You are on page 1of 46

__________________________________________________________________

William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law


P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

DANN SLAYDEN CROSS III, MBA, *
DR. SHARON HARVEY CROSS, PsyD., *
Their sons F.C., R.C. and D.C., *
*
Plaintiffs (propria persona), * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:14-CV-006
*
vs. *
*
LISA RAMBO, Georgia Southwestern *
Judicial District Juvenile Judge and * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
her unnamed spouse, et al. in their *
individual capacity, *
*
Defendants. *
*
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
COME NOW, Defendants JUDGE LISA C. RAMBO and her unnamed spouse and
file this Motion to Dismiss the above-styled action. These Defendants show this Court that
Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a valid cause of action or justiciable claim against them in
any manner whatsoever.
Plaintiff Dann Slayden Cross and Plaintiff Sharon Harvey Cross, both non-lawyers,
are representing their three children in this court action. The unlicensed practice of law is a
crime and contrary to case law and Georgia statutory law. All claims filed on behalf of the
children, F.C., R.C. and D.C. must be dismissed.
Further, the unnamed spouse of Defendant Lisa Rambo has not been served with
any complaint and summons, nor has he been asked to waive formal process of service. The
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 1 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us


unnamed spouse of Defendant Lisa Rambo remains unnamed and as such should, along
with Defendant Rambo, be dismissed. The Defendants Brief in Support of Their Motion to
Dismiss is attached hereto and incorporated herein with this Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons contained herein and in their Brief in Support of
Their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs Complaint against Defendant Lisa Rambo and her
unnamed spouse pray that said complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Respectfully submitted this 8
th
day of March, 2014.

/s/ William D. NeSmith, III
WILLIAM D. NESMITH, III
Georgia Bar No.: 535792
Attorney for Defendants
P.O. Box 295
Americus, Georgia, 31709
229-931-4427
229-380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us



















Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 2 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and
foregoing Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim and Brief in Support of
Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by electronic filing
through the CM/ECF System in accordance with the United States District
Court Rules, as follows:
Dann Slayden Cross III, pro se
section1983suit@gmail.com

Sharon Harvey Cross, pro se
Section1983suit@gmail.com

David V. Johnson, Esq.
dj@insleyrace.com

Kevin P. Race, Esq.
krace@insleyrace.com

Brett Williams, Esq.
bwilliams@insleyrace.com

Kim M. Jackson, Esq.
kjackson@hptylaw.com


Bryan M. Grantham, Esq.
bgantham@hptylaw.com

Roger E. Harris, Esq.
Roger.Harris@swiftcurrie.com
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 3 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us



Shannon Shipley Hinson, Esq.
Shannon.Hinson@swiftcurrie.com

Tim Lewis, Esq.
timlewis@thetimlewisfirm.com

Respectfully submitted this 7
th
day of March, 2014.

/s/ William D. NeSmith, III
WILLIAM D. NESMITH, III
Georgia Bar No.: 535792
Attorney for Defendants
P.O. Box 295
Americus, Georgia, 31709
229-931-4427
229-380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us



Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 4 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

DANN SLAYDEN CROSS III, MBA, *
DR. SHARON HARVEY CROSS, PsyD., *
Their sons F.C., R.C. and D.C., *
*
Plaintiffs (propria persona), * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:14-CV-006
*
vs. *
*
LISA RAMBO, Georgia Southwestern *
Judicial District Juvenile Judge and * JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
her unnamed spouse, et al. in their *
individual capacity, *
*
Defendants. *
*
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM

COME NOW, defendants JUDGE LISA RAMBO and her unnamed spouse, and in
support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint, shows this Court the following:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 6, 2014, the plaintiffs, Dann Slayden Cross, III MBA, Dr. Sharon
Harvey Cross, PsyD., and their sons, F.C., R.C., and D.C. (hereinafter individually and
collectively as Plaintiffs) filed their complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In said
Complaint, Dann Slayden Cross and Sharon Harvey Cross seek damages on behalf of
themselves and their children, for alleged violations of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment
rights and violation of Public Trust Powers afforded them under the United States
Constitution. The Plaintiffs alleged that Lisa Rambo, acting under color of state law and
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 5 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

exercising public trust powers belonging to an office styled as Juvenile Court Judge
deprived all of the Plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment by unreasonable search and seizure
of person and papers, due process of law and false imprisonment. (Complaint 16; 142-
144; 145-147; 148-149). Plaintiffs Complaint is completely devoid of any allegations
whatsoever, against the unnamed spouse of Defendant Lisa Rambo, other than to allege
that any spouse of any defendant in the instant civil action must be joined as a defendant
based on precepts of coverture, marriage, accessory contract, and division of spoils as well
as abundant stare decisis upon the subject(s) of accessory, tontine wagering, and
misprision. (Complaint 28).
1

At all relevant times contained in Plaintiffs complaint, Plaintiffs were residents of
Macon County, Georgia and live at a confidential physical address. (Complaint 1).
Plaintiffs complaint arises from an initial incident that occurred at The Doctors Hospital in
Augusta on or about December 5, 2012. (Complaint 32). On December 4, 2012, plaintiffs,
after seeking treatment at another hospital, brought their son, F.C., a two year old child, to
The Doctors Hospital in Augusta, Georgia with serious burns to his feet. (Complaint 29-
32)(Rambo Affidavit 5). On that date, after F.C. was examined by a physician, and
Plaintiffs were informed that F.C. was scheduled for surgery on the morning of December
5, 2012. The Plaintiffs refused to allow F.C. to be immunized for Tetanus. Said
immunization was necessary prior to any medical treatment by the hospital. (Complaint

1
These Defendants aver that these allegations do not give rise to a colorable action under 42
U.S.C 1983 or any other type of civil action based upon Plaintiffs facts.

Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 6 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

32, 37)(Rambo Affidavit 6). According to the treating physician, if F.C. was not
immunized and contracted Tetanus, there was a 25% chance that he would die. (Rambo
Affidavit 7).
On December 5, 2012, Defendant Lisa Rambo, as Juvenile Court Judge for Macon
County, Georgia, received a telephone call from the law office of Patrick Eidson. Mr.
Eidson is a Special Assistant Attorney General representing the Macon County Department
of Family and Children Services and is a defendant in this civil action. Mr. Eidson was
seeking an ex parte emergency shelter care order based on deprivation of the Crosss minor
child, F.C. Based on information provided to Judge Rambo from Defendant Eidson which
was derived from the treating physicians for F.C., she signed an Order for Shelter Care.
Said order temporarily removed custody of F.C. from his parents and allowed F.C. to
receive needed medical care. Further, the Order informed F.C.s parents that a 72 hour
hearing was set by the court to provide the parents with their due process rights and the due
process rights of the minor child. (Rambo Affidavit 4, 8).
At the 72 Hour Hearing, Judge Rambo returned the minor child, F.C., to his parents
requiring Plaintiffs Dann Slayden Cross and Sharon Harvey Cross to:
1. Successfully complete Parenting classes and immunization
education.
2. Comply with all home schooling regulations as required by the
Macon County Board of Education.
3. Ensure that F.C. receives all medical attention recommended by
any medical provider.
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 7 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

4. Sign any releases for information requested by the Macon County
Department of Family and Childrens Services.
5. Cooperate with the Macon County Department of Family and
Childrens Services and any related agencies.
(Rambo Affidavit 11).
On March 26, 2013, the Macon County Department of Family and Childrens
Services filed a Petition to Dismiss Protective Order, with the Juvenile Court of Macon
County, Georgia. The petition alleged that Dann Slayden Cross and Sharon Harvey Cross
had complied with the previous order of the Juvenile Court and sought to dismiss the
Shelter Care Order entered by the court on December 5, 2012. A hearing was held on April
17, 2013 and the petition was granted by the Court and the Protective Order was dismissed.
(Rambo Affidavit 12).
At all times relevant to the Plaintiffs complaint, Defendant Lisa Rambo was acting
in her official capacity as a juvenile court judge and at no time acted in her individual
capacity. (Rambo Affidavit 16).
Since the return of F.C. to his parents and the dismissal of the Shelter Care Order,
Judge Rambo has been inundated with bizarre and at times, nonsensical pleadings and
other documents, all of which identify Defendant Rambo as a judge and all appear to
complain of her actions as a judge, not an individual. (Rambo Affidavit 13, 14, 15).



Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 8 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
I. Defendant Lisa Rambo is protected by absolute judicial immunity from
being sued in a civil matter.

It is undisputed in the Plaintiffs complaint and all other evidence before this Court
that Defendant Lisa Rambo, at all times relevant to Plaintiffs complaint, was acting as a
juvenile court judge for the Southwestern Judicial Circuit (Rambo Affidavit
170)(Complaint passim).
The Supreme Court held in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 537 (1967) that judges are
protected by absolute immunity when they act in a judicial capacity, even if they act
unconstitutionally. The Court relied on the background of common law immunity when 42
U.S.C 1983 was enacted. In Pierson, a state court judge was ruled absolutely immune from
damages liability under section 1983 even though he had convicted the plaintiff under an
unconstitutional statute. For immunity purposes, it did not matter even if the judge did so
knowingly.
In, Wilson v. Bush, 196 Fed Appx. 796; 2006 U.S. App LEXIS 22961, (2006)
on an appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, the
11
th
Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the District Court, held that:
The doctrine of judicial immunity entitles a judge to absolute immunity from
damages for actions taken in a judicial capacity unless the action was taken in
the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th
Cir. 2000). To determine if an action is within a judge's judicial capacity, we
look to "the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally
performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they
dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12,
112 S. Ct. 286, 288, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1991) (citation omitted). A judge does
not act in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction" when he acts erroneously,
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 9 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

maliciously, or in excess of his authority, but rather only when he acts
without subject-matter jurisdiction. Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 947-48
(11th Cir. 1985). The Supreme Court has held that:
Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the
immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their
judicial jurisdiction . . . . This immunity applies even when the judge is
accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it is not for the protection
or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public,
whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their
functions with independence and without fear of consequences. Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S. Ct. 1213, 1217-18, 18 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1967)
(internal quotations omitted). (Bush at 798)(emphasis added).

In Leonard v. United States District Judge Kenneth Marra, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22357, this Honorable Court, citing previous authorities, opined [c]laims against
judges are generally barred by the judge's absolute immunity from liability for
judicial acts. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct.
1099 (1978); Simmons v. Conger, 86 F.3d 1080, 1084-85 (11th Cir. 1996). The
Supreme Court has recognized two circumstances in which a plaintiff may overcome
a defendant's judicial immunity: "First, a judge is not immune from liability for
nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity. . . .
Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the
complete absence of all jurisdiction." Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 116 L. Ed.
2d 9, 112 S. Ct. 286 (1991) (citations omitted).
A juvenile court judge has subject matter jurisdiction and exclusive original jurisdiction
over matters involving, inter alia, alleged child deprivation. See O.C.G.A. 15-11-28. As
previously stated, there is not a scintilla of evidence that Judge Lisa Rambo acted in a non-
judicial capacity or that she did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of
deprivation of the minor child, F.C. and his parents. Even a casual reading of Plaintiffs
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 10 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

Complaint, and the numerous other documents attached to Judge Rambos Affidavit as
Exhibits clearly show that every complaint and allegation against this Defendant are clearly
addressing Judge Rambo in her judicial capacity. Further, Plaintiffs entire complaint
against Lisa Rambo and all of the defendants in the instant case, all arise from the Shelter
Care Order that she signed as a juvenile court judge.
Absolute judicial immunity is intended to protect the judicial process. If judges have
to be concerned that rulings in civil or criminal cases would likely generate section 1983
claims against them, this would have an adverse effect on a judges independent decision-
making. In addition, section 1983 claims against judges would necessarily involve the re-
litigation of earlier cases. Further, these Plaintiffs had a readily available remedy. They
could have sought an injunction from a superior court while they were in Richmond County
seeking medical treatment for F.C., and they certainly could file an appeal if the injunction
was not granted.
It is clear, from the entire record before the court, that all of the allegations against
Defendant Lisa Rambo involved her acting as a juvenile court judge and in a court that had
exclusive original jurisdiction of the matters complained of in Plaintiffs Complaint. Judge
Lisa Rambo at all times had absolute judicial immunity in the instant case and should be
dismissed from this action with prejudice.
II. Plaintiffs Complaint Contains No Justiciable Claims Against the
Unnamed Spouse of Defendant Lisa Rambo.

Plaintiffs Complaint is completely devoid of any allegations linked to or directed at
the unnamed spouse of Defendant Lisa Rambo other than a mere allegation that any spouse
of any defendant to the instant civil action should be joined as a defendant based on
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 11 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

precepts of coverture, marriage, accessory contract, and division of spoils as well as
abundant stare decisis upon the subject(s) of accessory, tontine wagering, and misprision.
(Complaint 28) These bare allegations, in and of themselves, do not constitute a claim
under section 1983. To prevail in a claim under section 1983, these Plaintiffs must prove
two critical points: 1) a person subjected the Plaintiffs to conduct that occurred under color
of state law, and 2) this conduct deprived these Plaintiffs of rights, privileges, or immunities
guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. See 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs
Complaint is silent to any allegation that any unnamed spouse acted under color of state
law or deprived any of the plaintiffs of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under
federal law or the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiffs have failed in every way to allege any
justiciable claim under section 1983. Further, the unnamed spouse of Defendant Lisa
Rambo has never been served with Plaintiffs Complaint. Plaintiffs Complaint against the
unnamed spouse of Defendant Lisa Rambo should be dismissed with prejudice.
III. Plaintiff Dann Slayden Cross and Sharon Harvey Cross are not licensed to
practice law in the state of Georgia and therefore cannot represent their
three minor children in their complaint against Lisa Rambo and her
unnamed spouse.

Georgia law prohibits the unlicensed practice of law within the state of Georgia.
O.C.G.A. 15-19-50 states:
The practice of law in this state is defined as:

(1) Representing litigants in court and preparing pleadings and other
papers incident to any action or special proceedings in any court or
other judicial body;

(2) Conveyancing;

(3) The preparation of legal instruments of all kinds whereby a legal right
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 12 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

is secured;

(4) The rendering of opinions as to the validity or invalidity of titles to real
or personal property;

(5) The giving of any legal advice; and

(6) Any action taken for others in any matter connected with the law.

O.C.G.A. 15-19-51 states:

Unauthorized practice of law forbidden
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person other than a duly licensed attorney at law:
(1) To practice or appear as an attorney at law for any person other than himself
in any court of this state or before any judicial body;
(2) To make it a business to practice as an attorney at law for any person other
than himself in any of such courts;
(3) To hold himself out to the public or otherwise to any person as being entitled
to practice law;
(4) To render or furnish legal services or advice;
(5) To furnish attorneys or counsel;
(6) To render legal services of any kind in actions or proceedings of any nature;
(7) To assume or use or advertise the title of "lawyer," "attorney," "attorney at
law," or equivalent terms in any language in such manner as to convey the
impression that he is entitled to practice law or is entitled to furnish legal
advice, services, or counsel; or
(8) To advertise that either alone or together with, by, or through any person,
whether a duly and regularly admitted attorney at law or not, he has, owns,
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 13 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

conducts, or maintains an office for the practice of law or for furnishing legal
advice, services, or counsel.
(b) Unless otherwise provided by law or by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, it
shall be unlawful for any corporation, voluntary association, or company to do or
perform any of the acts recited in subsection (a) of this Code section.
A thorough search of the membership of the State Bar of Georgia shows that neither
Dann Slayden Cross nor Sharon Harvey Cross are lawyers, licensed and admitted to
practice law in Georgia. It is clear from the Plaintiffs Complaint that Dann Slayden Cross
and Sharon Harvey Cross have prepared pleadings on behalf of their minor children and
have taken legal action on the childrens behalf. Both Dann Slayden Cross and Sharon
Harvey Cross have furnished legal services to their children by filing pleadings on their
behalf and advancing legal theories of recovery on behalf of their children. The above
described actions taken by Mr. and Ms. Cross on behalf of their children is a crime and the
complaint, as to the children, must be dismissed because they are not properly before the
court, and the complaint filed by Mr. and Ms. should be dismissed based on their unlawful,
criminal actions.
Disallowing non-lawyer parents to act as lawyers on behalf of their children has been
soundly disapproved by the courts. In Walker. et al v. Atlanta Public Schools, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 66230, Judge Timothy Batten, in a civil rights action, held:
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A) permits a parent to file suit on behalf of his
or her child, a non-lawyer parent is not permitted to serve as the child's legal
counsel. Devine v. Indian River County School Board, 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th
Cir. 1997); Whitehurst v. Wal-Mart, 306 F. App'x 446, 449 (11th Cir. 2008)
(same) (unpublished opinion). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 1654 only authorizes
individuals to "plead and conduct their own cases personally." Section 1654
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 14 of 46
__________________________________________________________________
William D. NeSmith, III, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 295 Americus, Georgia 31709
(229) 931-4427 *** (229) 380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us

does not extend the right to file an action pro se to the representation of others.
Devine, 121 F.3d at 581; Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.
2008) ("It is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se
provided by 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other
parties or entities.") Accordingly, this Court is required to dismiss this action,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).

Walker at 1, 2
2


CONCLUSION
For all of the above and foregoing reasons, facts and citations of law submitted, the
Plaintiffs Complaint against Defendant Lisa Rambo and her unnamed spouse should be
dismissed by this Honorable Court, with prejudice, and with all costs of this action cast
upon the Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted this 8
th
day of March, 2014.

/s/ William D. NeSmith, III
WILLIAM D. NESMITH, III
Georgia Bar No.: 535792
Attorney for Defendants
P.O. Box 295
Americus, Georgia, 31709
229-931-4427
229-380-0279 fax
wnesmith@sumtercountyga.us


2
See also Hafez v. Madison et al, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84650, pages 13, 14 holding that non-attorneys
cannot litigate the interest of another and that parents may not bring a pro se action on behalf of their children.
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 15 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 16 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 17 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 18 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 19 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 20 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 21 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 22 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 23 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 24 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 25 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 26 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 27 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 28 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 29 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 30 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 31 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 32 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 33 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 34 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 35 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 36 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 37 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 38 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 39 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 40 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 41 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 42 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 43 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 44 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 45 of 46
Case 5:14-cv-00006-CAR Document 46 Filed 03/08/14 Page 46 of 46