UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Deanne Rose Upson

Plaintiff v.
The District of Columbia, The Commonwealth of Virginia, The State of Maryland, et al.,

) )
) ) ) Case No. 10-CV-360

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
Case # 8:08-cv-00251-DKC Wallace v. Poulos et al before Judge Deborah K. Chasanow in Federal District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland
1

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-DRB1797) 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. Respectfully submitted this 16 th day of August, 2012. DEANNE ROSE UPSON individually and as next friend of G' U, minor Child. By: le Court grant this Motion

Deanne Rose Upson (Pro Se) PO Box 75281 Washington, DC 20013 7653 Anway Drive Battle Creek, MI 49014 P: 202-370-7756 deanne.upson@gmail.com
Page 4 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Deanne Rose Upson

Plaintiff v.

)
) )

The District of Columbia, The Commonwealth of Virginia, The State of Maryland, et al.,
Defendants

) ) )
)

Case No. 10-CV360

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

FOR STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Deanne Rose Upson, Plaintiff,
v.

FIL

MAR 0 5 2010
Clerk, U.S. District Bankruptcy Courts Civil Action No.

The District of Columbia et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

it 0360

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

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Deanne Rose Upson, Plaintiff,
v.

MAR 0 5 2010
Clerk, U.S. District arw Bankruptcy Courts

Civil Action No.

The District of Columbia et al., Defendants.

DISMISSAL ORDER

0 3 60

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)

Unit

tes District Judge

Ind