Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TX Brief of Appellant

TX Brief of Appellant

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 119 |Likes:
Published by Theresa Martin

More info:

Published by: Theresa Martin on Oct 19, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Cause No.: 05-20315
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Marianito T. BITARA, individually, and on) behalf of all persons similarly situated,)Civil appeal from the) United States District CourtPlaintiffs-Petitioners,) for the)Southern District of Texas,v.) Houston Division)The State of TEXAS,)Lower Cause No: H-04-3620) The Honorable Vanessa GilmoreDefendant-Respondent.)
Brief of Appellant
Recommendation on Oral Argument
The Plaintiffs suggest that the issues presented could be, and can be, fullydetermined upon examination of the record on appeal, and that oral argumentmight not benefit the panel. The parties' positions are clear and the record is fairlyuncomplicated.
See
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(3). Nevertheless, the Court may wish to hold oral argument, considering that thisaction, made and prosecuted on behalf of at least 951,631 plaintiffs against the
1
 
State of Texas for various claims, has extremely broad or significant implicationsin the administration or interpretation of the law, raises complex issues of law, andis of the utmost paramount interest to the public at large, and society as a whole,with tremendous repercussions being inherent to the posterity of any interlocutoryor final decisions eventually made herein.
Jurisdictional Statement
This is an appeal, filed timely on Monday, April 11, 2005, from a March 11,2005, final judgment of the district court in a civil case disposing of all the parties’claims, including several claims of civil rights violations and due processviolations arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.The original jurisdiction and power of the district court was invoked pursuant toat least the following: Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution,Article VI of the United States Constitution, 28 USC § 1331, 28 USC § 1343, 28USC § 1367, 28 USC § 1441, 28 USC § 1443, 28 USC § 2201, 28 USC § 2202, 31USC § 3732, and 42 USC § 2000b-2.Jurisdiction of this Court to review the district court’s disposition, denial anddismissal of the same civil rights and due process violations claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States is hereby statutorily andequitably invoked pursuant to the authority vested in, and also provided for, under at least 28 USC § 1291 and 28 USC § 1447.
2
 
Statement of Issues Presented for Review
1.Whether the Supreme Court and the Constitution demand certain due process procedures before states may take away parental custody of children.2.Whether the district court abused its discretion, if any it had, in refusing toabide by, and enforce, the duly enacted law of Congress.3.Whether the district court violated the Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments by deciding pure issues of fact belonging solely unto the Jury.4.Whether the district court could even entertain a motion to dismiss proffered by an attorney without any lawful authority in the case.5.Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow thePlaintiffs to amend their complaint.6.Whether the district court abused its discretion, if any it had, in refusing judicial notice, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ignoring stare decisis.7.Whether the district court violated the right to a fair, impartial and competenttribunal guaranteed unto the Plaintiffs by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Statement of the Case
On or about September 17, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed their verified complaint,along with several procedural motions, demands, requests, and notices. (Docket 1,3, 4, 5, 6, 7). On or about September 22, 2004, the district court issued an order for  pretrial conference and related matters. (Docket 2). On or about October 5, 2004,
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->