Final Draft


EMERGENCY PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY
WRIT OF PEREMPTORY MANDAMUS

RELIEF SOUGHT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, (a) The Petitioner’s respectfully petitions this Court to issue a writ of peremptory mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction of these extraordinary circumstances given in this request to direct the First Judicial District Circuit Court of Hinds County, state of Mississippi to release the Petitioner’s total gained and awarded assets from the Court’s current actions. Relief is provided here on petition of mandate under Fed.R App. P. 41. The issuance of mandate does not affect the time or the Petitioner’s right to file with the Supreme Court.

The Petitioner’s do not take lightly the filing of this pleading and fully recognizes that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. Respectfully, the facts underlying this petition are clearly extreme and urgent given to the situation it presents.The essential facts are clearly un-disputable,
42 U.S. Code § 1983 (3). The matter before this court has lingered on for over 21 years now to no redress and “The Administrative Procedure Act” (“APA”) provides additional support for our jurisdiction here. That Act directs agencies to conclude matters presented to them “within a reasonable time,” ” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (1982), and stipulates that the “reviewing court shall…compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed..” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) (1982).

The issue presented is whether discovery of Petitioner’s cause was completed prior to December 19th, 1997. The Petitioner’s have proven completed discovery was had in December 1996, to the lower courts and this fact is un-disputable. The Petitioner’s case seeks full vindication of the fundamental constitutional rights is designated for priority disposition per 28 U.S.C. §1657(a).

{ INTRODUCTION }

The Petitioner’s cause had in Civil Action 251-96-493 McKenna regarding Rebecca Marie in December 1996, and the Filing of Notice and other actions of the Vicksburg Chemical Company in February 1999, on Robert Marie, were accomplished with the Petitioner’s discoveries had in 1996. The Hinds County Circuit Court in Mississippi, continues to deny relief to the Petitioner’s settled cause which has lingered on now for over 21 years. Obviously this is inconsistent to the fact that,“Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of “liberty”. Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 331. 42 U.S. Code § 1981 “Amendment XIV” Section 1., “Justice delayed is justice denied” if legal redress is available but not forthcoming in a timely fashion it is effectively the same as no redress at all. The Petitioner’s present the issue of the lower court order and improper dismissals.

{Introduction}
The Lower Courts

Judge Graves January 1998, Order
Respondents are alleging that a January 1998, Order by Circuit Court Judge James Graves, (exhibit A) has dismissed the Petitioner’s cause before that court. The January 1998, Order states that discovery not had by December 19th, 1997, would be dismissed without prejudice. Rebecca Marie’s two letters dated December 6th, and 14th, 1996, and deposition submitted here as (exhibit B) was had on December 18th, 1996, a full year prior to the date listed on the January 1998, Order. The Petitioners completed discoveries are proven by the Mississippi Code of Civil Procedure Section 2024.010., discovery is considered completed on the day a response is due or on the day the deposition begins. MS Code § 13-1-227 (2012). The Petitioner’s are entitled to relief, 42 U.S. Code § 1981. The Petitioner’s 1996, discoveries allowed acceptance of the Vicksburg Chemical Company offer and related actions to stay of claims and entrance of Temporary Case Management order # 1. in 1999, see (exhibit C).

In 1997, the Petitioners fired their initial attorneys and had not given any requested discoveries to their new attorneys until after April 1999. See letters of David Baria, November 11th, 1998, stating a discussion with Judge Graves to consolidate Petitioners 1996, discoveries with cause 251-96-493 and letter dated April 21st,1999, (exhibit D) in where Mr. Baira states that he had not yet received discoveries from the Petitioners. It is clear actions had were with prior discovery.
The 1999 trial which failed was followed by various actions including a motion by defendants to dismiss Petitioners 251-98-1061 action. The Court under Judge Graves denied the defendants motion on August 24th, 1999, “Order Denying Motion To Dismiss” shown in (exhibit E).

{Introduction}

Hinds County Jurisdiction
Petitioner’s submit their cause under the lower Court jurisdiction of the Hinds County Court. In 2000 and 2002 attorney’s David Baria and Kevin Camp filed motions in Hinds County Court to withdraw from Petitioner’s cause, both were sent letters firing them to aid with their slow pace withdrawal. Petitioners returned to the Hinds County Court on January 21st, 2005 and filed actions for relief in their known cause 251-98-1061 which the Court accepted and had held separate prior to transfer of Petitioner’s 251-98-1061 into the 251-96-493 action from Judge Tomie Green to Judge Bobby DeLaughter on October 24th, 2005, included is defendants opposition, (exhibit F). Mr. Camp withdrawn is taking liberty with the Petitioners cause.

In 2007, the court ended all responses to the Petitioner’s filings. Although Mr. Camp claimed to have withdrawn from the Petitioner’s cause of action in 2000, and 2002, Mr. Camp has somehow been allowed by the court to hold the Marie’s 2005, pleadings from being filed with the court in 2005, until August 6th, 2013,(exhibit H), Esmeralda v. Partin, 864 F. Supp. 626 (S.D.Tex. 1994). the due process clause was intended as a limitation on the state’s power to act, These certain actions occurred four months before the death of lead Plaintiff, April Marie who was one of three lead Plaintiffs to the 251-98-1061 settled cause before the Hinds County Circuit Court.

( SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION )
On or about May 2001, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Southern District Of Mississippi, in the Hattiesburg, Mississippi Court, Civil Action No. 2:01cv141PG., after Plaintiffs were authorized to proceed in forma pauperis by the Court on October 19th, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a separate civil action against Gaylord Paper Manufacturer, 2:01cv289PG, which the court next consolidated into the 2:01cv141 action. An Amended Complaint was filed in June 2002. The Court held a hearing on September 25th, 2002 to discuss settlement or dismissal. On August 20, 2003, Judge Pickering entered a Judgment of dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiffs 2:01cv141 consolidated case, order of dismissal herewith submitted (exhibit A)

( DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA )
The plaintiffs filed thereafter a Complaint in the Eastern District of Louisiana based on denial of due process after the Plaintiffs were authorized again to proceed in forma pauperis by the Court. On January 29, 2004, Judge Barbier dismissed that Complaint concluding that it “contained nothing but vague, conclusory, and unintelligible allegations, see (exhibit A)

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner’s next filed in the Fifth Circuit Court after the plaintiffs were authorized once more to proceed in forma pauperis by the court. The court dismissed the appeal on September 22, 2004, on a Rule 12(b) motion which attacked the courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any issues in a case, See Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F. 2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981). The Defendants also move the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice. However based on the finding of no subject matter jurisdiction, the Court found that would be improper. It was therefore ordered, defendants motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice. (exhibit A)

REBUTTAL
Although the Court dismissed without prejudice the Appellant Court did not publish it’s findings. The matter eludes the Petitioner’s actions for relief as the exact same Court documents submitted to the lower courts showing the Petitioner Rebecca Marie’s deposition in 251-96-493 and Mr. Marie’s filed Vicksburg action in 251-98-1061, in submitted evidence which, by attorneys gain untold millions in failed joined actions yet, has somehow slipped the Courts attention to the relief sought for by Petitioner and their cause. With all due respect, Petitioner’s avers the lower Courts erred in dismissal. It is well settled that on a 12(b)(1) motion the court may go outside the pleadings and consider additional facts, whether contested or not and may even resolve issues of contested facts. If the factual matters considered outside the pleadings are undisputed, the Court need not make specific factual findings for the record. “there can be no doubt that § 1 of the Civil Rights Act [of 1871] was intended to provide a remedy, to be broadly construed, against all forms of official violation of federally protected rights.” Mathew v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332-33 (1976). Id. at 331., U.S. Supreme Court.

On August 25th, 2000, the Petitioners retrieved their original files from attorney James F. Thompson, who no longer wanted to represent the Petitioners, (exhibit I) no one would oppose the class simply for Petitioners needed cause. It was a this point that Petitioners sought relieve in the District Courts then the 5th, Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court has stated generally that a reasonable time for an agency decision could encompass months and occasionally a year or two, and maybe several years but not decades. “ In re AM. Rivers United, 372 F. 3d 413, 419 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting MCI 21Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 627 f.322, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (mandate issued over delay exceeding six years) I MCI, this court found a four year delay to be unreasonable. TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80 (footnote omitted). This event occurred in 1995.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner’s offer the further exhibits and involvements to their cause with the lower Court.
The cause of all distress and hardship placed on Petitioners are due to claims being settled to their cause and the continual rejecting of much needed relief from a matter already resolved.

On October 23rd, 1995, a toxic cloud released from the Bogalusa Paper Mill, in Bogalusa, Louisiana, landed on and engulfed the Petitioner’s home in the nearby town of Angie, Louisiana. Petitioner’s sought medical needs and recovery through the law firm of Sacks and Smith. Two months after the release the firm orally offered the Marie’s ten million dollars which they orally accepted. Yet in the fourth month the offer was withdrawn in favor of attorneys class actions, to which the Petitioner’s objected to. However the Marie’s were told by attorneys that no relief could be had without discovery and deposition. The withdrawn offer came with threats to be silent of the actual occurrences, that it would interfere with attorneys class actions claims. Obviously, since the Petitioner’s home was in a rural and secluded area this greatly interfered with any suggestion that attorneys class suffered the same loss, injuries or damages as the Petitioners. Any requirements would effectively limit the class to those fairly encompassed by the named Plaintiffs’, claim “ Ibid Pp. 457 U.S. 155-157. Attorneys’ actions also violated Petitioners rights in that, “Rule 23’s requirements must be interpreted in keeping with Article III constraints, and rules enabling procedural rules which does not abridge, enlarge, or modify and substantive right. Pp. 612-613. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147,157-158, n.

Respondent’s sought for class joinder actions are being had at the cost of the Petitioner’s settled personal injury and property damage claims which are clearly improper to attorney actions before the Hinds County Court. “Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 894-95 (1961) The very nature of due process negates any possible concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” The Petitioners are pitted against attorneys sought for class and left to seeking relief in the District Courts and Court of Appeals to which the Hinds County Court actions had in Marie v. Vicksburg remained dismissed without prejudice and the Appellant Courts allowance Fed.R App. P. 41., given as a right to last resolve. State ex rel. Broatch v. Moores, 56 Neb. 1, 76 N.W. 530 (1898). and 728 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1) (2) (3) (4).

Given to the actions of the lower Courts, all attempts to gain relief are clearly futile. One of the conditions for its issuance is that Petitioner’s have “no other adequate means to attain the relief they seek” Kerr, supra, 426 U.S. at 403, 96 S. Ct. at 2124 (citation omitted). Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat,) 264, 378 (1821)., U.S. Supreme Court., 28 U.S. Code § 1331.

{Statement of Facts}
Dangers of the Class

In 1997, after Petitioners were use for symptoms, discovery and Mrs. Marie’s deposition was had the law firm would no longer pay for medications prescribed by their doctors. Mrs. Marie was in need of surgery to replace her ear drum which was injured by the chemicals in Petitioner’s home. The Petitoners were left to aquire medical aid as best they could. Mrs. Marie was and continues to be without any form of medical aid since the firm had abandoned their needs. The Petitioners were made aware of the actual chemical released and arguments were had regarding the unsafe condition of their home. The firm of Sacks and Smith viewed the replacement of Petitioners home as a threat again to their sought for class actions. The firm had finally gain the aid of attorneys from Texas to help formulate their sought for solicited class claims in 1997.

Attorneys actions were with regards to Nitrogen Tetroxide exposure when in fact the chemical released contained Dymithal Sulfoxide, (DMSO) a by product of paper manufacturing. The actual substance released was N2O4, Dinitrogen Tetroxide, see (exhibit J). Union Tank Car Company car service agreement and Straight Bill Of Lading Vicksburg 1, and Gaylord 2. For whatever reason defendant paper manufacture was not listed as a defendant, the firm issued further threats against any actions. Petitioners were told that relief and the replacement of their home would be had after Mrs. Marie’s deposition which after the deposition was never had.
It was clearly evident that given to injuries and in discussions that the firm was certain that Petitioner exposures were fatal. “A misrepresentation need not be oral; it may be implied by conduct.” (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1567 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468], internal citations omitted.). The firm refuse to address anything not conforming to their class actions. It was also evident that any attempt to object to attorneys class in any fashion held great dangers given the threats to be silent of the actual events. False representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered, (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 974, quoting Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 [30 Cal.Rptr. 629].).

In an effort to produce a pattern to the perceived attacks of the Petitioners over their cause to gain relief, the law firm of Sacks and Smith was fire on Friday March 13th, 1997. In late March the firm contacted the Marie’s to say that they would aid the Petitioners with $700.00 a month for rent till the Petitioners cause was completed. They further stated that Ron Austin, would no longer be handling the Petitioners claims and requested new mobile home prices. Upon returning to the firm Petitioners were again ask to give discovery to the firms new attorneys Fleming, Hovencamp and Grayson. Soon after further discoveries were had and signed the firm attacked the Petitioners through the states child protection services OCS, on May the 13th, 1997. The Marie’s child was taken by the state of Louisiana. April Marie was held to the state’s custody because, and I quote, “the chemical landed on their home and they are without a place to stay” a statement had at the child protection hearing by an OCS employee. The firm stated the Marie’s would live to regret firing the firm. April Marie had been forced to live with her grandparents.

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989), which held that the Due Process Clause is intended to protect people from the State, “not to ensure that the State protects them from each other.”

It was ever so obvious that the Petitioners were hated by their attorneys and more so by the many others in the class they spoke to of attempting to gain redress of Petitiomers injury and loss. The matters of firing and returning to the firm and their final firing of the firm in May of 1997 as well the recovery of Petitioners file work in October 1998, by order of Judge Graves are in (exhibit K). Petitioner’s initial exposure with the surgery on Mrs. Marie’s ear operation are in (exhibit L). April Marie was exposed in August 1996, by Petitioner’s home creating further friction.

{Statement of Facts}
State Actors
In fear for their lives the Petitioners moved to Mississippi. Child Services in Louisiana turned the matters of April Marie over to the state of Mississippi. Since Mr. Marie was injured, having his right hand amputated, having paid into Social Security the family lives on a fixed income. The matter of replacing their home was done as best they could. DHS of Mississippi approving of the home still refused to fully release the Petitioners child to them, again for fear Petitioners exposures were fatal. April Marie was 14 years old and one of three named plaintiffs to the action had on the Marie’s. The family was never made whole again, at 16 she was allowed to wed to free her from her captives. This angered attorneys working for Child Services who had class claims of their own. The actions had against the Petitioners are no better in Mississippi, the use of the number 13, follows to all forms of actions in filings as well as the death of a cousin and that of April Marie, the Petitioners child. The Petitioners state this to the obvious fact they are constantly harassed and clearly over their 1996, actions of monetary gains owed them.
The actions of the Petitioners attorneys in which Kevin Camp held the Petitioners filings from 2005, until 2013, only to file and close the entire matter in one day, four months before the death of Petitioners child does not appear to be the last action to be upon the Marie’s. A major concern the Petitioners were allowed to adopt their grandchildren in 2010. The adoption was handled by the law firm of Porter and Porter, Renee Porter. Mrs. Porter demanded she be given any legal matter had by the Petitioners. The Marie’s reluctantly provided Mrs. Porter with the Petitions cause in Hinds County, to which Mrs. Porter exclaimed the Marie’s were lead plaintiffs to. Mrs. Porter has since joined the states child protection services as Chair of a new parental termination program. Universal Citation: 21 OK Stat § 21-425 (2014) (1) (2) (3).

The area Petitioners live engages highly in social discussions. The Petitioners law suit is known of, the Petitioners have seen to it as their only defense. The murder of the Petitioners cousin and child are known of as well. Family members of the murderer of April’s death have approached the Petitioners to ask that should the Hinds County Court ever disburse money from their suit to Petitioners that they not take to vengeance on the murders family. Petitioners wish no one harm and simply want to go home issues redressed, however such things as these is cause of greater concern because of the local customs of the people to always suggest they have a cause to murder others is weighting heavy on the Petitioners. Warnings are already being had that the Petitioners will be murdered too. April Marie’s funeral was paid for by Petitioner Rebecca Marie’s family, namely the McCains. Who there after came into a lot of money, they also took a trip to the Island of Thomas in the Caribbean. The McCain’s stated prior to child protection services taking the children that they want the children of April Marie, that they are friends with the DHS judge and can give the children a better life and this creates concern. Petitioners pray this Court can see what is evident by the clear actions of others to deny the Marie’s due process to extort what remains to the destruction of all they had, sadly the Petitioners see nothing but a major plot to extort Petitioners settled claims. The facts that can bear on an attributions fairness–e.g., a nominally private entity may be a state actor when it is entwined with governmental policies or when government is entwined in its management or control, Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299, 301.

The entire placement of persons involved to these actions are alarming given the fact that the years have been filled with what appears to be laundering of the plaintiffs awards by Marion County Mississippi, and those connected to the plaintiffs in denying relief. The original attorneys of the Marie’s cause, Sacks and Smith are now collecting from a global settlement of failed claims. The Judge over the Petitioner’s original claims, Judge Graves is now a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge. The attorney of Petitioner’s trial time actions of exclusion after settlement, David Baria was a Senator now turned Representative who worked to create the new parental law program of DHS, and the attorney over the actions of adoption Mrs. Renee Porter, is now a DHS employee who chairs the new parental child program supported by Representative Baria. The Judge over the adoption has recently become a Mississippi Supreme Court Judge who the DHS Judge has directed the Petitioner’s to file an appeal from Circuit Court regarding the abduction of their adopted grandchildren. The Supreme Court has determined that state action is present when judges are asked to enforce or authorize a discriminatory practice. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1), (2).

Mississippi House Bill 1240 was signed into law April 4th, 2016 by Governor Phil Bryant. Petitioner’s children were abducted May 27th, 2016, after gaining information regarding the conditions of Petitioner’s, House Bill 1240 was passed by the House June 27th, 2016, and appears to be tailored made for DHS to solidify their taking of the children in what appears to be the collecting of the children’s portion of their mothers part of the law suit. Petitioner’s adopted grandchildren have not been seen since their abduction. There are indeed cases holding that “a parent’s interest in the custody of a child is a constitutionally protected liberty interest subject to due process protection.” Wilkinson v. Russell, 182 F.3d 89, 103 (2d Cir.1999); see also Kia P. v. McIntyre, 235 F.3d 749, (2d Cir.2000); Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.1999).

{Statement of Facts}
Past and Current Events

Petitioner’s daughter April Marie pleaded guilty to a charged dismissed three times as a minor and at the age of 19 the charge was again taken up by the state as she was threatened to have her child taken if she refused to plead guilty, The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. See, e.g. United States v. Ursery, 518 US 267 (1996). April Marie, was subjected to being in and out of prison from the age of 19 until she was 30, once released there was no mention of what she owed in fines or retribution at 31 she was dead. April Marie was said to have been stuck by a car, however upon Petitioner Robert Marie identifying her body no massive head trauma was noted as reported. An In-depth research suggest that April had fought with others in a car which created a wreck and thereafter she was placed over a drain in a ditch having her leg and arm cut opened she was held there till she bled to death. County law enforcement, the County’s task force, first responders, the Fire Department and the local news paper who took photo’s all worked the scene yet no one would call an ambulance claiming the radios were not working. Current actions against the Petitioners suggest April’s death (exhibit M ) was plotted.

At the DHS hearing in 2016 Mrs. Porter stated the adoption was incomplete, explaining why she refused to released the children’s birth certificates to the Petitioners who were forced to search the courts records to find the final decree of adoption which had been filed one year after the Petitioners had paid Mrs. Porter for those services. As in 1997, the action to abduct the children through no possible jurisdiction due to lack of proper due process had with Petitioners over their 1996, settled claims reveals the Petitioners are not given any rights. April Marie held 1/3 of the awards as a named plaintiff. The awards had are wanted by others and Petitioners fear that even an Order from this Court may not release the grip held by others of the Petitioners assets.

In fear of being dis-barred over false allegations and ejected from their plot DHS, offices and the Court had the forster parent file a false charge of child molestation against the Petitioner Robert Marie. Although it is an impossible charge to make it’s clear that Mr. Marie is to be done away with. While the courts have never confined themselves to an arbitrary and technical definition of “jurisdiction,” it is clear that only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial “usurpation of power” will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212, 325 U. S. 217 (1945). The Court emphasized that a post-deprivation hearing regarding harm inflicted by a state procedure would be inadequate. “That is particularly true where, as here, the State’s only post-termination process comes in the form of an independent tort action.

The Petitioner’s lives are clearly in danger over the actions of others injecting themselves into what is simply the Petitioner’s personal injury claims and doing so violently by a self serving interest that Petitioners are certain their lives are reason enough to grant petition. The Petitioners are in need to redress this matter before further harm. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 81), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Seeking redress through a tort suit is apt to be a lengthy and speculative process, which in a situation such as this one will never make the complainant entirely whole.” 455 U.S. 422, 436-37. 455 U.S. 422, 436-37. 455 U.S. at 435-36 (1982).

ISSUES PRESENTED
The issues had are clear and evident. The Petitioners gave discovery to their cause and gained awards from the Hinds County Court in Mississippi in 1996, with Rebecca Marie’s deposition of December 18th, 1996. The Petitioners 1996, discoveries including that of Mr. Marie which also provided the Hinds County Court under Judge Graves to accept the offer of Vicksburg Chemical Company of February 12th, 1999, filed in Robert Marie, by evident actions of the Court.

Furthermore, the assumption that the Petitioners would die from injuries promoted an action by the Hind County Court and attorneys to deny the Petitioners due process in hope of making claim to the Petitioner’s gained awards at their death. Next having these matters only intensified after the discoveries and awards of the Petitioners were sought to pursue a joined class trial which failed to show injury by class trial representatives. With statements that the Petitioners are part of a Louisiana, class or need to speak to the Mississippi, Special Master about their claims, no one handling the Louisiana class or Mississippi actions claim any knowledge of the Petitioners cause before the Court in Hinds County. The matter of Petitioners Vicksburg settlement does however appear in the settlement agreements of attorneys payments to the failed class claims. Additionally the Punitive Awards are had by actions of the Louisiana 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in the Parish of Franklinton, in Louisiana, through attorneys for the Courts Liason Committee. That Court and Committee will be served to this action out of an abundance of concern to make recovery.
The Gaining of awards denied by the Hinds County Court has created countless hardships and dangers to their victims. The Petitioners were served with actions in 2006, regarding a temporary lifting of stay of claims for payments to the class joined actions, proposed order in (exhibit N)

Petitioners again appeared to plead for relief of their cause. The Hinds County Court and Judge Gowen of those actions stated he had no knowledge of the Marie cause stated to the Court. The Petitioners situation is dire, however, mandamus is a drastic remedy suitable only in such “extraordinary situations”. ” Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 2123, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1976) (citations omitted); Acton Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 670 F.2d 377, 382 (1st Cir. 1982), the Court has no higher priority than securing the people’s fundamental constitutional rights. Respectfully, considering the simplicity of this case and the long time that has been pending. The impact on other court business occasioned by the resolution of this case is insufficient to deny the Writ of Mandate.

Petitioners are also are requesting that April Marie’s portion of awards be included to the total of assets released to the Petitioner’s. The Petitioner’s child April Marie was a minor at the time of initial actions and settlements in the lower court and because the Petitioners are the parental grandparents as well as the adopted parents of her two children, and the greatest of possibilities that April Marie was murdered for her portion of awards by others is alarming, to suggest they be awarded for such an action would be insane. Petitioners are in fear of their lives over the actions to continue to deny redress given to current attacks which are related to past gained awards.
The matter remains, Petitioners due process is ignored to an illusional lie of no discovery as the attacks to the actual discovery produced and there gained awards continue to cause harm.

Repeated actions to claim dismissal of Petitioners cause with over aggressive actions had to collect them by others who know otherwise has created endless concern of what actions might be taken next to cause further irreparable harm. When an appellate court considers a petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition, it is authorized in limited circumstances to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance, without having issued an alternative writ or order to show cause.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1088, 1105; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 1218, 1222-1223 [23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 397, 859 P.2d 96] (Alexander).

These Petitioner’s pray the resolve of the matters presented to this Honorable Court, that it grants this Mandate as the Petitioners have evidently provided all the elements needed to gain the Writ.
Traditional Mandate CCP § 1085- consist of three elements. (1) Respondents duty under CCP § 1085- Mandate acts to compel performance of an action which law especially enjoins” (duty imposed by ordinance included) (2) Under CCP § 1086 the Petitioner’s must be beneficially interested and, (3) there must be no other adequate remedy.

Even when a method of procedure in original jurisdiction of Supreme Court is not pointed out either by Constitution or statutes, the court will adopt its own rules of procedure.State ex rel. Broatch v. Moores, 56 Neb. 1, 76 N.W. 530 (1898). and 728 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1) (2) (3) (4).
{ REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION }
The greatest reason to grand this Writ of Mandate is that Petitioners have proven the assets through years held by the Hinds County Court action 521-96-493 and 251-98-1061 had in Mississippi for years now should have granted relief and that denying the Writ would further endanger the lives of these Petitioners by actions of others who understand the actual facts.

The Petitioner’s Petition, for Extraordinary Writ of Peremptory Mandate is proper in this matter as it is also the only remaining action affording proper relief of the abuse and issues had in the lower Courts. The Court works to eliminate discoveries they claim in actions does not exist. Other than the clear evidence presented Petitioner’s can not stress the importance and urgencies of this matter in that they are living in fear of their lives and that of their adopted grand children.

In TRAC, this Court found a near-five year delay in reviewing tariffs unreasonable, allowing “allegedly excessive returns to ‘become for all practical purposes, the accepted’ ones.” Id. at 80-81. This Court has also granted mandamus relief following five and six year delays in resolving matters it had remanded. See In re Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. ICC, 702 F.2d 1026 (D.C. Cir 1983); Core, supra, 531 F.3d 849; see also In re People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran, 680 F.3d 832 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (mandamus issued after over 600 day delay in meeting remand mandate).
2. Congressional Expectation of Speedy Resolution See discussion of 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a), supra. 3. Human Health and Welfare At Stake See discussion of irreparable harm, supra.

Most immediately, the interests injured by the delay are Petitioners’interests in having the means of self-defense guaranteed them by the Bill of Rights. No less important is the public’s interest in knowing that the courts are responsive to serious claims of constitutional injury. the courts are responsive to serious claims of constitutional injury.

There is an obvious plot here by the Hinds County Mississippi Court to state the Petitioner’s claims were dismissed while countless actions are had by direct actions to simply extort the Petitioner’s 1996, awards from discovery. Payments to the actions of a failed class is somewhat amazing. Petitioner’s 2005 pleadings, there attack of dismissal and there use by withdrawn attorney Kevin Camp in 2013, as well Petitioner’s 2007, objections to transfer their 1061 awards into the 493 class actions to further pay fraudulent claims are in exhibits see (exhibit H).
One needs only to read the news paper reports and submitted evidence to understand what has occurred here. Other then the obvious fact Petitioners were subjected to the injury, damage and loss of all they owned with direct clear knowledge everyone knew where the released cloud went. Eye witness accounts describe and reveal the toxic clouds release, path and destination all that would be needed is a map in mirroring the reports. Furthermore, given to the facts the tank car was to unsafe to transport the chemicals away in any safe manner and the facility’s equipment and safety devices would not allow off loading, adding the time of day and weather conditions the entire matter appears more as an attempted disposal then an accident. The fertile properties in the chemical grew grass around Petitioners home where none had ever grown before from fumes emitted from the engulfed mobile home of the Marie’s, see (exhibit O).

The evident harm in delay is provided in the death of Petitioners cousin and child April Marie with the actions of the lower Court and Kevin Camp. Petitioner’s 2005, filing with the Court was obviously worthy of action by the Court as it accepted the action once filed by Mr. Camp in 2013. That event is an example of the entire matter presented. Petitioner’s have repeatedly pleaded for relief to a Court awaiting their death and Respondants repeatedly cling to a lie of no discovery as they intensify harm done by discovery known and acted upon, namely the Petioners.
CONCLUSION
Actions had in this matter are presented, Respondent’s make claim that Petitioner’s discovery was not completed by January 1997, (exhibit A) when if fact the letters submitted with Rebecca Marie’s deposition (exhibit B) shows the firm had discovery by December 6th, and 14th, 1996. Along with the actual deposition had on December 18th, 1996, the Petitioner’s discovery was had over a full year prior to the 1998, Order dismissing actions for lack of discovery.

As with Petitioner Robert Marie and Respondent’s sought for class joiner. As shown the accepted Vicksburg offer and others actions in that matter (exhibit C & E) were had to the discoveries had in 1996. The discoveries Petitioner’s 1998, attorneys requested was not given until after April 1999, Additional evidence are found in letters of David Baria, (exhibit D).

The many years of events would take volumes to state. However, actions had but are denied in the Petitioners cause which creates an impossible set of circumstances and dangers which are currently being had to live under, Petitioners are in need of what is theirs. Fortunately, as little recent precedent exists which is implicating to the sort of delays here at issue. Un-fortunately the long delay to the given hardship should have ended sooner in the lower Court. The issue is weather discovery was had prior to January 1997, and Petitioners have proven that they were had a year earlier. Petitioners are entitled to the district court’s opinion and the parties are entitled to Petition this Court. The Court’s writ of mandamus should issue to compel the lower Court to the performance of its duties as, further delay under the current conditions warrants mandamus relief.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Robert Marie and Rebecca Marie, the petitioner’s of this cause do hereby certify they have this day served a copy of the above and foregoing to the following parties.
1. The Honorable James E. Graves Jr.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
Office Of the Clerk
F. Edward Hebert Building
600 S. Maestri Place
New Orleans, LA 70130-3408
Telephone number: (504) 310-7700

2. Hinds County Circuit Clerk of Court
The Honorable Judge Bill Gowan
407 E Pascagoula St, Jackson, MS 39201
Hinds County Circuit Clerk of Court
The Honorable Judge Tomie Green, Senior Judge
407 E Pascagoula St, Jackson, MS 39201
Phone:(601) 968-6628

3. The Honorable Judge Malcolm O. Harrison
100 West Amite Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Phone: (601) 948-5030

4. Kevin Camp
1764 Lelia Dr, Jackson, MS 39216
Phone:(601) 968-6628 Home: (888) 775-5868
5. Plaintiff Liason Committee.
c/o Clerk of Court
22nd Judicial District Court of Louisiana
908 Washington St, Franklinton, LA 70438
Phone:(985) 732-7189

6. The Honorable Judge Robert Burns
c/o Clerk of Court
22nd Judicial District Court of Louisiana
908 Washington St, Franklinton, LA 70438
Phone:(985) 732-7189

7. Special Master Bob Owens
3825 Ridgewood Road
Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Telephone: 601.432.6198
Fax: 601.432.6972
_____________________________________________________________Respondants
Petitioners: Pro Se’
Robert and Rebecca Marie
P.O. Box 707
Foxworth, Ms. 39483
Phone: (601) 633-3055
_____________________________________________________________ Petitioners

Respectfully submitted this _______ day of ____________________ 2017
________________________________
Robert Marie Jr.

_________________________________
Rebecca Marie
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Robert Marie and Rebecca Marie, the petitioner’s of this cause do hereby certify they have this day served a copy of the above and foregoing to the following parties.
1. The Honorable James E. Graves Jr.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
Office Of the Clerk
F. Edward Hebert Building
600 S. Maestri Place
New Orleans, LA 70130-3408
Telephone number: (504) 310-7700

2. Hinds County Circuit Clerk of Court
The Honorable Judge Bill Gowan
407 E Pascagoula St, Jackson, MS 39201
Hinds County Circuit Clerk of Court
The Honorable Judge Tomie Green, Senior Judge
407 E Pascagoula St, Jackson, MS 39201
Phone:(601) 968-6628

3. The Honorable Judge Malcolm O. Harrison
100 West Amite Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Phone: (601) 948-5030

4. Kevin Camp
1764 Lelia Dr, Jackson, MS 39216
Phone:(601) 968-6628 Home: (888) 775-5868
5. Plaintiff Liason Committee.
c/o Clerk of Court
22nd Judicial District Court of Louisiana
908 Washington St, Franklinton, LA 70438
Phone:(985) 732-7189

6. The Honorable Judge Robert Burns
c/o Clerk of Court
22nd Judicial District Court of Louisiana
908 Washington St, Franklinton, LA 70438
Phone:(985) 732-7189

7. Special Master Bob Owens
3825 Ridgewood Road
Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Telephone: 601.432.6198
Fax: 601.432.6972
_____________________________________________________________Respondants
Petitioners: Pro Se’
Robert and Rebecca Marie
P.O. Box 707
Foxworth, Ms. 39483
Phone: (601) 633-3055
_____________________________________________________________ Petitioners

Respectfully submitted this _______ day of ____________________ 2017
________________________________
Robert Marie Jr.

_________________________________
Rebecca Marie

 

TO THE UNITED STATES
SURPREME COURT

The Petitioners Brief

Greetings to this Court, the Petitioner’s are thankful for this opportunity to be heard. The Petitioner’s are here pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a) and understands issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized is not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised. The matter of no redress is exceedingly long and their is no other means to aquire relief sought. Relief is provided here on petition of mandate under Fed.R App. P. 41. Petitioner’s seeks full vindication of constitutional rights as designated for priority disposition per 28 U.S.C. §1657(a).

The Petitioner’s place forth their application for extraordinary writ to this Court and would inform the Court this matter is most serious and life threatening. This matter is most urgent. Petitioners are requesting a review of the state Court decision of in Hinds County Mississippi to deny relief to Petitioner’s claims settled in 1996. If one could imagine having had settled awards in the untold hundreds of millions on your family of three in 1996, and the Court of actions in that cause continues refusing to grant you any relief simply because the Courts actions to create and hold a class joined trial failed to show injuries to others. The Court and attorneys refusal to address your claims or any matter but payments to their failed class and allowed any scheme to launder your awards and that is the matter placed here before this Court. The issues are clearly evident, Petitioner’s lives are in clear and present danger over their awards from claims settled years ago and those with state authority to act against the Petitioners upon it.

These Petitioner’s cause, “the Marie’s” was had before the Hinds County Court in Mississippi, in 1996. Their discovery completed, the Court moved in 1999, to accept an offer from one of the many listed defendants. Shortly after the offer was accepted by the Court a trial was had which represented the entire class and joined claims, yet it failed to show injuries to the class. The attorneys filed an appeal which failed as well. In 2000 Petitioner’s recovered their files and verified what was known, that their 1996, discoveries gained awards and sought relief through the District Courts then the Court of Appeals. That action was prevented by an Order of the Court of origin claiming the Petitioner’s were part of another group of plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed. Although proven to be wrong the lower Courts have all dismissed without prejudice any attempt to grant relief to these Petitioner’s as hardships only increase and attempts to extort the Petitioner’s awards only become more violent against them. Petitioner’s awards were enjoined to payments to the class and the punitive action was had in Louisiana as well on behalf the failed class, as well some form of action was had four months prior to April’s Marie’s death regarding another plea by the Petitioner’s for relief before the Court of origin in 2005, the action was held by the Court through a withdrawn and fired attorney who took liberty to filed and close the case on August 6th, 2013. If any payments were made to plaintiffs cause they have never seen one penny of it. This matter is most urgent to the remaining family who as in 1997, are again at odds with the state over their awards. Documents show the Court of cause has made countless payments to others as it continues to deny relief to the only proven and viable claims before it.

The Petitioner’s wish to briefly describe life under the conditions placed on them.Years and years of what can only be called attacks as the Court and class attorneys awaits your death. As evident the waiting was too long. The actions of settled awards were on these Petitioner’s and their child, April Marie who was one of the three lead plaintiffs to the causes before the Mississippi, Hinds County Court. . April Marie, bore the blunt of attacks, as she had been taken by the state of Louisiana in 1997, after the Petitioner’s discovery of their destroyed home by defendants toxic release was had and attorneys had finally gain class action attorneys to aid them to formulate a class. In fear of their lives Petitioner’s move to the state of Mississippi, only to be attacked over their settled claims there. April was imprisoned at 19 on charges dismissed three times prior as a means to keep the family in the state to launder their awards. Once freed from prison at 30 at 31 she was left to bled to death in a ditch on December 29th 2013. Currently the attorney of the adoption of April’s children, Petitioner’s grandchildren, now chairs a new parental rights bill passed by one of the attorneys now State Representative who represented Petitioner’s settled cause and supports a bill which seeks the parental rights of the children. There is also an action being taken to have Mr. Marie eliminated as well. The major issues regarding the lower Courts Order referred to as “Judge Graves 1998 Order” is herewith submitted in the Petitioner’s Writ for extraordinary mandate. They are also stated here in brief.

The 1998, Order of the Court states that “discovery not had by January 1998, will be dismissed. Petitioner Rebecca Maire’s deposition was completed on December 18th, 1996, in accordance to the completed discovery process. The Petitioner’s battle with their initial attorneys over their home destroyed by a toxic cloud and attempts to have the Marie’s, imprisoned to silence them lead to the firing of the firm. The Court accepted the Vicksburg offer on Petitioner Robert Marie on February 12th, 1999, and took to trial before any discovery was ever given to Petitioner’s new attorneys. This as being evident the actions of the Court were with regards to 1996 discoveries had long before Judge Graves 1998, Order. We plead an understanding that this action once severed will increase the dangers which Petitioner’s have endured the many years since their cause was settled and pray no delay is had to issue of Writ. The Petitioner’s filings and pleas to the lower Courts related the concern of threats which would evolve into much more if nothing was done regarding about the actual claims of the Petitioners being settled and the Courts continued actions to deny any relief. That the Marie’s were used to gain awards and next simply left for dead over initial actions which that harm doesn’t seem to be enough for those engaged in further extortion. The pleadings and evidence submitted in support for Wit of Mandate here are preceded by Petitioner’s motion for leave to file, and is accompanied by this brief in support of the motion. As provided by Rule 39, Petitioner’s are unable to pay for filing fees and have filed seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, motion for leave to do so, together with the Petitioner’s notarized affidavit (in compliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746) in the form prescribed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Form 4., is herewith submitted.

The Petitioner’s affidavit as required, is filed together with their documents in compliance with Rule 21. As provided in that Rule, for those filing in forma pauperis it suffices to file an original and 10 copies, yet as service shall be as required by Rule 29, except that when an adverse party is a state, service shall be made on both the Governor and the Attorney General of that State. The Petitioners will make service to both the Governor and the Attorney General of Mississippi.

Petitioner’s petition shows simply that after their lost, damages and injuries which no medical aid for specify injuries regarding their cause is had, that living on a fixed income they have become impoverished and every attack by those seeking to take their awards further buries them in debt. Petitioner’s were accepted to proceed in forma pauperis by the lower Courts. Petitioner’s motion states that leave to proceed in forma pauperis was sought in and was Granted by the lower Courts as well the 5th, Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Petitioner’s need more than the dragging of matters to actions of no resolve which no longer await their death but rather is in promotion of such. The Petitioner’s pray the Writ will issue. The Louisiana class claims have as recently as a few months back have once more collected from the October Chemical release of 1995, as talk of others in Mississippi, make claim they too are awaiting another payment from the suit. Special Master Bow Owens is Mississippi’s special Master but claims no knowledge of these Petitioners.

The current actions with child protection agency of the state are making huge monetary demands through the DHS Court for payments to the forster parents. Petitioner’s have no idea as to how the Court expects payments of such. Petitioners are struggling to pay utilities after the false charges placed on Petitioner Robert Marie. The lack due process of Petitioners has destroyed every hope to ever get their children back or stop the on going attacks.

Petitioner’s brief and Petition for Wirt of Mandate has been served on the U.S. Supreme Court and the parties herein listed to this action.
Submitted this ______ day of ___________________ 2017 , Appearance Pro se’

Signed: _____________________ _______________________
Robert Marie                                 Rebecca Marie

 

Published on December 13, 2016 at 7:43 pm  Comments Off on Final Draft  
%d bloggers like this: