Distributed for Conference of January 10, 2003; petition denied January 13, 2003
Rule 21 Motion to Consider the Disqualification of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (11 pgs.) for an extrajudicial source factor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 (a) and (b) (5) (i) served on all parties December 4, 2002 .
Rule 22 Application to Justice O'Connor (3 pgs.) to file Rule 21 "Motion for Injunctive Relief" against the Ninth Circuit dated September 14, 2002 "as-is" in lieu of Rule 20 Extraordinary Writ requested by Deputy Clerk Vasil on November 1, 2002 pending answer of respondents, brief by the Solicitor General, or further order of this Court served on all parties November 20, 2002.
Briefs in Opposition due from 24 Defendants-Respondents at their discretion not later than November 17, 2002. [Rule 15.3]
Petition for a Writ of Ceritorarire-served October 11, 2002 in booklet format (6 1/8" x 9 1/4") 40 pages plus Appendix of 36 pages; 40 copies to court; 24 to service list received by Supreme Court October 16, 2002 and docketed October 18, 2002.
The petition and motion for injunctive relief below have been served upon the Office of the Solicitor General of the U.S. Department of Justice because defendant, Sharon M. Fujii, is the federal officer and employee responsible in DHHS Region IX for the deliberate and, at other times, reckless failure to train, supervise, order, and enforce the Title IV-D "review and adjustment" mandates of Congress, and her own department regulations and action transmittals, upon the Title IV-D agency in California after repeated written complaints to her by this family of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory violations by state and county government officials.
Motion for Injunctive Relief (10 pages) against the Ninth Circuit panel for usurpation of power in violation of the U.S. Constitution by making an arbitrary "unpublished" decision that is "beyond the bounds of reason" in violation of the Fifth Amendment (i.e. substantive due process) when there is only one inference in favor of a "trial by jury" (Seventh Amendment) on the family's legitimate constitutional claims against six (6) defendants identified by the panel as subject to suit; for actualconflict by disregarding 42 U.S.C. Sec.1320a-2 (1994) and failing to follow the U.S. Supreme Court unanimous decision in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) recognizing the right of a parent to enforce a Title IV-D individual right in a Section 1983 action, and by failing to follow two other "published" 9th and 8th circuit decisions which declared that "review and adjustment" of child support orders is an enforceable individual federal right; for misrepresentation of the family's civil rights action by the panel in falsely claiming that we are seeking enforcement of the "substantial compliance" provisions of Title IV-D enacted for the benefit of the Secretary, when in truth and in fact, the family in its complaint is "clearly and indisputably" seeking enforcement of its "review and adjustment" rights enacted for the benefit of the family; and for lack of independence by Senior Judge Warren J. Ferguson in breach of his duty to recuse himself from the appellate panel in violation of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 (a) because his independence and impartiality might be reasonably questioned because of an extrajudicial source factor (i.e. his and the district judge's prior employment by defendant Superior Court of California and the present close proximity of their working offices in the same federal building and on the same floor) served on September 14, 2002.
Open Letter (3 pages plus 1 page enclosure) to 34 Law Clerks of the United States Supreme Court defining why this action is entitled to be placed on the "discuss list" for a conference vote served on September 9, 2002.
Private Right of Action Survives Supreme Court's Blessing v. Freestone Decision, XIX Youth Law News (1997), Analysis of Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) by Leora Gershenzon, former Directing Attorney, Child Support Project, National Center for Youth Law, now Assistant Director, Office of Research & Program Design, California Department of Child Support Services, 11120 International Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 (916) 464 - 5100. See also her letter to all California IV-D Directors and District Attorneys, et al. dated April 2, 2001 on new federal incentives, penalties, and standards for "substantial compliance" audits.
Oral Argument Blessing v. Freestone (Docket No. 95-1441) argued January 6, 1997 - 59 minutes in RealOne Player format (download free RealOne player) provided by Northwestern University, The Oyez Project.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari (30 pages) against 24 defendants served on September 9, 2002 with Appendix (29 pages) seeking damages in a "trial by jury"on the family's legitimate and surviving constitutional claims where there is both broad subject matter jurisdiction arising under Article III, Sec. 2 and valid implied and express causes of action under Bivens and Section 1983, respectively against six (6) defendants identified by the 9th Circuit as not barred from this civil rights suit and eighteen (18) others improperly excluded by the panel under the res judicata and Rooker-Feldman doctrines; and recognition of the family's mutually exclusive right to sue for violation of its individual federal right to "review and adjustment" of its child suppport order, bill, and account within 180 days for the benefit of the family pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 666 (a) (10), et seq. and 45 C.F.R. 303.8, irrespective of the "substantial compliance" provisions contained elsewhere [see also 42 U.S.C. Sec.1320a-2] in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act for the benefit of the Secretary.
U.S. Supreme Court, Application to Extend Time to file Petition for Writ of Certiorari, granted by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on July 21, 2002 until September 11, 2002.
U.S. Supreme Court, Application to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor served July 8, 2002.
U.S. 9th Circuit, Court of Appeals, San Francisco, CA [Docket #01-55576]
11. Little Hoover Commission, Report #142, May 13, 1997 to the Governor & Legislature - Enforcing Child Support: Parental Duty, Public Priority (163 pages) - expressing inter alia concerns over potential for lack of due process and recommending enforcement of federal performance standards, denying financial incentives to counties who fail to comply with federal and state regulations, and allowing parents to sue counties if they fail to meet minimun federal and state performance standards.
13. California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits, Report #99103, August 5, 1999 to the Governor & Legislature - Child Support Enforcement Program (150 pages) - finding county, state, and federal administrators all failing to manage the program in accordance with federal regulations and contributing to inadequate performance.
15. ABA Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 33 No.1 (1999) 1999 Child Support Symposium - Child Support at a Crossroads: When the Real World Intrudes Upon Academics and Advocates, ("Many [states] violate federal law because they will only process upward modifications or requests made by custodial parents.") Ronald K. Henry, Esq., partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, LLP. Contact information for Ron Henry is (202) 682 - 3590 and rhenry@kayescholer.com.
16. President Clinton, June 17, 2000 radio address ..."the fact is, many fathers can't provide financial and emotional support to their children, not because they're deadbeat, but because they're dead-broke."
18. Federal lawsuit filed on or about December 20, 2000 by Boston Attorney, David C. Grossack, representing ANCPR, A Matter of Justice, Inc., and 11 individual plaintiffs challenging constitutionality of prohibiting the retroactive adjustment of child support arrearages for actual vs. imputed income. The suit alleges that the Bradley Amendment [42 U.S.C. 666 (a) (9) (C)] violates the 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments. Named defendants include Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, and David Gray Ross commissioner of DHHS/OCSE. Contact information for David C. Grossack
19. Daughter's brief appearance on the The SALLY® Show in New York City on April 24, 2001 to discuss teen perspective on family custody disputes; and her related federal civil rights action against 24 government officials and her mother for deliberate failure to correct the family's defective child support order after making 70 demands in 6 years when it was required to be done in 6 months causing the false imprisonment of her father for 16 months and loss of his driving and professional licenses for over 4 years airing May 3, 2001.
20. Copy of E-mail sent to Chairman Herger of the House Human Resources Subcommittee on June 26, 2001 requesting the opportunity to testify in the Committee hearing room 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC at 2 PM regarding allegations of deliberate violations of federal civil rights and SSA Title IV-D by federal, state, and local government employees for inclusion in the printed record of proceedings (Hearing Transcript 107-38), for all members of the committee, press, and public set for June 28, 2001 submitted by Dwight T. Beazley, on behalf of himself and his daughter, Jenelle D. Beazley.
22. New York Times, August 19, 2002 Robert Pear - U.S. Agents Arrest Dozens of Fathers in Support Cases - 69 fathers arrested by federal agents in 29 states (out of 102 sought) allegedly owing $3.4 million in upaid child support ranging from $7,500 to $297,000 with an average balance of $49,275.
23. Lawerence County Judges free 37alleged child support offenders jailed unconstitutionally without hearing or assistance of counsel based upon investigation done by Witold Walczak, Director of ACLU, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (see article by Jan Ackerman, Post-Gazette staff writer) September 12, 2002
24. U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on October 21, 2002 in Susan Jinks v. Richland County (Docket No. 02-258) on the issue of tolling a state statute of limitations while pursuing a Section 1983 claim for the wrongful death of her husband, Carl Jinks; who was arrested for alleged failure to pay child support to his ex-wife for two children and died four (4) days later while in custody due to lack of proper medical care by the county as found by a state jury who awarded Susan Jinks $80,000 in damages. (see brief story on CNN)
John H. Findley, Principal, Individual Rights Practice Group,
10360 Old Placerville Road #100, Sacramento, CA 95827 (916) 362 - 2833 as of September 12, 2002 presently reevaluating Supreme Court petition for certiorari and open letter to law clerks served September 9, 2002 and draft motion for injunctive relief to be served September 14, 2002.
Email from John Findley on September 16, 2002 at 8:43 AM advising previously set subject matter priorities limit assistance in our case and suggesting ACLU as alternative.
Letter from Richard A. Samp, Chief Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation, August 30, 2002 2009 Massachuetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-0302 advising the issues we raise in our petition for certiorari are of importance but unable to assist due to lack of resources.
Letter on October 9, 2002 from ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Lee Morgan, Intake Coordinator [for Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director], 1616 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752 (213) 977-9500 fax (213) 250-3919 advising that policy is no amicus support or opposition unless certiorari granted by Supreme Court with concurrence of National ACLU office in New York.
Request by ACLU, Pittsburgh for all legal documents filed by Beazley Family with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 11, 2002 Witold Walczak, Director, 313 Atwood Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-4090 (412) 681-7864
Letter from Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director, of the ACLU Foundation, August 22, 2002 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004-2400 (212) 549-2611 advising the ACLU cannot provide representation or file amicus briefs at the certiorari stage except in extraordinary circumstances, and he does not have the time to provide responsible comments on the draft petition for certiorari given the press of other business and impending filing deadline[s].
Email from Hans Bader, The Center for Individual Rights, August 20, 2002 1233 20th Street, N.W. Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 833-8400:
"While I tend to agree that the Ninth Circuit incorrectly decided aspects of Beazley v. Superior Court of California, 2002 WL 461333 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2002), and Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) logically does not foreclose a child-support payor's ability to sue to vindicate his clearly-defined individual right to a child-support modification hearing under 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(10) & 45 CFR 303.8, ..." [emphasis added]
All legal documents in this litigation data base are stored in Adobe PDF format and you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader software installed as an application on your system to view, save, and/or print the files. Go to Adobe Reader's dowload site at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html to download and install the "free" Acrobat Reader software (Version 5.0) to use these files.
