Press Release




Friday, August 20, 2010    10:30 PM (EST)
Contact : Press office | 610-688-9471 | info@Jim4US.com

AMICUS CURIAE WELCOME IN APPEAL CLAIMING A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IN THE ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION ACT, PARTS OF THE FEDERAL COMPREHENSIVE DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT, AND OTHER STATUTES

AMICUS CURIAE WELCOME IN APPEAL INVOLVING ISSUE OF TIMELINESS OF APPEAL

AMICUS CURIAE ARE WELCOME IN APPEAL INVOLVING RIGHT OF PRO SE CO-CONTRACTEE TO LITIGATE ON BEHALF OF PARENTS' ESTATE TRUSTS

JIM SCHNELLER APPEALS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT  IN TWO CASES WHERE THE THIRD CIRCUIT DECIDES THAT APPEAL WAS UNTIMELY, AND THAT PRO SE LITIGANTS CANNOT LITIGATE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATES OF THEIR PARENTS OR CO-BENEFICIARIES

       Pennsylvanian Jim Schneller, litigating in furtherance of the rights of the elderly, nursing home patients, concerned family members, and citizens who are needful of Court action regarding these, has appealed orders deciding appeals  in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which affirm or condone the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The cases  involve intentional torts inflicted by nursing homes, State failure to utilize statutes ensuring protection for the elderly and nursing home patients, violations of the federal assisted suicide funding restriction act, conspiracy and obstruction falling under the federal civil rights act, and violations of advance health directives and powers of attorney.

       Mr. Schneller has appealed very similar orders in two of the petitions for writ of certiorari, No. 10-120 and No. 10-227, addressing important procedural and standing-related issues.    The appeals stem from orders granting motions to dismiss for lack of federal questions or  other jurisdiction, in cases brought against nursing homes, physicians and other parties, for deprivals of rights to life, free speech and basic nutrition, claims for deprivals of civil rights and conspiracy to obstruction justice and numerous basic rights, violation of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act and other acts of Congress, intentional torts including wrongful death, and violations of advance health directives and powers of attorney.


      The appeals center on two questions:  

      A. Whether the time limit to file a notice of appeal by plaintiffs was tolled by filing of a motion for leave to reply to responses to a plaintiff's motion for amendment or reconsideration of the concluding order, and a motion for sanctions for false pleading in the proceedings.   The proceedings culminated in additional perjury, in the pleadings responsive to the motion for amendment or reconsideration.  The Third Circuit decision that the appeal was untimely cites the law that a final order is the one that ends all causes against all parties, but plaintiffs have made a strong case that their efforts to raise false accusations worthy of sanction, which in fact then further accumulated in the answers to motion for amendment or reconsideration, created a situation where the final order disposing of all parties and causes was the order deciding the motion for sanctions and the order denying leave to reply, which were both entered on the same day.  This question is novel, sparsely addressed in published decisions, and involves abundant support in the law regarding continuing action that is sufficient to toll the limits of time.

      B. The second question is whether a trust estate beneficiary, trustee ad litem, co-contractee, and additionally qualified offspring of a deceased may litigate torts on behalf of the deceased, that were experienced together with the deceased ?   The Third Circuit has decided that this non-attorney trust co-beneficiary, son, and best friend may not litigate pro se on behalf of his deceased parents even though they experienced many of the alleged torts and wrongs together, and the reciprocal trusts were formed for the benefit of the spouse,  and for the benefit of said the co- beneficiary upon the spouse's death.

      This question has never been decided in the Third Circuit, and in fact has only been peripherally decided at all in the appellate realm.  The case is strong both as to  capacity to sue on behalf of an estate, and regarding suing on behalf of the Pa.R.C.P. 2202 "parties entitled to relief" under the Pennsylvania wrongful death statute. 42 Pa.C.S.§§ 8301, 8302.  Each of these constitutes a legal question of first impression. 

      The authority stated by the Third Circuit, Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882 (3d Cir. 1991), holds only that a "non-attorney parent could not represent his children in a tort action in federal court." In relevant decision Collinsgru v. Palmyra Board of Education, 161 F.3d 225 (3d Cir., 1998), the Third Circuit found that parents could not represent their son pro se in an action under the "Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1994 & Supp. 1997) These, which are the only published Third Circuit decisions in this issue,  are limited to the parent-representing-child situation, which is far different from the circumstances.  In the decision Pridgen v. Anderson, 113 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 1997), the Second Circuit has held that "an administratrix or executrix of an estate may not proceed pro se when the estate has beneficiaries and creditors other than the litigant.    Here, however, besides holding four or more valid legal capacities, plaintiff is the last remaining living beneficiary of the two trusts created by the co-plaintiffs, and the estates are closed.  Moreso, the sole remaining trustee, a bank, has repeatedly declined to pursue the hugely viable litigation.    

     The cases also involve extraordinary circumstances, including obstruction, conspiracy, ineffective prior counsel, oppression, and intent to ruin the case in the eyes of prospective counsel, and these while supportive of specific error, are at the same time not present in any published decision deciding the claimed doctrine of forbiddance of prosecution by pro se litigants.


      Both of these questions are enmired in circumstances where the District Court is claimed to have, in essence, summarily dismissed the case because it was in some abstract sense unworthy, rather than for any real absence of jurisdiction.   The petitons for writ therefore also ask review and reversal as supported by the overt error in the decisions.
 

    These cases provide opportunities for amicus curiae briefs that will assist a deeper argument of many issues including those described above, and may help ensure fairness and equal treatment in your bloc.  Please contact the above at once if you have any questions or requests. 

     A right exists to plaintiffs to file a third appeal,  which would cause timeliness of appeal from issues including whether the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, parts of the Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, and other statutes, contain a private right of action, as was claimed in all three cases.   Potential amicus curiae and other interested parties are encouraged to contact the above.

      Jim Schneller is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representative for the 7th district of  Pennsylvania, and has litigated many different issues of public importance, generally described at the campaign website here.

____________________


ADDITIONAL NEWS

Jim Schneller for Congress campaign asserts unconstitutionality of Pennsylvania Election Code - August 21, 2010


Call for Amicus Curiae in appeal from Third Circuit refusal to allow payment of appeal fee - August 21, 2010


Candidate Jim Schneller's initial observations on the GOP petition to set aside Jim's candidacy - August 12, 2010

Candidate Jim Schneller adds to pledges for good governing - July 5, 2010