FULLY INFORMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPENSATORY, PUNITIVE & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS ($750,000,000)
TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERALS BUDGET
(in addition to the current budget)
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.", Genesis 3:16The husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ, 1 Corinthians 11:3For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior, Ephesians 5:23Wives, submit yourself to your husbands, for that is what you should do as Christians. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them, Colossians 3:18As in all the churches of God's people, the women should keep quiet in church meetings. They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish law says, they must not be in charge. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting, 1Corinthians 14:35A married woman ... is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives..., Romans 7:2Wives must submit themselves completely to their husbands just as the church submits itself to Christ, Ephesians 5:24How hard it is to find a capable wife; she is worth far more than jewels, Proverbs 31:10Let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife, 1 Corinthian 7:10... you wives should be obedient to your husbands, 1 Peter 3You husbands, also, in living with your wives you must recognize that they are the weaker sex. So you must treat them with respect, because they will also receive, together with you, God's gift of life, 1 Peter 3:7... in order to train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, and to be good housewives, who obey their husbands, so that no one will speak evil of the message from God, Titus 2:4During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or have authority over a man, 1 Timothy 2:11Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake, 1 Corinthians 11:9My son, hear the instructions of thy father, and forget not the law of thine mother, Proverbs 1:8As the law of Moses prescribes, they were given the same punishment as they had schemed to inflict [adultery] on their neighbor. They were put to death, Daniel 13:62A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to his 10th generation, Deuteronomy 23:2... false teachers will appear amoung you... [to] bring in destructive untrue doctrines ... and they will bring upon themselves sudden destruction ... They want to look for nothing but the chance to commit adultery, 2 Peter 2:1Even if you do not commit adultery, you have become a lawbreaker if you commit murder, James 2:11If there is a man who lies with a male ..., they shall be put to death, Leviticus 20:13Some of them go into people's houses and gain control over weak women who are burdened by the guilt of their sins and driven by all kinds of desires, women who are always trying to learn but who can never come to know the truth, 2 Timothy 3:8In our law Moses commanded that [adulteresses] must be stoned to death, John 8:5Does this mean that we do away with the law by this faith? No, not at all; instead we uphold the law, Romans 3:31He will turn the hearts of the to their children, and the hearts of the children to their ...or else I will come and strike the land with a curse, Malachi 4:6Jesus said "keep the Commandments ... do not commit adultery, Matthew 9:18And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail, Luke 16:17He [Asa, King of Judah 911-870 BC] even deprived his grandmother Maacah of the dignity of a 'great lady' for having made an obscenity for Asherah; Asa cut down her obscenity and burnt it in the ravine of the Kidron, 1 Kings 15:13The removal from children of this father authority denies both the chldren and the father this First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, particularly of Christianity. The physical separation of children from their removes this father authority from children. This most basic tenet of Christianity cannot be exercised when children are not physically located with their . Any belief that can exercise this religious right when the father is perceived as or treated like a visitor to his own children is an obscenity to Christianity. A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution of the United States. The court fails to join issue and demonstrates further bias by referring to this complaint as "lengthy, rambling, and confused", "a polemic", "nearly unintelligible", and "plaintiff's harrangue", while seeming to be perfectly content with the 13,787 pages of the "Family Law Act" and its citations, which is so rambling, confused, and misleading that its enactment was followed by the breakdown of 2.6 million California families. 79% of those responding to a Gallup Poll stated that this is the most serious social problem of the century.The court fails to join issue by stating that every state actor involved in this unprecedented massive family breakdown has "absolute judicial immunity", and by failing to note when the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871, which denied each and every one of them any judicial immunity at all, was repealed or replaced. Even so, if the plaintiffs claims and beliefs are correct, and if their Constitutional rights are being denied, this judicial immunity is lost even by very recent case law. The court fails to join issue when it fails to note that so many ordinary citizens believe that the courts now fail to represent the people and instead participate in a massive denial of Constitutional rights merely to protect and enhance their own incomes, just as it did with Proposition 209. These citizens deserve to review these claims of absolute judicial immunity as members of a jury.The court fails to join issue by stating that this complaint seeks injunctions against state court orders or "to challenge state court orders", when clearly the only duty of this court is to lay the article of or amendment to the Constitution which is involved beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former.The court fails to join issue by stating that this complaint seeks to adjudicate domestic relations cases or child custody decrees, when clearly it seeks to prevent defendants from denying and continuing to deny plaintiffs their first amendment right to free exercise of religion and other Constitutional rights.The court fails to join issue when it states that plaintiffs "allegations are insufficient to show the plaintiff suffered any concrete harm by virtue of any act of any defendant", in the face of 2.6 million California who complain about the damages caused by the highly publicized family breakdown in California, when most or all of the who have read the Family Law Act know that its enactment and enforcement was directly responsible for this breakdown, and when it is clear that tens or hundreds of thousands of state actors are participating in a scheme, willingly or not, knowingly or not, to deprive them of fundamental Constitutional rights because of passage of this Act. The court may not believe what these have to say about causality, but it certainly cannot assert in all honesty that the loss of $5,013 Billion and 64,824 lives is not "concrete harm".The court fails to join issue by implying that this claim that 17 fundamental Constitutional rights are being denied to plaintiffs is tantamount to a plea for child custody decrees.The court fails to join issue by failing to cite the amendment ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states as required by the united States Constitution which repealed Plaintiff's right to a grand jury indictment. The court fails to join issue by failing to cite the amendment amended ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states as required by the united States Constitution which repealed Plaintiff's right to a trial by jury.The court fails to join issue by changing the language from "trial by jury" to "jury trial".The court fails to join issue by implying that there is no federal common law and by stating that "plaintiff must allege a violation of a right secured by the United States Constitution ..." and by failing to note the language of the Seventh Amendment which starts out "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed ...".The court fails to join issue by changing the language from "common law" to "general common law" and "federal common law".The court fails to join issue by stating that plaintiffs "alleged no facts showing that any particular act of any defendant violated the plaintiff's right to privacy or caused the plaintiff to suffer any concrete injury" in light of the fact that plaintiffs have estimated that the total losses due directly to and only to the collective efforts of defendants by enactment and enforcement of the Family Law Act exceed $5 Trillion and 64,824 lives. The court fails to join issue when it allows its disdain for plaintiffs, the united States Constitution, and its own Oaths of Office to so sorely undermine its objectivity, such as perceiving a violation of federal law in the dropping of M&Ms down a female employees dress, which has zero effect on economic competitiveness and which causes the loss of not one single life, and considers this violation to be worthy of multi-millions of dollars in damages, while failing to detect the loss represented by the $5,013 Billion and 64,824 lives described in plaintiffs' complaint. The court fails to join issue when it protects the free exercise of religion by an obscure religious sect to practice animal sacrifice, which neither adds nor subtracts human life nor a dime from economic competitiveness, while failing to protect the free exercise of religion of the 85% of Californians who are Christians, which failure plaintiffs estimate costs multi-billions of dollars and tens of thousands of California lives.The court fails to join issue by stating that the denial of Constitutional rights, which led to a $5,013 Billion economic loss, the loss of an EXTRA 64,824 lives, the doubling of the divorce rate and the quintupling of the illegitimacy rate, the placement of 92% of these children in fatherless households where, compared to children who live with their natural , are more likely to go to prison by 8 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 20 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to have a 72% lower standard of living, is not "a significant burden upon the exercise of religious rights". The court fails to join issue by equating a demand for the restoration of ' religious right to be the head of their household with an unlimited right to inflict corporal punishment on their children.The court fails to join issue by asserting that "children have fundamental interests of their own that may diverge from the interests of" their natural , which is in direct contradiction with the Christian doctrine that are responsible for educating, guiding, rearing, and disciplining children to ensure their proper socialization. The implication is that children can make more responsible decisions as unemancipated minors than men can as , which either removes them from the status of "children", OR which includes defendants and this court in a decision-making process, further undermining plaintiffs' rights to free exercise of religion. If both defendants and the court have absolute judicial immunity, even if they commit crimes, by what rationale can they be entrusted to make responsible decisions for somebody ELSE's children?The court fails to join issue by subtracting from the word "support", when applied to children, the 95% of the care and nurturing of children which requires the physical presence of the father, which is being denied by defendants only by their denial of plaintiffs' Constitutional rights. The heart of this complaint is that are being denied the capability and ability to provide 95% of the "support" which is necessary for the proper rearing of their children, while most if not all of the 5% that they are under court orders to provide (the financial remuneration mis-labled "child support payments") is used precisely to fund this denial of ' ability to provide the vital 95% of support. If "child support payments" were required to be used only for the care of the children, were prohibited from being used in any way to deny children their paternal guidance, and included the mandate that the other 95% of "support" which only can provide cannot be denied to them, then the term "support" would be accurate.The court fails to join issue by failing to lay the article of or amendment to the Constitution which is involved (the Thirteenth Amendment) beside the statute which is challenged (the Family Law Act) to decide whether the latter squares with the former, and by failing to note which amendment to the Constitution, ratified by three-fourths of the several states, suspended the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against slavery. It fails to join issue to cite case law and California Supreme Court decisions which misuse and abuse the English language and its common understanding by redefining words like "support", "debt", "obligation", "peonage", "contracts", and "slavery".The court fails to join issue by assuming that plaintiffs "are sloughing off that responsibility on to the taxpayers" when 95% or more of the plaintiffs are the very taxpayers who paid and pay the taxes in the first place which funded and fund the ability of defendants and the court to exist, and which is thereby used to deny plaintiffs their free exercise of religion. If someone ELSE were funding the destruction of their families, the need for this complaint may not be so urgent, but it is plaintiffs' money itself which is being used with no accountability, and which plaintiffs seek to recover by this suit.The court fails to join issue by characterizing the cause of action which addresses the unconstitutional vagueness of the Family Law Act as "[aiming] in the general direction of the federal Constitution with buckshot", particularly when plaintiffs assert, and here reassert, that this complaint, which the court characterizes as "confusing", makes more sense to plaintiffs than the Family Law Act does. The court lends credence to this cause of action by further confusing the issue with the statement "Penal Code Section 269a (criminalizing adultery) was repealed in 1975", and by failing to note that the Act of 1872, the statute which made adultery a crime against the public, has not been repealed. To this date, after numerous inquiries to numerous sources (police, DAs, lawyers, judges, law libraries, , and friends) this question remains unanswered, which is truly unconstitutionally vague.The court fails to join issue by asserting that it does not consider it "vague" that a father who is accused of "child abuse", (90% plus of which are false charges filed by vindictive ex-wives or even unscrupulous children), cannot himself sue for slander or libel. Ninety percent of the involved in this complaint report that they have had false charges of child abuse filed against them, suggesting that such a vague law is meeting the desire of the defendants who thrive off of increased litigation, at great loss to plaintiffs.The court fails to join issue by asserting that the continued and chronic infliction of emotional distress upon plaintiffs, which increases their mortality rate by up to 120% and that of their children by 44%, which is more harmful to plaintiffs' health than smoking tobacco (which is recognized for the damage it has done to society), "state[s] no claim for relief". If the requested relief were granted by this court; plaintiffs' Constitutional right to free exercise of religion would not denied to them; would regain or retain their positions as heads of the family; defendants could not use their children as weapons in this war on fatherhood to continuously and chronically inflict emotional distress upon plaintiffs; family, social, and economic stability would be restored; and the problem would be instantly resolved.The court fails to join issue by stating that "plaintiff does not appear to allege he was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard in any proceeding ..." when the point of the complaint is that the only way such a notice or "opportunity to be heard" could be afforded or demanded is AFTER plaintiffs were denied their first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The court fails to join issue by stating that the demand for the right to due process "appears simply to be an allegation in anticipation of a defense, which states no claim for relief". Due process requires that defendants advance a compelling state interest sufficient to deny plaintiffs any right to free exercise of religion BEFORE they deny this right to plaintiffs, which they did not and cannot do.The court fails to join issue by stating "plaintiff identifies no specific statutory provision the application of which allegedly denied him substantive due process" when the known and accurately specified claim is that there is no constitutional provision the application of which allows the defendants to deny plaintiffs due process.The court fails to join issue by stating that "plaintiff appears to be anticipating a defense, rather than stating a claim for relief", and by failing to note which amendment ratified by three-fourths of the several states applied "immunity", "judicial immunity", or "absolute judicial immunity" to any citizen of the united States. Such immunity is in violation of the basic tenet of Section 9, Article 8 of the Constitution which states that "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States". The granting of "absolute judicial immunity" by the judiciary to itself must be perceived by the court, or by a long overdue jury, as nothing less than a grant of a title of nobility.The court fails to join issue when it states that "plaintiff wholly fails to allege how he personally has been made the victim of any gender discrimination", when it is clear that the entire reason plaintiff was denied his constitutional right to free exercise of religion in the first place was because of his gender, when it is clear that the 92% of the children of divorce in California who are removed from their natural are removed solely because of their ' gender, and when so many have provided inputs to this complaint which are strikingly similar in their assertions that all courts are biased against and discriminatory to and fatherhood.The court fails to join issue when it asserts that a plea for this court to prevent defendants from denying and continuing to deny plaintiffs their Constitutional rights constitutes "a judicially cognizable [sic] interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another".The court fails to join issue when it asserts that Christians, living in a Christian nation, whose religious right for 2,000 years has been Christianity, who cannot be denied the free exercise of religion under the Constitution, who constitute 85% of the North American population, who are 100% supported by the 800,000 Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto, who categorically reject the Family Law Act in its entirety as a complete violation of both their right to religion and their Constitution, are unable to exercise 7 of the 10 Commandments on the basis that some heretic somewhere hundreds or thousands of miles away denied someone the right to post the Ten Commandments in a public school.The court fails to join issue by implying that there is no controversy here when clearly there cannot be 2.6 million saying one thing and demanding their Constitutionally secured liberties, and several hundred thousand public servants saying precisely the opposite in violation of their Oaths of Office, without the existence of a controversy. There cannot be so many who agree with Thomas Jefferson on one side, and so many public servants who disagree with him on the other side, without there being a controversy. The court fails to join issue when it implies that a controversy does not exist when clearly a controversy of major proportions exists. A controversy at law exists which must be submitted to the rigors of a trial by a fully informed jury. The fact that this court does not believe a controversy exists is not because there is no controversy, but only that this court is itself demonstrating the serious and chronic bias against , fatherhood, and plaintiffs which created the problem in the first place. The effect and end result of the enactment and enforcement of the Family Law Act by too many state actors to be able to name individually, who acted and continue to act in concert under the color of state law, has been the denial of this fundamental Constitutional right to plaintiffs. By all definitions of the word "kidnapping", children have been kidnapped from , and the denial of this and many other Constitutional rights has continued unabated since that time. There is no justification for this denial and continued denial of this first amendment right to free exercise of religion. There is no compelling state interest which is served by allowing defendants to continue to deny plaintiffs this fundamental Constitutional right. There is no social or economic benefit to the State which might compensate for this loss of plaintiffs' Constitutional rights or the huge social and economic loss suffered by plaintiffs and their children. Granting the requested relief will redress the injury, and is the only way to redress it.
- PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff John W. Knight, Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto, and all of California who are potentially Members of the Class, appeal to this Court for a preliminary order enjoining defendants from continuing to deprive plaintiffs of basic numerous God-given fundamental Constitutional rights, and to immediately return the minor Plaintiff Children kidnapped from Plaintiff Fathers, to avert their further abuse, and to protect them from further danger at the hand of and by acts of defendants.
- This appeal is predicated upon the voluminous credible statistical evidence from the State of California which proves that defendants have removed 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy from plaintiffs and placed them into fatherless households where, relative to children of father-headed households, they are at substantial and serious risk to an array of social, emotional, educational, moral, religious, ungodly, and economic disadvantages, hereinafter described. Children deprived of their natural , including those living with step-, compared to children who live with their natural , are more likely to go to prison by 8 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 20 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to have a 72% lower standard of living.
- Plaintiffs filed this class action civil rights complaint on May 18, 1998 claiming that 17 fundamental Constitutional rights are being denied to them and that the resulting collective damages currently exceed $5,013 Billion and the loss of 64,824 lives. The defendants include hundreds of thousands of California public servants who are acting in concert under the color of law, so they are too numerous to name individually and must be identified under the direction of the State Attorney General Dan Lungren, who is named as a defendant.
- The complaint was dismissed by the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge James W. McMahon on June 19, 1998 citing case law, statutes of limitation, legalese, the plaintiffs' failure to use legalese in its complaint, and a requirement that ABA-trained lawyers are the only individuals in the state who can protect the interests of the class, as the rationale for this dismissal. The Honorable Magistrate McMahon did not note that any of the written Constitutional rights described in the complaint had been amended and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states as required by the united States Constitution.
- The only duty of this court is to lay the article of or amendment to the Constitution which is involved beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. The court fails to join issue in that case law, statutes of limitation, claims of absolute judicial immunity, legalese, requirements to hire ABA-trained lawyers, or a failure by plaintiffs to express themselves using legalese is insufficient justification for ignoring the mandate of the Constitution that such serious changes in the spirit and intent of the Constitution only be made by ratification of three-fourths of the several states.
- The amendment which is involved is the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and the statute which is challenged is the Family Law Act, now called the Family Law Code, both of which clearly deny plaintiffs and potential Members of the Class this First Amendment right. 100% of those who have read the Family Law Act and reported to plaintiffs, 85% of Californians who are Christians, and 100% of the 800,000 Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto all agree that the Constitution and the Family Law Act are antitheses of each other, while tens or hundreds of thousands of defendants almost universally support the unconstitutional provisions of this Act.
- The court fails to join issue when it asserts that only ABA-trained lawyers can protect the interests of the class, and that the plaintiffs cannot. The Federal Rules of Federal Procedure specify only that " the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class". 100% of the ABA-trained lawyers who plaintiffs have had dealings with demonstrated by example that they will preserve the status quo and protect their incomes before they will protect plaintiffs' Constitutional rights, which they realize would ultimately adversely impact the incomes of lawyers. There is widespread belief amongst most California , perhaps all of the 85% of Californians who are Christians, and 100% the 800,000 Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto, that ABA-trained lawyers cannot and will not "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class", whereas the representative plaintiffs can.
- The court fails to join issue when it states "The plaintiff seeks various orders enjoining the state from applying its family law statutes in such a way as to deprive and children of custody or of their assets ...", when it should have stated that "The plaintiff seeks various orders enjoining the state from denying and children their fundamental Constitutional rights".
- The court fails to join issue when it fails to note that identifying the individuals, organizations, agencies, bureaus, and programs who are denying these Constitutional rights requires the court's active participation. The statute and the Constitution do not square with each other, so state actors who are too numerous to individually identify and most of whom are unknown are denying Constitutional rights at the same time they are following state laws.
- The court fails to join issue and demonstrates considerable bias by stating that the triad of injury in fact, causation and redressability did not exist in this claim. So many cannot state in so many words and actions that the loss of their fatherhood is the biggest loss they have ever experienced, that their experience in courts is the worst form of bias and discrimination they have ever witnessed or experienced in their lives, that collectively more than $5 Trillion and 64,000 lives have been lost as a result, that they know that this loss was caused by defendants' enactment and enforcement of the Family Law Act, and that it is clear that the only way this loss can be redressed is by requiring defendants to uphold their Oaths of Office by protecting plaintiffs fundamental Constitutional rights, without establishing this triad of injury in fact, causation and redressability.
- Injury in fact: $5,013 Billion and 64,824 lives.
- Causation: Family Law Acts' unconstitutionality.
- Redressability: Enjoin defendants from continuing to deny these Constitutional rights.
- The court fails to join issue when it characterizes the complaint as being about "inequities and fairness" of "child custody, child support and paternity" and alleges that such whining constitutes "allegations of psychological injury" rather than acknowledging that a most important tenet of Christianity, which is central to its religious doctrine, is the establishment of the father as the head of the household.
- The court fails to join issue when it fails to note that the failure by defendants to support this religious doctrine led to such massive family breakdown that almost 40% of the state's children are now fatherless. This adversely impacts every California resident, including defendants and this court, and especially plaintiffs and their children. The importance to the children and to family stability of the establishment of the father as the head of the household is stressed throughout the bible, as illustrated by the following passages:
VERIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF
I, John W. Knight, III, swear before God that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Date: July 20, 1998
John W. Knight, III
25712 Highplains Terrace
Laguna Hills, California 92653