Monday, July 27, 2020

Motion to Strike (Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

                                          In The United States District Court 

                                            For The Eastern District of Texas

                                            U.S. Docket No. 1:20-CV-00266

Estate of Louis Charles Hamilton II                

Louis Charles Hamilton II                          Notice of Motion to Strike and Vacate Judgment(s)                                                                              

Estate of Rachel Ann Hamilton II                     (Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren

Estate of Chandra D. Hamilton   Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)              

Estate of Natasha C. Hamilton               

Aaron Michael Halvorsen (Hamilton II) (Son)           

Alexis Jemtrude (Hamilton II) (Daughter)                  

William Arthur Philip Louis, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge,                                                                   

Henry Charles Albert David, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex,               

Vladimir Vladimirvich Putin                                                                 

Lalisa Manoban

Emma Watson                                            

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez                                 

Bae Yoo-bin                                                      

                        Vs.

Donald John Trump Sr. 45th President 

United Nations et al                                                                 

United States Supreme Court

United States Congress

Defendant(s)

(Respectfully) herein plaintiffs collective Motions before the Federal Court, by undersigned council of record Estate of Louis Charles Hamilton II, undersign proceeding

“Pro Se” collectively (Plaintiffs) files Notice of Motion, Motion to Strike, with joining Motion to Vacate Judgments(s) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Argued December 9, 1952, Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. [Footnote 1]

[487]

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance,

[488]

They had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Fergson, 163 U. S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate.

In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. [Footnote 2] Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court. [Footnote 3]

[489]

Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive.

The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. [Footnote 4] In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported

[490]

by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates.

Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.

In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. [Footnote 5] The doctrine of

[491]

"separate but equal" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. [Footnote 6] American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education. [Footnote 7] In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U. S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U. S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. [Footnote 8] In more recent cases, all on the graduate school

[492]

level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.

In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. [Footnote 9] Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout

[493]

the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."

[494]

Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. [Footnote 10]"

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. [Footnote 11] Any language [495] in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Footnote 12]

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question -- the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.

In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term. [Footnote 13] The Attorney General

[496]

of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954. [Footnote 14]

It is so ordered.

* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.

[Footnote 1]

In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Kan.Gen.Stat. § 72-1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to establish segregated elementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a nonsegregated basis.

The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F. Supp. 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. S.C.Const., Art. XI, § 7; S.C.Code § 5377 (1942).

 The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found that the Negro schools were inferior to the white schools, and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities. But the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 98 F. Supp. 529.

This Court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court's views on a report filed by the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. 342 U. S. 350. On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this inequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

In the Virginia case, Davis v. County School Board, the plaintiffs are Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Va.Const., § 140; Va.Code § 22-221 (1950). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief.

The court found the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordered the defendants forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation and to "proceed with all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove" the inequality in physical plant. But, as in the South Carolina case, the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 103 F. Supp. 337. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

In the Delaware case, Gebhart v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Del.Const., Art. X, § 2; Del.Rev.Code § 2631 (1935). The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children, on the ground that the

Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. 87 A.2d 862.

The Chancellor also found that segregation itself results in an inferior education for Negro children (see note 10 infra), but did not rest his decision on that ground. Id. at 865. The Chancellor's decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware, which intimated, however, that the defendants might be able to obtain a modification of the decree after equalization of the Negro and white schools had been accomplished. 91 A.2d 137, 152.

The defendants, contending only that the Delaware courts had erred in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writ was granted, 344 U.S. 891. The plaintiffs, who were successful below, did not submit a cross-petition.

[Footnote 2]

344 U. S. 1, 141, 891.

[Footnote 3]

345 U.S. 972. The Attorney General of the United States participated both Terms as amicus curiae.

[Footnote 4]

For a general study of the development of public education prior to the Amendment, see Butts and Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (1953), Pts. I, II; Cubberley, Public Education in the United States (1934 ed.), cc. II-XII. School practices current at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment are described in Butts and Cremin, supra, at 269-275; Cubberley, supra, at 288-339, 408-431; Knight, Public Education in the South (1922), cc. VIII, IX. See also H. Ex.Doc. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871).

 Although the demand for free public schools followed substantially the same pattern in both the North and the South, the development in the South did not begin to gain momentum until about 1850, some twenty years after that in the North.

The reasons for the somewhat slower development in the South (e.g., the rural character of the South and the different regional attitudes toward state assistance) are well explained in Cubberley, supra, at 408-423. In the country as a whole, but particularly in the South, the War virtually stopped all progress in public education. Id. at 427-428.

 The low status of Negro education in all sections of the country, both before and immediately after the War, is described in Beale, A History of Freedom of Teaching in American Schools (1941), 112-132, 175-195. Compulsory school attendance laws were not generally adopted until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was not until 1918 that such laws were in force in all the states. Cubberley, supra, at 563-565.

[Footnote 5]

Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 67-72 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 307-308 (1880):

"It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color?

The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race -- the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored -- exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race."

See also Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 344-345 (1880).

[Footnote 6]

The doctrine apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass.198, 206 (1850), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a state constitutional guarantee of equality. Segregation in Boston public schools was eliminated in 1855. Mass.Acts 1855, c. 256. But elsewhere in the North, segregation in public education has persisted in some communities until recent years. It is apparent that such segregation has long been a nationwide problem, not merely one of sectional concern.

[Footnote 7]

See also Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45 (1908).

[Footnote 8]

In the Cummin case, Negro taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the defendant school board to discontinue the operation of a high school for white children until the board resumed operation of a high school for Negro children. Similarly, in the Gong Lum case, the plaintiff, a child of Chinese descent, contended only that state authorities had misapplied the doctrine by classifying him with Negro children and requiring him to attend a Negro school.

[Footnote 9]

In the Kansas case, the court below found substantial equality as to all such factors. 98 F. Supp. 797, 798. In the South Carolina case, the court below found that the defendants were proceeding "promptly and in good faith to comply with the court's decree." 103 F. Supp. 920, 921. In the Virginia case, the court below noted that the equalization program was already "afoot and progressing" (103 F. Supp. 337, 341); since then, we have been advised, in the Virginia Attorney General's brief on reargument, that the program has now been completed. In the Delaware case, the court below similarly noted that the state's equalization program was well under way. 91 A.2d 137, 149.

[Footnote 10]

A similar finding was made in the Delaware case: "I conclude from the testimony that, in our Delaware society, State-imposed segregation in education itself results in the Negro children, as a class, receiving educational opportunities which are substantially inferior to those available to white children otherwise similarly situated."

87 A.2d 862, 865.

[Footnote 11]

K.B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Mid-century White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J.Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int.J.Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., 1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).

[Footnote 12]

See Bolling v. Sharpe, post, p. 497, concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[Footnote 13]

"4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment"

"(a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or"

"(b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions?"

"5. On the assumption on which questions 4(a) and (b) are based, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4(b),"

"(a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in these cases;"

"(b) if so, what specific issues should the decrees reach;"

"(c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees;"

"(d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance with directions to frame decrees in these cases and, if so, what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?"

[Footnote 14]

See Rule 42, Revised Rules of this Court (effective July 1, 1954).

Under the factual allegation (Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren absolutely legal experts in law and education of higher sorts..? at (Defendants) University of California Berkeley, UC Berkeley Law Citing false classification of “Slaves and Descendants”

manipulation of the judicial records Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) as in 1954, (Plaintiffs) are not legal descendants of 19th century African-American slaves but actual living slaves until on or about the 6th day of February 2013, thereby such wire fraud committed directly by (Defendants) Supreme Court

(Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren officially acting under color of law, “Oath of Office” of the “Supreme Court of the United States of America” for whatever reasoning might be on or about the dates of December 9th 1952, December 8th 1953 and May 17th 1954

(Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren officially acting under color of law never ratified (Plaintiffs) Captive Negro Slave 13th amendment on or about December 9th 1952, December 8th 1953 and May 17th 1954 “ending said crimes against humanity enslavement of a entire population “Citing evidence of correct government records filed herein

(exhibit A) citing *See Case 3:16-mc-00016 the 1800s 13th Amendment being not  complete and official ratified as described in all school books “world-wide published” in 1865 but (Defendant Confederate State of Mississippi) Join the (Plaintiffs) United States of America Union government until on or about February 7th 2013

False slavery data of the (“Defendants”) entire Supreme Court Surrounding continue records Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Subject to said wire fraud, false judicial decree, Obstruction of Justice against (Plaintiffs) being still captive slaves in 1954  “thereby by method of the “Federal Courts, Appeals Courts and ” with (Defendants) Supreme Courts Justice conspire, mislead, or for whatever reasoning maybe  (“RICO”) judicial fraud against Surrounding continue records

(Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren officially acting under color of law Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) subject to “fraud of the courts”

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), against the correct freedom rights of the (Plaintiffs) Negro DNA Slaves herein further assert, before the “Federal Court” this being

 Absolutely in direct violation against undersigned council of record 18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Military Secret Service Cmdr. Louis Charles Hamilton II US Naval Intelligence (military investigation records) in these matters., while undersigned council of record, family et al being “held still Great Whiteman Negro captive slave”…

                                                    Jurisdiction and Venue

                “United States of America” did not existed until on or about the 7th day of February 2013 (Exhibit A) attached herein,

                                                 Conclusion

Wherefore (plaintiffs) collective move For or these official correct reasoning in law and equity, (plaintiffs) collective move to strike (Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren Citations:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Wherefore (plaintiffs) collective move further court records RICO scheme of things further to having illegal occurred under false slavery data regarding Argued December 9, 1952

Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954*, APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Exhibit B)

(Defendant) MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

                                                                                                               

Wherefore (plaintiffs) collective move for oral argument(s) being made into the records of this proceeding base upon the “illegal, improper, unethical, and very fraudulent actions” of the “Entire Judicial Government” of the past… dealing with millions of (Captive Negro Slaves) against correct informed knowledge, will, peace, dignity, international freedom rights

Wherefore (plaintiffs) collective citing there is no “Legal Standards” presenting this case and raising issue of “aggravated perjury” while dealing with the elusive (Defendants) illegal existences (The 13 Confederate States of America et al) and it it’s very clear relief could be granted by the undersigned Court on the facts, exhibit(s) consistent with the allegations set forth in the complaint, before being “Amended”.

 The circumstances quite clear and criminal cut “absolute fraud of the court” holding in favor against the plaintiffs, and the evidence is sufficient on the merits perjury having occurred on all allegations of false slavery data argued December 9, 1952, Reargued December 8, 1953

Fraudulent published when Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS under all material facts mention herein “still captive slave property, of Whiteman’s criminal “expert international fraudulent doings under false slavery data, wire fraud scheme of things since 1865.

*See Case 3:16-mc-00016 13th Amendment being ratified 2013 7th day Feb. 

 

Subscribed and sworn before Public Notary Public on this _____ day of __________ 2020

 

                                                                        _________________________

                                                                                        Public Notary

 

 Respectfully ________________________________________

   Estate of Louis Charles Hamilton II Cmdr. US Navy MSS (Pro Se Plaintiff)

Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary,

 Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, KG, KT, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis)

 Prince Henry of Wales, KCVO, (Henry Charles Albert David)

 Prime Minister Boris Johnson

The British Consulate 1301 Fannin Street #2400 Houston Texas 77002-7014

CC: International Criminal Court “Honorable Mrs. Fatou Bensouda

 

 July 27th 2020                                                                                        

In The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas 300 Willow St United States Federal Courthouse Beaumont, TX 77701 Ste. 104

Clerk of Court et al please find

“Pro Se” collectively (Plaintiffs) files Notice of Motion, Motion to Strike, with joining Motion to Vacate Judgments(s) (Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Argued December 9, 1952, Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954

* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

           2. Order of Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin            

_____ Day of __________ 2020                         

                             

 Respectfully ________________________________________

   Estate of Louis Charles Hamilton II Cmdr. US Navy MSS (Pro Se Plaintiff)

Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary,

 Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, KG, KT, PC, ADC (William Arthur Philip Louis)

 Prince Henry of Wales, KCVO, (Henry Charles Albert David)

 Prime Minister Boris Johnson

The British Consulate 1301 Fannin Street #2400 Houston Texas 77002-7014

CC: International Criminal Court “Honorable Mrs. Fatou Bensouda

 

 In The United States District Court 

 For The Eastern District of Texas

(Plaintiffs) (Hamilton et al)

U.S. Docket No. 1:20-CV-00266,

1. “Pro Se” collectively (Plaintiffs) files Notice of Motion, Motion to Strike, with joining Motion to Vacate Judgments(s) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Argued December 9, 1952

Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

           2. Order of Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin            

 

              From: Louis Charles Hamilton II Cmdr. US Navy MSS (Pro Se Plaintiff)

Pages with Cover:_________

409-370-1907 cell                    Fax: 409-740-2104 Louishamilton2015@gmail.com


In The United States District Court 

                                      For The Eastern District of Texas

                                      U.S. Docket No. 1:20-CV-00266

Estate of Louis Charles Hamilton II                

Louis Charles Hamilton II                                             Order of the Court                                                                          

Estate of Rachel Ann Hamilton II                     Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin            

Estate of Chandra D. Hamilton                                   

Estate of Natasha C. Hamilton                

Aaron Michael Halvorsen (Hamilton II) (Son)  

Alexis Jemtrude (Hamilton II) (Daughter)                     

William Arthur Philip Louis, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge,                                                                    

Henry Charles Albert David, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex,              

Vladimir Vladimirvich Putin                                                                  

Lalisa Manoban

Emma Watson                                            

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez                                 

Bae Yoo-bin                                                      

                        Vs.

Donald John Trump Sr. 45th President 

United Nations et al                                                                 

United States Supreme Court

United States Congress

Defendant(s)

This cause is before the court U.S. Docket No. 1:20-CV-00266, plaintiffs collective Motions before the Federal Court, by undersigned council of record Estate of Louis Charles Hamilton II, undersign proceeding

“Pro Se” collectively (Plaintiffs) files Notice of Motion, Motion to Strike, with joining Motion to Vacate Judgments(s) (Defendant) Chief Justice Earl Warren, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Argued December 9, 1952

Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court, The court has reviewed the (plaintiffs) motion to strike, and exhibit (A) filing of the official 13th Amendment on or about the 7th day of February 2013 attached herein, being duly advised in the premises, this Court finds as follows:

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Notice of Motion, Motion to Strike, & joining Motion to Vacate Judgments(s) of  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Argued December 9, 1952 Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

There is good cause to modify, and vacate Judgments Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Argued December 9, 1952 Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1.      Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Citations: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Argued December 9, 1952

Reargued December 8, 1953, Decided May 17, 1954* APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court Judgments is vacated and dismissed

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2.       

 

On or about this ______ day _________________ 2020

 

 

                                                  __________________________________

                                                                       Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin          




#Sherlock #Holmes #Caseof #The #Crooked #Dead #President #LouisCharlesHamiltonII #TrumpFraud #Scam #GOP #Russia #Election #Fraud #Republican #Corruption #FBI #Investigaton #RedHen #BlackLivesMatter #USSR #GRU #NSA #NCIS #NIS #Navy #USMC #SecretService #ABC #CBS #NBC #MSNBC #CNBC #BBCNews #CNN #Utah #Mormon #Racist #USNavyseals #JAG #UnitedNations #Peace #Palace #ICC #ICJ #International #Courts #MLKjr #Obama #Hillary #NATO #PinkyRoseDeChavez #TinaFeyWifeSwap 
#Hashtagstupidniggers #France #Mexico #Canada #Popefrancis #Law #SupremeCourt #WhiteOnly #Slaves #Africa #Egypt #Syria #Iran #FoxNews #BritishQueen #PrinceWilliams #PrinceHarry #BritishRoyalFamily #PrimeMinsterMay #MI5 #MI6 #BCI #BCA #FargoND #Utah #Texas #Genocide #Slavery #Hatecrimes #Negro #Immigration #Crimesagainsthumanity #PortArthurTexas #Ninja #NASA #Space #Marines #FlyNavy #CmdrBluefin

+CNBC+FEDERAL BUREAU Investigation#Mueller #The #Shame :  )
Tina Fey
Prince Harry Windsor
Will Smith
Bill and Hillary Clinton
Megyn Kelly
Cara Delevingne
Samuel L Jackson
Jerry Springer show
Jerry Seinfeld
China Turkey
Israel
North Dakota
British Royal Family
President Barack Obama
United States Navy Seals
Will Ferrell
Derek Zoolander
The View
Jimmy Fallon
Bill Muhar
Fox News Live
BBC World News
Dixie Chicks bitches
Sen. Ted Cruz
NATO
Nobel Prize
ABC NBC CBS
India
Tiwain
Texas
Supreme Court
Sarah Palin
Bristol Palin
Track Palin
Star Trek
Star Wars
It always sunny in Philadelphia
As the world turns
Days of our lives
LA Clippers
British Parliament
Inspector Callahan
David and Charles Koch
Africa
Thailand
Bill Gates Bill Cosby
Cheers
Big Bang Theory
30 Rock
Alec Baldwin
Clint Eastwood
Tom Cruise
Tom Jones
Jimmy Kimmel
Jimmy Carr
Jimmy Hendrix
Japan
Soviet Union
Madonna
Cher
Chris Isaac
Oscar
Conan Congress
Washington DC
Texas
Alaska Air
The Beetles
Johnny Depp
Johnny Cash
Pirates of the Caribbean
Super Mario Bros
Victoria Secret
NASA Space Station
Hogwarts
Kim Kardashian
Jim Carrey
Jim Morrison
Courtney Love
The Who
James Brown
Black Lives Matters
Michael Jackson
Michael Jordan
Cobey Bryant
Olivia Newton John
Track Morgan
United States Marshal
UPS FedEx
PTSD
US Marines
US Army
US Coast Guard
British Royal Navy
Harvard University
Jesus Christ LDS
Pope
Vatican City
Middle East
Hong Kong
Tabitha
Black History
Martin Luther King Jr
Malcolm X
Barnie Sanders
Sen. Ted Cruz
Penelope Cruz
Mission impossible
Days of our lives
Married with children
I Love Lucky
MASH
Dred Scott
Catholics
Jew
Syria
Iran
CBS News
NBC News
ABC News
CNN
Hot News
The Daily Beast
Jebb Bush
Sheldon Cooper
Rushi Barot
Geeta International Inc.
Harry Potter
Harry C. Arthur Esq.
Jesus Christ
Holy Bible
Allah
Samsung Galaxy S3
BBC Radio
BBC Technology
Samsung Galaxy A5
Rick Santorum
Mobile Gallery
Germany
Portugal
France
Italy
Mitsubishi
Toyota
Ford Trucks
Jeep Eagles
Pearl harbor Hawaii
Lady Gaga
Libya
Google
Apple
Bill Gates
Cher
Verizon
At&T
Sprint
Ben Carson dumped
Deep Sea Horizon
Enron
Hezbollah ISIS
Military
British Columbia University
British Columbia
British Vogue
Bill Murray
Stephen Colbert
Stephen Hawking
Boris Johnson
Beijing
Solar panels
Pegasus
Native Americans
Mexico
United States
Apple iPad
Maia Shibutani
California
New York City
New Jersey Shore
Abraham Lincoln
Twitter
National Geographic
David Beckham
David Cameron
Cameron Diaz
Drew Barrymore
Justin Bieber
Marco Rubio
Eva Longoria
London
King Kong
David Spade
Ben Stiller
Adel
Dallas Cowboys
John Mayer
John Saseen
Iowa
Angela Mcglowan
Rajinder Singh Dhiman
Dr Seuss
Dr Pepper
Dr Piper
Europe
Locheed Martin
Martin Lawrence
Jack Black
Jaguar
BMW
Mariah Carey
Chiang Rai
Baltimore
British India
Jarad Leto
Tom Hanks
Tom Hardy
The Hollywood Reporter
John Lennon
John Kerry
Ash Carter
Republican Party
Russia
Chicago
Kristen Stewart Samuel L Jackson
Kevin Hart
Kevin Durant
Jay Z
Kareem Abdul Jabar
Lakers
NBA
Republican party
Selena Gomez
Will Smith
Thailand
Fox Sports
Charles Barkley
Jerry Springer
Jerry Seinfeld
North Dakota
Hollywood
Oscar
Nobel Prize
British Parliament
Switzerland
Geniva
Paris Hilton
Paris
Donald Trump
Sen Ted Cruz
It's always sunny in Philadelphia
Derek Zoolander
Ben Stiler
Owen Wilson
Jackie Chan
Chris Tucker
Canada
Mexico
Russia
Egypt
Africa
Will Ferrell
Isreal
Saudi Arabia
Morgan Freeman
Spike Lee
AL Sharpton
Tonya Lewis Lee 
Donald John Trump Jr. 
Rex Marsav
Melissa Whitley
Joe Czyzyk
Linda Adewole 
Mitt Romney 
United States Veterans Initative
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Mike Lee
Sen. Ted Cruz
Sen. Jeff Flake
Sen. David Vitter
Sen. David Perdue
Sen. Thom Tillis
David Duke
Jessie Jackson
NAACP
ACLU
NSA
William McCants
Sigmar Gabriel
Professor Roger Griffin
Ivana Trump
Marla Maples
Ben Carson
Candy Carson
Chris Rock
Vanessa D Gilmore
Willie M Zanders
Karen Wells Roby
Danny Devito
Ray Romano
Amy Poehler
Ashton Kutcher
President Donald Trump
Ellen DeGeneres
Pinky Rose De Chavez
Prince Harry Windsor
Lalisa Manoban


 

 

 

 


No comments:

Post a Comment