DOCKET NO: XXXX-XXXX-1234567-X :SUPERIOR COURT

XXXX-XXXX-1234567-X
XXXX-XXXX-1234567-X

DOE JAMES, ET AL : DATE

MOTION FOR REQUIRED JOINDER OF PARTIES

CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES 52-102 and F.R.C.P. RULE 19 REQUIRED

JOINDER OF PARTIES

There appears to be a mistake and i apologize if my acts, actions and inactions have led

any one to believe i am the person of the principal debtor JAMES DOE, ET AL being charged in

this matter and hereby move this court to invoke CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES 52-

102 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 19, on the grounds the annexed certificate

constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein wherein the facts are self-evident

that Some Hospital and Medical Center is the Registrant for John Henry Doe by operation of law

wherein the act of registration secured the benefits and privileges offered by the United States

though Title V, Sections 501-502 of the Social Security Act of 1935 for State of Connecticut;

therefore the United States and State of Connecticut experienced the benefit of the bargain and

United States vs PeWee Coal, 1951 (341 U.S. 114, 71 S.Ct. 670, 95 L.Ed. 809) applies with

United States and State of Connecticut as “proprietor” for JAMES DOE, et al of which is a

“famous mark” and “work of the law” as derivative from John Henry Doe, and;

The first duty of the attorney is to the court and Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure governs joinder of an indispensable party and “Rule 19 provides a two-step process to

determine whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party.”

See Davis ex rel. Davis v. United States, 343 F.3d 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2003). “The first step,
1
outlined in Rule 19(a), provides that a person is Required Party if complete relief cannot be

accorded in that person’s absence, or resolving the claims without that person may impair the

absent party’s interest or subject an existing party to the risk of double, multiple or otherwise

inconsistent obligations.” EEE Minerals, LLC v. State, 318 F.R.D. 118, 124 (D.N.D. 2016).

“Under Rule 19(a), if joinder of a required person is feasible, then that person must be joined.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2). If joinder is not feasible, the analysis proceeds to the second step. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 19(b). The second step of the analysis, set forth in Rule 19(b), directs a court to

“determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the

existing parties or should be dismissed;” and with Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)

confirming that “[u]nder the Supremacy Clause, state courts have a concurrent duty to enforce

federal law according to their regular modes of procedure.” See, e.g., Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.

S. 130, 93 U. S. 136-137. “Such a court may not deny a federal right, when the parties and

controversy are properly before it, in the absence of a "valid excuse."” Douglas v. New York,

N.H. & H.R. Co., 279 U. S. 377, 279 U. S. 387-389. “An excuse that is inconsistent with or

violates federal law is not a valid excuse: the Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to dissociate

themselves from federal law because of disagreement with its content or a refusal to recognize

the superior authority of its source.” See, e.g., Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 223 U. S.

1, 223 U. S. 57. “A valid excuse may exist when a state court refuses jurisdiction because of a

neutral state rule of judicial administration, see, e.g., Douglas, supra, unless that rule is

preempted by federal law,” see Felder v. Casey, 487 U. S. 131. Pp. 496 U. S. 367-375.

Connecticut General Statutes 52-102 requires Joinder of persons with interest adverse to

plaintiff and of necessary persons; therefore, jurisprudence requires The State of Connecticut and

The United States of America to be joined in any legal matter concerning John Henry Doe or

JOHN DOE, et al. because Some Hospital and Medical Center is registrant by operation of law

2
on behalf of the United States for the State of Connecticut which secured the Social Security

Grants for “the live births in such State bore” as administrator and usufructuary for the

preservation of public order and safety, therefore United States and State of Connecticut holds

the privy of the usufruct for any legal obligation for it is written with the maxims of law that “he

who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage” AND “he who

derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it” because “no man

ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act” and “any one may renounce a law

introduced for his own benefit” for “no one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent”

because “the execution of law does no injury” for “unequal things ought not be joined” and all

works are done in this name for the glory of the nation for all mutually pledge to each other our

lives, our fortune and our scared honor with a firm reliance upon divine Providence;

Unless proof of claim the United States paid the State of Connecticut to register and or

record man/people born for conversion into a governmentally recognized “surety,” “franchise,”

“tax payer,” or a “statutory or juristic Person” by operation of law as the JOHN DOE, et al.,

name is derived from the John Henry Doe name affixed to a certificate of live birth; as the States

receive allotments for each live birth each State bore from appropriations provided by Congress

with Title V of THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935; and as Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17

limits jurisdiction of Congress;

Or proof of claim for the alternative agreement to rebut United States vs PeWee Coal,

1951 (341 U.S. 114, 71 S.Ct. 670, 95 L.Ed. 809) because “whatever might have been

undersigned’s losses had undersigned been left free to exercise undersigned’s own “business

judgment”, the crucial fact is that the State of Connecticut and United States choose to intervene

in undersigned's "business judgment" by taking possession of the live birth event and operating

control by registering such event to secure the Social Security Funds and other grants offered by

3
the United States. By doing so, the State of Connecticut and United States became the proprietor

and, in the absence of contrary arrangements, is entitled to the benefits and subject to the

liabilities which that status involves.

Else, i am the Act of God for the birth event registered and recorded by the State of

Connecticut and the United States which was beyond my control and done in infancy in this

jurisdiction of insurance and contract and as a result, i invoke and declare force majeure in

regard to this matter.

___________________________
John-Henry, Grantor

State of Connecticut
County of Hartford

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me, a Licensed Notary in the State of Connecticut
on this ____ day of ___________________, 2022, by Doe, John-Henry, who proved to me on
the basis of satisfaction evidence to be the living man who is present before me.

_______________________ (seal)
Notary Signature

My commission expires _________, 20___