UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Deanne Rose Upson )
Plaintiff )
v. )
The District of Columbia, ) Case No. 10-CV-360
The Commonwealth of Virginia, )
The State of Maryland, et al., )
Defendants )
Motion for Reinstatement
COMES NOW your Plaintiff, Deanne Rose Upson (hereafter "Mother") and respectfully
requests this Honorable Court grant her Motion for Reinstatement of this Case and respectfully
states the following.
1. This Case may have been improperly dismissed previously due to the Rooker-Feldman
Collateral Attack Doctrine (March 1, 2010 Ruling and Order attached) and other reasons.
2. The biological father, William Earl Wallace III, of Mother's Child filed his own Federal
case' concerning the very same matters at dispute, filing his case against Montgomery
County, Maryland, and members of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Police. His case
was filed in Federal District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, and was presided over by
Judge Deborah Chasanow and went to a jury trial and the jury awarded Mother's Child
$2.5 million for less than one day's separation from William Earl Wallace III under the
faulty premise that William Earl Wallace III had a valid child custody order. The jury
awarded Mr. Wallace $1.
3. Therefore, Mother's Federal Case herein was dismissed due to ongoing state proceedings,
specifically with Judge Kennedy mentioning the Rooker-Feldman Collateral Attack
Doctrine. However, the biological father's case was not dismissed by Judge Chasenow
1 Case # 8:08-cv-00251-DKC Wallace v. Poulos et al before Judge Deborah K. Chasanow in Federal District Court in
Greenbelt, Maryland
Page 1 of 5
in the other Federal Court; despite the exact same circumstances of ongoing state
proceedings.
4. Therefore, Mother requests her Case be Reinstated through this Motion due to this
conflict between the two different Federal Courts handling of these two cases. If the
biological father's Federal case was allowed to proceed by Judge Chasenow, Mother's
Case should have not been dismissed by Judge Kennedy and should be reinstated.
5. Moreover, the Ruling in this Case also mentions ongoing state cases. Mother appealed
those state cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court (Case 10-11020) and
the Committee decided not to Review Mother's case. Therefore, now all the prior
pending cases Judge Kennedy considered in Ruling on March 1, 2010 are all now final;
despite that the DC Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court never addressed the
crux of the issue regarding Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
(UCCJEA) jurisdiction between the courts of DC, VA, and MD and improper forum
shopping in these matters concerning Mother's minor Child, GRU.
6. Because all the prior cases are now final, Mother has filed a brand new child support,
child custody, and protection order case in DC Superior Court (DC SC Case 2011-DRB-
1797) and that case is "open" and "pending."
7. The Ruling in this Case mentions the District of Columbia as a Defendant and uses that
fact to also dismiss the case stating this is a matter within the District of Columbia.
However, the crux of the issues of this Case concerns the four states of District of
Columbia, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, and State of Florida (Florida
never prosecuted Wallace's false residency and domicile claims or his fraudulent tax and
federal voting in Florida that he did to attempt to justify his forum shopping in VA and
MD). Moreover, as the biological father sought and obtained relief against the State of
Maryland on the very same issues in dispute during the pendency of state proceedings,
clearly this Court should acknowledge that more than just the District of Columbia is
involved in this suit and Federal issues are the crux of the issues in this Case.
8. Mother also states that her Complaint involves Federal Civil Rights Violations (42 USC
1983) clearly in the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Simply because the complaint
partially includes child custody issues and child support issues, does not preclude it from
Federal jurisdiction over Civil Rights and other Federal violations.
Page 2 of 5
9. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper in the District
of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). This is the jurisdictional district in which the
Plaintiffs resides and/or previously resided, including during the times the Plaintiff's
causes of action arose, and/or the jurisdictional district in which the injuries suffered by
Plaintiff were sustained, and in which all the events giving rise to the Plaintiff claims
occurred.
10. Mother also makes Complaint against these Defendants for Violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Constitution of the United States of
America, Tortious Interference with Custodial Rights, Fraud, Breach of Duty of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Lawful Duty (Negligence), Breach of Written, Oral and
Implied Contract; Common Law Conspiracy; Racketeering; and Extortion. These are
matters of Federal Jurisdiction.
11. Mother will seek to Amend her Complaint upon Reinstatement to seek relief in the form
of an order requiring the immediate return of the Plaintiffs' minor Child to the full sole
legal and physical custody of the Plaintiff and other relief by way of back and front lost
income, back and front medical and mental health expenses, actual, compensatory and
punitive damages, and all legal fees and costs. Because the jury awarded Mother's Child
$2.5million for less than one day separation from the biological father — despite that the
custody order was and is still in dispute on Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) grounds as lacking UCCJEA jurisdiction — Mother will
Amend her Complaint to seek $2.5million per day against each defendant from the time
each Defendant became involved in these matters, seeking award of $2.5million per day
against each, and treble damages against each state and Judges Pamela Young-Diaz,
Nolan Dawkins, Donald Haddock, and Richard Jamborsky with treble damages against
each of $7.5million per day since the initial date of each Judge's involvement in these
matters.
12. This Child has been kidnapped and concealed since December 22, 2006 — nearly 6 years
ago and is now 8 years old.
13. The initial commencement of proceedings in DC Superior Court for child support and
child custody was on August 16, 2004 when this Child was just over 2 months old. As of
Page 3 of 5
the date of this Motion for Reinstatement, that puts the damage request at $730 Billion
approximately against the District of Columbia, for example.
14. As Child's next best friend and proper sole legal custodian, Mother seeks the same
damages on behalf of her Daughter against all Defendants as stated above.
15. In the further interests of the ends of justice, Mother prays this Court consider in ruling
on this Motion for Reinstatement that this Child is the result of internet sexual predation
and rape by the biological father who is a $50 million net worth well-connected
Washington DC litigation lawyer who evidence indicates bribed DC, VA, and MD judges
and officials to achieve this now coming 6 year kidnapping and concealment through
improper forum shopping back and forth across the Potomac River through bribing
judges to hear cases with promises of political favors including assistance with
recommendations for higher court appointment. Evidence was presented to the state
courts and officials of the biological father's pattern and practice of forum shopping and
fraud upon the courts and criminal activity, but that evidence was completely ignored
resulting in a striking lack of empathy for this Mother and Child who are victims of his
internet sexual predation and rape, clearly extreme animosity, and harmed by Mother's
refusal to be coerced into aborting this Child by William Earl Wallace III.
COMES NOW the Plaintiff in the above-captioned cause of action and hereby demand trial
by jury in each of the foregoing causes so triable should this Ho
for Reinstatement.
le Court grant this Motion
Respectfully submitted this 16 th day of August, 2012.
DEANNE ROSE UPSON individually and as next friend of G' U, minor Child.
By:
Deanne Rose Upson (Pro Se) PO Box 75281 Washington, DC 20013 7653 Anway Drive Battle Creek, MI 49014 P: 202-370-7756 [email protected]
Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Deanne Rose Upson )
Plaintiff )
v. )
The District of Columbia, ) Case No. 10-CV360
The Commonwealth of Virginia, )
The State of Maryland, et al., )
Defendants )
Motion for Reinstatement
For good and sufficient cause stated in Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement, is is hereby
ORDERED the Complaint is REINSTATED.
Date: United States District Judge
Page 5 of 5
Deanne Rose Upson,
FOR STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILD
MAR 0 5 2010 Clerk, U.S. District
Bankruptcy Courts Plaintiff,
v .
The District of Columbia et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.
it 0360
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Deanne Rose Upson has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a pro
se complaint, and an emergency motion seeking "Immediate Federal Action to End 3+ Year
Kidnapping and Concealment of Child from Mother." The in forma pauperis application will be
granted and the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The lengthy complaint, which results from plaintiff's dissatisfaction with other courts'
actions in a child custody dispute between the plaintiff and her child's father, purports to sue the
District of Columbia, three states, and numerous judges and persons involved in state agencies
relating to child protective services. See Compl. at 1-2. The father is not identified as a
defendant in this action. The plaintiff seeks an order from this Court that reunites her with her
daughter, that clarifies the intent of the Constitution with respect to the controversy, that
identifies a state jurisdiction to resolve the custody dispute, that protects her and her child from
the father, that provides other injunctive relief, and that awards her $1100 per day from the time
the father gained custody of the child. See id. at 61-65; Emergency Mot. at 20. The pro se
complaint includes references to a custody order issued by an unidentified court of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, see Compl. at 4, a custody case identified as No. 2004-PCS-1375 in
ihe Superior Court for the District of Columbia, id, at 6, 24, and an appeal that is currently
pending in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, id. at 7. The complaint also refers to other
courts involved in matters relating to her daughter: City of Alexandria Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court, City of Alexandria Circuit Court, Montgomery County Circuit Court. Id. at 25.
Essentially, it appears that the plaintiff asks this Court to vacate certain state court orders and to
enforce others.
A federal district court is a court of expressly limited jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction in
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §
1331. The allegations in the complaint, however, do not appear to arise under federal law, but
instead under state domestic relations law and perhaps common law torts of kidnapping or false
imprisonment. To the extent that the plaintiff thinks a federal court has jurisdiction to supervise
state courts or the conduct of state judges, she is mistaken. In any case, the complaint does not
establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Furthermore, to the extent that
the plaintiff asks this Court to entertain a case that is "inextricably intertwined with the questions
ruled upon by a state court[,] in other words, cases functionally equivalent to an appeal from a
state court[,]" this Court would be prohibited from doing so by the so-called Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Nader v. The Democratic National Comm., 555 F. Supp. 2d 137, 153 (D.D.C. 2008)
(quoting Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A federal district court also has jurisdiction over civil actions in matters where the
controversy is between citizens of different states and exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Here, however, the complaint identifies the plaintiff as a resident of the District of Columbia, and
2
identifies the District of Columbia as one of several defendants. Therefore, there appears to be
no diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date: 34424ve
tes District Judge Unit
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED MAR 0 5 2010
Clerk, U.S. District arw Bankruptcy Courts
Deanne Rose Upson,
Plaintiff,
v .
The District of Columbia et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.
0 360
DISMISSAL ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and it
is further
ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is a final
appealable order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
Date: $/.26/e)
Ind