conventional defenses to a lawsuit. If one or more of the
defendants violated a state law by transporting slaves in 1850, and the
plaintiffs can establish standing to sue, prove the violation despite its
antiquity, establish that the law was intended to provide a remedy (either
directly or by providing the basis for a common law action for conspiracy,
conversion, or restitution) to lawfully enslaved persons or their descendants,
identify their ancestors, quantify damages incurred, and persuade the court to
toll the statute of limitations, there would be no further obstacle to the
grant of relief.
But
we think that the district court was correct, with some exceptions to be noted,
in ruling that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue. It would be impossible by
the methods of litigation to connect the defendants' alleged misconduct with
the financial and emotional harm that the plaintiffs claim to have suffered as
a result of that conduct.
See
generally James R. Hackney, Jr., “The Jurisprudence of Slavery Reparations:
Ideological Conflict, African American Reparations, Tort Causation, and the
Case for Social Welfare Transformation,” 84 B.U.L.Rev. 1193 (2004).
For
example, Aetna is alleged to have written several insurance policies on slaves
in the 1850s in violation of state law applicable to the company, and to have
obtained premiums from the insureds-the slaveowners-that (we'll assume)
exceeded the cost of the insurance to Aetna (its expenses plus the payment of
proceeds if the insured event came to pass).
The plaintiffs argue that Aetna's net income
from this insurance was a wrongful profit that the company should be ordered to
restore to the plaintiff classes.
If
the insurance business was competitive back then (and the plaintiffs do not
argue that it was not), Aetna did not profit in an economic sense from the
transactions of which the plaintiffs complain (its “profit” would just be its
cost of equity capital), and in any event it would have distributed any profits
from the transactions to its shareholders long ago.
All
that to one side, there is a fatal disconnect between the victims and the
plaintiffs. When a person is wronged he can seek redress, and if he wins, his
descendants may benefit, but the wrong to the ancestor is not a wrong to the
descendants.
For
if it were, then (problems of proof to one side) statutes of limitations would
be toothless. A person whose ancestor had been wronged a thousand years ago
could sue on the ground that it was a continuing wrong and he is one of the
victims.
The
plaintiffs introduce another claim of injury by asserting that had the
defendants refused to violate their own states' laws by doing business with
slaveowners, there would have been less slavery because the refusal would have
been tantamount to subjecting the slaveowners to a partial boycott.
That
would have raised their costs, and, by making slavery less profitable, might
have reduced the amount of it. (“Might,” not “would,” because the higher costs
might simply have depressed the price of a slave.)
And
had there been less slavery, the argument continues, some of the ancestors of
the members of the plaintiff classes would not have been slaves, but instead
free laborers, and they would have had some disposable income part of which
they might have saved rather than spent, and left to their heirs.
But
this causal chain is too long and has too many weak links for a court to be
able to find that the defendants' conduct harmed the plaintiffs at all, let
alone in an amount that could be estimated without the wildest speculation.
It is impossible to determine how much, if
any, less slavery there would have been had the defendants not done business
with slave owners, what effect a diminution of slavery would have had on
bequests by ancestors of the class members, and how much of the value of those
bequests would have trickled down to the class members.
Suppose
a class member could prove that he was descended from one of the slaves insured
by Aetna or transported by the Union Pacific Railroad (another defendant) or
bought with money lent to the buyer by the predecessor of the JPMorgan Chase
Bank (still another defendant), and that these transactions were illegal and
that the descendants of slaves are among the people whom the laws were intended
to protect.
Had he not been insured or transported or bought with a bank loan, how would
the financial welfare of his remote descendant be affected? Would the
ancestor have been freed, or perhaps never enslaved in the first place?
As the plaintiffs stress, slavery was
profitable; is it conceivable that slaveholders would have been unable to
insure, transport, and finance the purchase of slaves if northern companies had
been excluded from the provision of these services or had refused to violate
their states' laws that sought to keep them from providing the services?
Even
if compliance with those laws would have curtailed slavery and even if it could
be shown (it could not be) that as a result of that hypothetical curtailment a
plaintiff's remote ancestor would not have been a slave but instead a free
laborer, how could the wages that the ancestor would have earned as a free
laborer be shown to have influenced the wealth of his remote descendant?
Economists
actually study such issues, under the rubric of “intergenerational mobility,”
see, e.g., Kerwin Kofi Charles & Erik Hurst, “The Correlation of Wealth
Across Generations,” 111 J. Pol. Econ. 1155 (2003); Keith N. Hylton, “The
Jurisprudence of Slavery Reparations: Slavery and Tort Law,” 84 B.U.L.Rev.
1209, 1239-41 (2004), but these are studies of aggregate effects, not of the
effects of particular acts, affecting particular individuals, on the wealth of
specific remote descendants. There is no way to determine that a given black
American today is worse off by a specific, calculatable sum of money (or
monetized emotional harm) as a result of the conduct of one or more of the
defendants.
Nor
are the problems of measuring and tracing elided by recasting the relief sought
as restitution rather than damages. Restitution-the transfer of the
wrongdoer's gain to his victim-is an alternative to damages, the monetization
of the victim's loss.
ConFold
Pacific, Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 433 F.3d 952, 957-58 (7th Cir.2006);
Charter Communications Entertainment I, DST v. Burdulis, 460 F.3d 168, 182
(1st Cir.2006); Kerr v. Charles F. Vatterott & Co., 184 F.3d 938, 944 (8th
Cir.1999); 1 Dan B. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies § 4. 1, pp. 551, 555 (2d
ed.1993).
It is a sensible remedy for egregious misconduct because it makes the conduct
worthless to the defendant by taking away his profit even if it exceeds the
loss to the plaintiff. But it presupposes an injury-it is a remedy for a
legal wrong-and there is no way in which to determine what if any injury the
defendants inflicted on the members of the plaintiff classes.
And
again, if there were a legal wrong, it would not be a wrong to any living
persons unless they were somehow the authorized representatives to bring suits
on behalf of their enslaved ancestors. With some exceptions to be noted, the
plaintiffs are suing to redress harms to third parties (their ancestors),
without being authorized to sue on behalf of those parties.
It is like a suit by a descendant of a Union soldier, killed in battle, against
a Civil War era gun manufacturer still in business that sold guns to the
Confederacy in violation of federal law. A federal court could not entertain
the suit because the plaintiff would be unable to prove a harm to an interest
of his (such as his bank account) that the law protects.
E.g., Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818-19, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849
(1997); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739-40, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d
636 (1972). It is possible that had the ancestor not died when he did he
would have become a wealthy person and left bequests so immense that his remote
descendant, the plaintiff, would have inherited more money from his parents or
grandparents than he actually did.
But that is too speculative an inquiry to
provide a basis for a federal suit. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93,
225-26, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003); Branton v. FCC, 993 F.2d 906,
909 (D.C.Cir.1993).
The
two cases just cited, and others, treat remoteness as a limitation on Article
III standing. Still other cases treat it as a nonjurisdictional limitation on
who may sue in federal court-but still a limitation. Holmes v. Securities
Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268-69, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d
532 (1992); Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465, 476-77, 102
S.Ct. 2540, 73 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); Israel Travel Advisory Service, Inc. v.
Israel Identity Tours, Inc., 61 F.3d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir.1995); Allegheny
General Hospital v. Philip Morris, Inc., 228 F.3d 429, 435 (3d Cir.2000).
Another group of cases would deem the suit
barred by Article III because one function of the Article III standing doctrine
is to prevent parties with slight interests in a litigation from crowding those
who have the main interests. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans
United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 473, 102 S.Ct.
752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982);
Morlan
v. Universal Guaranty Life Insurance Co., 298 F.3d 609, 621 (7th Cir.2002);
Illinois Department of Transportation v. Hinson, 122 F.3d 370, 373 (7th
Cir.1997); People Organized for Welfare & Employment Rights (P.O.W. E.R.)
v. Thompson, 727 F.2d 167, 173 (7th Cir.1984); Abraham v. Intermountain Health
Care Inc., 461 F.3d 1249, 1268 (10th Cir.2006).
In our hypothetical case of the Union soldier,
the litigant with the paramount interest in the case would be his estate and
the damages that the estate could recover would include whatever amount of
money he would have wanted his descendant to inherit. If the descendant could
sue the tortfeasor directly for that amount (or for the tortfeasor's profit, in
a suit for restitution), there would be either double recovery or an impossible
task of allocating the monetary recovery between the descendant and the estate.
A
few of the plaintiff's claims, however, as we noted at the outset, are claims
of subjection to involuntary servitude after it was outlawed by the Thirteenth
Amendment, and indeed into the twentieth century. Cain Wall, Sr. claims that
“during the time that [he] was enslaved”-which he contends extended into the
1960s-“one or more of the defendants were doing business in Mississippi or
Louisiana.
Some of the defendants had reason to know of
the enslavement of Cain Wall and yet failed to take steps to eliminate same,
while they continued to inure benefits from the illegal, but sanctioned system
of servitude post-emancipation.” But there is no claim that the defendants
subjected Wall (or any other class member) to involuntary servitude or did
anything to perpetuate or exacerbate his condition.
The claim is that they took no steps to free
him.
The briefs suggest no basis for thinking that
there is any kind of Good Samaritan legal duty to eliminate a violation of the
Thirteenth Amendment committed by someone else.
The
limitations that Article III places on the right to sue in a federal court
require us to affirm (though striking “with prejudice”), on the basis of lack
of standing, the greater part of the district court's judgment. But there are
three qualifications. First, although most of the plaintiffs and class
members are suing as descendants rather than as representatives of their
ancestors' estates authorized to sue on those ancestors' behalf, a few do claim
to be suing in such a representative capacity.
It is highly unlikely that the estate of
anyone who died a century or more ago, or indeed more than half a century ago
(for although many former slaves survived into the twentieth century, very few
would still have been alive 50 years ago, which is to say in 1956, 91 years
after the end of the Civil War), has not yet been closed. But the district
judge accepted that the purported representatives had a right to sue on behalf
of their ancestors, and the defendants offer only a perfunctory rebuttal.
We shall assume without deciding that some of
the plaintiffs are legal representatives of their slave ancestors. These
plaintiffs not only escape the objection to standing that the suits seek
damages for injuries actually suffered by third parties (the ancestors-no
longer third parties, but the real parties in interest, merely represented by
the plaintiffs), but have less to prove. They just have to prove the injury
to the ancestors; the trickle-down question is elided.
In
all likelihood it would still be impossible for them to prove injury, requiring
as that would connecting the particular slavery transactions in which the
defendants were involved to harm to particular slaves. But in any event,
suits complaining about injuries that occurred more than a century and a half
ago have been barred for a long time by the applicable state statutes of
limitations.
It is true that tolling doctrines can extend
the time to sue well beyond the period of limitations-but not to a century and
more beyond. Slaves could not sue, and even after the Thirteenth Amendment
became effective in 1865 suits such as these, if brought in the South, would
not have received a fair hearing.
However, some northern courts would have been
receptive to such suits, and since the defendants are (and were) northern
companies, venue would have been proper in those states. Even in the South,
descendants of slaves have had decades of effective access to the courts to
seek redress for the wrongs of which they complain. And it's not as if it had
been a deep mystery that corporations were involved in the operation of the
slave system. See, e.g., Edgar J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North 174
(1973); Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the
AnteBellum South 397 (1956).
The
second qualification concerns a claim, rather buried in the complaint but not
forfeited, that in violation of state fraud or consumer protection law members
of the plaintiff classes have bought products or services from some of the
defendants that they would not have bought had the defendants not concealed
their involvement in slavery.
This
claim has nothing to do with ancient violations and indeed would be unaffected
if the defendants' dealings with slaveowners had been entirely legal. It is a
complaint of consumers' being deceived because sellers have concealed a
material fact. The injury is the loss incurred by buying something that one
wouldn't have bought had one known the truth about the product.
It
is true that under no consumer protection law known to us, whether a special
statute or a doctrine of the common law of contracts or torts, has a seller a
general duty to disclose every discreditable fact about himself that might if
disclosed deflect a buyer.
To fulfill such a duty he would have to know
much more about his consumers than he possibly could. But the plaintiffs are
charging the defendants with misrepresenting their activities in relation to
slavery.
A seller who learns that some class of buyers
would not buy his product if they knew it contained some component that he
would normally have no duty to disclose, but fearing to lose those buyers
falsely represents that the product does not contain the component, is guilty
of fraud.
An example would be a manufacturer who
represented that his products were made in the United States by companies that
employ only union labor, whereas in fact they were made in Third World
sweatshops. See Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 45
P.3d 243, 248 (Cal.2003); Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 219 Ill.2d 182, 302
Ill.Dec. 1, 848 N.E.2d 1, 19 (Ill.2005); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d
134, 267 Ill.Dec. 14, 776 N.E.2d 151, 154-55 (Ill.2002); Lightning Lube, Inc.
v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1185 (3d Cir.1993).
We
do not offer an opinion on the merits of the consumer protection claims, but
merely reject the district court's ruling that they are barred at the
threshold.
The
third qualification concerns the Hurdle suit and is related to the second
qualification. Unlike the other plaintiffs, the Hurdle plaintiffs didn't want
to remain in the district court in Chicago. They wanted to return to the
California district court from which their case had been transferred to Chicago
for pretrial proceedings, when the pretrial proceedings concluded.
Actually they wanted to return to the
California state court from which the defendants had removed their case to the
district court, but that is an issue for that district court to resolve if and
when the case is returned. As we pointed out at the beginning of this
opinion, the district court, as the transferee court in a transfer pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1407, was authorized to rule on a motion to dismiss the Hurdle
suit.
But though the district judge in the exercise
of that power rightly dismissed so much of that suit as attacks wrongs done to
the plaintiffs' ancestors, the Hurdle plaintiffs are among the plaintiffs who
have consumer protection claims as well. As to them there will be further
pretrial proceedings, and they will be conducted in Chicago. So the Hurdle
plaintiffs can't go back to California, at least not yet.
To
summarize, the district court's dismissal, for want of standing, of all but the
claims brought by legal representatives of slaves plus the consumer protection
claims is modified to be a dismissal without prejudice, and as so modified is
affirmed. (Barber's suit is dismissed, also without prejudice, for want of
diversity.) The dismissal of the claims brought by the plaintiffs who claim
to be legal representatives is affirmed, but on the merits (statute of
limitations) and so with prejudice.
The dismissal of the consumer protection
claims is reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further
proceedings on those claims consistent with this opinion. The district court
is authorized to retain those claims for the duration of the litigation, except
in the case of the Hurdle plaintiffs, as to whom the court is authorized only
to conduct pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Modified
And Affirmed, In Part; Reversed In Part And Remanded.
POSNER,
Circuit Judge.
Pursuant
to defendant own rules of governing laws namelyRule 12(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure
Motion
to Strike Defendant(s) United States of America et al, respond and reply, filed
above being official Strike “Entire Reply/Respond pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Respectfully
Appearance Slave Negro (Pro Se Plaintiff) Louis Charles Hamilton II herein
(USN) #2712 before “Honorable Court Justice” Honorable Court Justice Kenneth
Michael Hoyt
Comes
Now Slave Negro Pro Se Plaintiff “Louis Charles Hamilton II” United States of
America Navy hereinMotion to Strike Defendant(s) “Entire Reply/Respond,
IN
RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al.
Nos. 05-3265,
05-3266, 05-3305., Decided: December 13, 2006
Before
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and MANION, Circuit Judges. Bruce I. Afran
(argued), Carl J. Mayer, Princeton, NJ, Roger S. Wareham (argued), Wareham Law
Office, Brooklyn, NY, Benjamin O. Nwoye, Nwoye & Associates, Chicago, IL,
Barbara K. Ratliff (argued), Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Andrew
R. McGaan,
Kirkland
& Ellis, Chicago, IL, Owen C. Pell (argued), White & Case, New York,
NY, Andrew L. Sandler, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp,
Washington,
DC, Alan S. Madans (argued), Rothschild, Barry & Myers, Chicago, IL, Thomas
F. Gardner, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Heidi K. Hubbard, Williams & Connolly,
Washington, DC, Christina M. Tchen, Ryan J. Rohlfsen, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom Llp, Chicago, IL, James A.
Fletcher, Fletcher & Sippel, Chicago, IL, Michael T. Novak, Homewood, IL,
Debra Torres, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York, NY, John
H. Beisner, O'Melveny & Meyers, Washington, DC, Maya M. Eckstein, Hunton
& Williams, Richmond, VA, for Defendants-Appellees.
As
follows are not valid or legally binding 1000% officially filed on the court
records with accompanying
Notice
of Motion to Vacate Judgement and “Motion to Vacate Judgment Nos. 05-3265,
05-3266, 05-3305., Decided: December 13, 2006 being listed US Case filed before
their fraudulent “Slave Regime” Whites Supremacy control in “Support of “Slave
PLAINTIFFS” and “Pro Se Slave Plaintiff” Louis Charles Hamilton II” MOTION TO
STRIKE DEFENDANT”S “United States of America et al (RICO) enterprise endeavor
“Racket” Judicial Fraud illegal respond as further stating to wit:
On
or about the 8th day of November 1961 having Slave Negro Pro Se Plaintiff
“Louis Charles Hamilton II” United States of America Navy #2712 officially born
into “Slavery Servitude of the Defendant “United States of America”, ‘Civil
Rights” Attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, born in the year 1966 et al., being
also born into
“Slavery
Servitude of the Defendant “United States of America”, all “legal records”, of
her case United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit., IN RE:
AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al., file is fully forever
“Plaintiffs
exhibit (A) enforced completely against Defendant(s) United States of America
et al”, and filed as exhibit, current with the “Clerk of Court” before this
present case U.S. Docket No.4:2016-CV-00964 and released said “Judgment” herein filed official “
Notice
of Motion to Vacate Judgement and “Motion to Vacate Judgment of
United
States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
IN
RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al.Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266,
05-3305., Decided: December 13, 2006 being listed in direct violation of
18
U.S. Code § 1028 - Fraud and related activity in connection with identification
documents, authentication features, and information
And
18 U.S. Code § 1002 - Possession of false papers to defraud United States
(RICO) Judicial Fraud US Case filed before their fraudulent “Slave Regime”
defendant “United States of America” committed to the same as “Legal
Circumstances” of RICO Judicial Obstruction of Justice Fraud of the Defendant
“United States of America” et al Judicial Branch of Government” past, present
and future, being described as the same
Slave
Negro Pro Se Plaintiff “Louis Charles Hamilton II” United States of America
Navy #2712 from “custody of Slavery servitude” of defendant (USA) on or about
February 7th 2013 when Mississippi, officially free all 44.5 Million Negro
Slaves including Chief Plaintiff “Pro Se Slave (Hamilton) appearance before the
Honorable Court all cases filed:
1. U.S.
Docket No. 3:1999-CV-00011
2. U.S.
Docket No. 4:2011-CV-04420
3. U. S.
Docket No. 4: 1998-CV-00110
4. U. S.
Docket No. 2010-CV-02709
5. U. S.
Docket No. 2011-CV-00510
6. U. S.
Docket No. 2011-CV-04256
7. U. S.
Docket No. 2001-CV-00095
8. U. S.
Docket No. 2011-CV-00240
9. U. S.
Docket No. 2001-CV-00036
10. U. S.
Docket No. 2011-CV-00005
11. U. S.
Docket No. 2002-CV-00034
12. U. S.
Docket No. 2010-CV-02220
13. U. S.
Docket No. 2009-CV-00496
14. U. S.
Docket No. 2009-CV-07029
15. U. S.
Docket No. 2010-CV-00055
16. U. S.
Docket No. 2001-CV-00100
17. U. S.
Docket No. 2011-CV-00442
18. U. S.
Docket No. 2007-CV-01510
19. U. S. Docket No. 2009-CV-00954
20. U. S.
Docket No. 2009-CV-00289
21. U. S.
Docket No. 2012-CV-01014
22. U. S.
Docket No. 1999-CV-00011
23. U. S.
Docket No. 2010-CV-00808
24. U. S.
Docket No. 2001-CV-00069
25. U. S.
Docket No. 2011-CV-00122
26. U. S.
Docket No. 2012-CV-00053
27. U. S.
Docket No. 2012-CV- 00038
28. U. S.
Docket No. 2012-CV-00977
Being
“Official” declared, Affirmed, and hostile dispute a defendant (USA) own
governing laws requires “Prima Facial Tort in Law, that all described above
Judgments 1-28 and
IN
RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al. Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266,
05-3305., being Vacate Judgment fully“ Voided” unconstitutional, fraudulent,
based 100% illegally imposed by “Judicial Fraud of The US Courts and the laws
derived of the
United States of America et al from the exact
date of August 20th 1619 - to the exact date of February 7th 2013 “pursuant”
(MIA) 13th and 14th amendment provision by congress insurance equality to the
governing Laws of the“Infamous Slave Trade Defendant “United States of America”
et al
And
equality under all of defendant (USA) governing rules of The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (FRCP) governs civil procedure (i.e. for civil lawsuits) in
United States district (federal) courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United
States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United
States Congress has 7 months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of
the FRCP.
The
Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from
the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal
policy-making body. Although federal courts are required to apply the
substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is
in question, the federal courts almost always use the FRCP as their rules of
procedure. (States may determine their own rules, which apply in state courts,
although most states have adopted rules that are based on the FRCP.)
The
Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier procedures under the Federal
Equity Rules and the Conformity Act (28 USC 724 (1934)) merging the procedure
for cases, in law and equity, The Conformity Act required that procedures in
suits at law conform to state practice usually the Field Code and common law
pleading systems. Significant revisions have been made to the FRCP in 1948,
1963, 1966, 1970, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1993, 2000, and 2006.
(The
FRCP contains a notes section that details the changes of each revision since
1938, explaining the rationale behind the language).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure
The
King Elite Klansmen Rules, established in 1938, also established “Nigger Slaves
Plaintiff (Hamilton) and collectively (Millions) of Negros Race similarly the
same were on or about The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier
procedures under the Federal Equity Rules and the Conformity Act (28 USC 724
(1934) merging the procedure for cases, in law and equity,
The
Conformity Act required that procedures in suits at law conform to state
practice usually the Field Code and common law pleading systems. Significant
revisions have been made to the FRCP in 1948, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1980, 1983,
1987, 1993, 2000, and 2006 still under defendant (USA) 1619 continual (3) “
Black Code Laws, Jim Crow Laws and official “Slavery Servitude” as United
States of America defendant own governing laws requires “Prima Facial Tort in
Law, that all described
response
by each and every defendant collectively 1000% official under law fully
“Voided” unconstitutional, fraudulent, based 100% illegally imposed by (RICO)
past acts of “Judicial Fraud of The US Courts and the laws derived of the
United States of America et al from the exact date of August 20th 1619 - to the
exact date of February 7th 2013 “pursuant” (MIA) 13th and 14th amendment
provision by congress insurance equality to the governing Laws of the
“Infamous
Slave Trade Defendant “United States of America” et al, which each defendant
seeking salvation under immunity in US case law citing, US Amendment
constitutional provision, US criminal case laws citing, RICO act, The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the
earlier procedures under the
Federal
Equity Rules and the Conformity Act (28 USC 724 (1934) with all claimed
Significant revisions have been thereoffrom the exact date of August 20th 1619
- to the exact date of February 7th 2013 “made to the FRCP in 1948, 1963, 1966,
1970, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1993, 2000, and 2006, all being “Motion to Strike”
Defendant
America et al grand scheme involving the continual criminal acts of
The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. § 1589
(forced labor), 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor), “Slavery Servitude” money laundering
statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, “Slavery Servitude” money laundering
statutes, RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1),,, very 1000% 1790- 2016 (226)
years control, in an ongoing future by the “Judicial Branch of Government of
Defendant
“United
States of America” et al and the very Honorable Knights of The Klu Klux Klansmen
Whites Supremacy Absolutes unfetter 1000% biases
“Whites
Only Klansmen terrorist controlled Immunity Sovereign Slave Regimes “Whites
Supremacy” of The 1790 Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for
whites only in 2016 (December) United States of America as
“Niggers
Need Not Apply ever, in the “Sovereignty Nation of “United States of America,
Pursuant to: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), official Slavery
Servitude United States of America as such this Pro Se Plaintiff “Nigger/Negro
And
IN RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al.Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266,
05-3305.,
Need Not ever Apply to said
The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) govern civil procedure (i.e. for civil
lawsuits) in United States district (federal) courts.
“Regardless
worthless white trash congress supremacy for the Republican (KKK) and
prosperity of “Whites Only” America (Bogus) discriminatory with all Significant
revisions have been made after 1938 to the FRCP in 1948, 1963, 1966, 1970,
1980, 1983, 1987, 1993, 2000, and 2006.
Once again being “Motion to Strike” all case
laws cited in IN RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of
Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al.Nos. 05-3265,
05-3266, 05-3305., lieu thereof, being “Presented by Defendant(s) each respond
and reply,
Pro
Se Slave Plaintiff (Hamilton) Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, et al collectively
still Slavery Servitude Subject, from November 8th 1961 – February 7th 2013,
when “Defendant” United States of America Mississippi finally as required by
(MIA) 13th Amendment free “Nigger/Negro Pro Se Plaintiff on or about February
7th 2013 and as being “Property and a Official” Slave “Motion to Strike” each
reply, as defective,
Voided,
and 1000% unconstitutional amendment provide therein, false material subject
matter regarding “Slavery Rights of Plaintiff, defective Constitutional State
of Texas laws, and Federal laws, all derived in a Slave Regimes” of Defendant
Whites Supremacy and all “Slave Laws derive since August 20th 1619 - February
7th 2013
AS
such “Motion to Strike Defendant(s) reply in each entirely as before Law and
equity “Slaves needing not apply to said governing laws of a “Slave Regime” in
the exact time frame of August 20th 1619 - February 7th 2013further as the
defendant “United States of America “Own” legal doings, “Motion to Strike” is
adequate under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(FRCP) govern civil procedure (i.e. for civil
lawsuits) in United States district (federal) courts, defendant case laws,
constitutional laws, and State of Texas Laws cited and contained there in each
reply fully from the effect date of such Laws, August 20th 1619 – February 7th
2013, filed in
U.S.
Docket No. 4:2016-CV-00964 Respectfully Appearance Slave Negro (Pro Se
Plaintiff) Louis Charles Hamilton II herein (USN) #2712 before “Honorable Court
Justice” Honorable Court Justice Kenneth Michael Hoyt on its whole face reply being defective legal
non-effect in law and equity worthless legal trash in dealing with
“Slaves”
having no citizenship rights of the 14th amendment in 2016 (December) as being
required any law of defendant “United States of America” et al collectively
submitted in said written reply in the exact time frame of August 20th 1619 –
February 7th 2013 al Pro Se Plaintiff (Hamilton) USN Veteran herein, and
Presidential
First Slaves Nigger (Obama) Family of the defendant of the “United States of
America, and all 44.5 Million (Nigger Slaves Plaintiffs) having been by
Defendant own occurred “Motion” to Strike” each reply as described herein and
further Required “Oral Argument” on anOrder to Show Cause why “Motion to
Strike” against each defendant entire reply/response, being levy and made entry
into the record as
Have
no legal standing as Identified above and each described Federal Court case
laws, Amendment of the Constitution, Texas States Laws, US Court Case Citing
fully submitted in the Time-Frame of August 20th 1619 – Mississippi Free Slave
Negro Pro Se Plaintiff Veteran (Hamilton) #2712 born on November 8th 1961 from
Slavery Servitude”, of the defendant “United States of America”, as such
Slavery officially being continual till February 7th 2013 regarding IN RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN
SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and
Timothy Hurdle, et al.Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266, 05-3305.,
Judicial
Grand Fraud committed against “Civil Rights Attorney of Record Deadria
Farmer-Paellmann, et al in a (RICO) corruption Fraud None- disclosure “, for and additional (75) years Slaves of
America grand scheme involving the continual criminal acts of
The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. § 1589
(forced labor), 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor), “Slavery Servitude” money laundering
statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, “Slavery Servitude” money laundering
statutes, RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1),,, very 1000% 1790- 2016 (226)
years control, in an ongoing future by the
“Judicial Branch of Government of Defendant
all Said contain fully “Motion to Strike” invalid, null, ineffective,
nonviable, useless, worthless, and officially in 2016 (December) on behalf of
no-citizenship continual being official “Property and No Citizenship/Slave
Pursuant to: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), being in “Human Rights
Violation
official
Slavery Servitude Subject Abused PLANTIFFS of Defendant collectively United
States of America et al as “Niggers/Negro Plaintiff Pro Se Respectfully assert
official Laws being denied to said Nigger/Negro Slave on or aboutthe Time-Frame
of August 20th 1619 – Mississippi Free Slave Negro Pro Se Plaintiff Veteran
(Hamilton) #2712 born on November 8th 1961 from Slavery Servitude”, of the
defendant “United States of America”, as such Slavery officially being
continual till February 7th 2013
Required
Need Not ever Apply to said Slave Trade official lost voided herein Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
govern civil procedure (i.e. for civil lawsuits) in United States district
(federal) courts.
Whites Supremacy Slave Regime sealed under The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) White Man Only Slave endless Rules,
established on or about 1938, 1948, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1993,
2000, and 2006, being “Motion to Strike” in its entire defense directed at the
Pro Se Slave Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II USN #2712 as a descendant of
August
20th 1619 since (Negro) Slave was born on November 8th 1961 thee official
(FRCP) govern civil procedure (i.e. for civil lawsuits) being laws ruled over
“Slaves whom have no rights, no citizenship which officially been
denaturationand such Fraud, in destroyed constitutional 13th and 14th
amendments (MIA) with the official
(FRCP) govern civil procedure, having no 14th amendment provide same equality
for (Pro Se) Negro Hamilton held hostage in a defendant “United States of
America a Slave regime, in 2016 (December)
Conclusion
Animal
rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the
possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests—such as the
need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar
interests of human beings.
Appearance
Slave Veteran Negro (Pro Se Plaintiff) Louis Charles Hamilton II herein (USN)
#2712 Furtherance’s Affirm, state and fully declare all allegation, contention,
disputes, disputation, argument, conflict and disharmony, fully cause of action
for “official” Motion to Strike” each respond/reply being filed and supported
TO
WIT: on or about “October” 9th 2012 past (RICO) enterprise David Hittner
‘United States District Judge” presiding official present (RICO) David Hittner
‘United States District Judge”
biased
in the current (2016) matter Hamilton v. Federal Reserve Bank et al having full
conscious knowledge and professional legal expert fiduciary responsibility on
or about “October” 9th 2012 that:
1. The
1790 Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for whites only was
fully enforced against the (Pro Se Plaintiff) the first Presidential Negro
Family (Obama) and 44.5 Million Negros legally without legal citizenship after
1865 “civil war” trapped by this continual 1790 (RICO) Naturalization Act.
2. Articles
of Agreement Relating to the Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia. April
10, 1865, was fully violated and that “Mississippi” never freed the (Pro Se
Plaintiff) the first Presidential Negro Family (Obama) and 44.5 Million Negros legally without legal
citizenship after 1865 “civil war” trapped by this continual collusion of the
defendant (USA) The 1790 (RICO) Naturalization Act.
3. The
13th amendment to the “United States of America” was destroyed, annihilate,
wipe out, and fully obliterate, fully in law and equity” official in leaving
(Pro Se Plaintiff), the first Presidential Negro Family (Obama) and 44.5
Million Negros legally born between the exact dates of August 20th 1619 -
February 7th 2013 “Slaves of The United States of America”, as so legally Born
unto “Slavery Servitude”.
4. The
14th amendment to the “United States of America” was also destroyed,
annihilate, wipe out, and fully obliterate, fully in law and equity” official
in leaving (Pro Se Plaintiff), the first Presidential Negro Family (Obama) and 44.5 Million Negros legally born between
the exact dates of February 7th 2013 – 2099 pursuant to “Elite Secret Whites
Only”
Judicial
Government The 1790 Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for
whites only having “officially” denaturalization (Pro Se Plaintiff), the first
Presidential Negro Family (Obama) and
44.5 Million Negros legally born between the exact dates of February 7th 2013 –
2099 “Leaving”
(Pro Se Plaintiff), the first Presidential
Negro Family (Obama) and 44.5 Million Negros “without” any legal citizenship,
any just equal claim legal standing before any Federal Court of Law, and
“official property” of all “card-holders” of the Knights of The Klu Klux
Klansmen, and United States of America et al forevermore, Pursuant to: Dred
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857),
Notwithstanding
Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II declared “Legally” 1000% Dead
(DOA) to have his minor children kidnaped by the “Church of Jesus Christ of
Ladder Day Saints in an ongoing (RICO) fraudulent cover up by defendant United
States of America (Utah), as Being an open unlimited quite morbid statute of
limitation wi9thy a (MIA) dead wife Body being the same all occurred in (UTAH)
mystery of 2016 undersigned notary sealed date herein on additional defendant
RICO
enterprise abduction of a pronounce “dead nigger pro se slave” (Hamilton) by
also (Texas) State Hospital defendant herein of a Legally declared Dead Pro Se
Nigger Slave Plaintiff, (Hamilton) in a fix 1619 – 2013 years of scheme of
things surround among others Masterful Complex Bully in Obstruction of Judicial
Branch of
Uncouth
inbreed godless slim civilization of Conquering Klansmen Justices Government
and “Whites Only”, Ho’s 1000% safe and always secured by The 1790
Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for whites only and
enforced by David Hittner ‘United States District Judge” having full conscious
knowledge and professional legal expert fiduciary responsibility with
additional exhibit(s)
(A)
filed in support herein fully as follows: Memorandum on Dismissal dated
“October 9th 2012, as Pro Se (Hamilton) being sentenced by said court to remain
a Slavery Servitude non-citizenship, trapped by
Supremacy
Defendant United States of America RICO Judicial Fraud and “Obstruction of
Justices as described being free from “Slavery in 2013 contradicting exhibit
(A)dated “October 9th 2012, and
remaining a Negro slave – February 2013 by the same Conquering Klansmen and
“Whites Only”,
Defendant
“United States of America et al, secured by The 1790 Naturalization Act
reserves naturalized citizenship for whites only and enforced by David Hittner
‘United States District Judge” having full conscious knowledge and professional
legalexpert fiduciary responsibility as such evidence before this legal matter
being filed in support and so served on the “Honorable Court as described,
being “Truthful” Notary sworn before the Honorable Court Justices
Plaintiff
Negro Slave Louis Charles Hamilton II respectfully requesting all other
furtherance’s relief being fair, fully before the court in “Law and equity”
defendant United States of America” et al and “District Judge” having full
conscious knowledge and professional legal expert fiduciary responsibility
IN RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS
LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et
al.Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266, 05-3305., to refrain from (RICO) in Slavery officially being continual
by “United States of America et al” Justices till February 7th 2013 in a Fraud
None- disclosure racket “, for and additional (75) years Negro Plaintiff(s)
collectively Slaves of defendant America grand scheme involving the continual
criminal acts of
The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. § 1589
(forced labor), 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor), “Slavery Servitude” money laundering
statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, “Slavery Servitude” money laundering
statutes, RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1),,, very 1000% 1790- 2016 (226)
years control, in an ongoing future by the
“Judicial Branch of Government of Defendant
all Said contain fully “Motion to Strike” invalid, null, ineffective,
nonviable, useless, worthless, and officially in 2016 (December) on behalf of
no-citizenship continual being official “Property and No Citizenship/Slave
Pursuant to: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), being in direct acts
of
“Human
Rights Violation as (PLANTIFFS) herein officially filed said complaints now
2016 request expedited hearing on an Order to show cause why each Federal Case
all described contain herein official in that defendant committed (RICO) in law
and equity Judicial Fraud against said case laws filed for “Judgement against
(Plaintiffs) being committed under Fraud by (USA) in its entire form contained
therein being
“Motion
to Strike” forever in the records of each described “US Case with the Vacated
of all Judgment in each separately in official light of a Criminal ongoing
(RICO) schemes August 20th 1619 - 2016
(December) continual (RICO) racket Slavery Servitude surrounding peddling (MIA)
13th and 14th amendment rights, (RICO)
Judicial Fraud of civil stole rights under law and equity committed
hostile-fashion the defendant (USA) past, present well into future
(PLANTIFF NEGRO SLAVES) herein to be continual
denied fairly, justly, and proper Honorable Honest in so heard legally before
Justice in all matters as required by defendant “whites only” Law.
No comments:
Post a Comment