Juvenile Rights Violations

this would be correct: The record is illegal, and the illegality was challenged, is challenged, and is allowed to be challenged, including the civil lawsuit, because it is a clear continuing violation of puniti ve punishment in itself, causing others to continue.Robinson v. California, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that laws inflicting cruel, and unusual punishment are i n violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.Solem v. Helm, * U.S. * (* *): The Supreme Court held that a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a non-violent crime was a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel, and unusual punishments, supports your argument against continuous punitive punishments, and a ****uvenile charged again as an adult using the same evidence, that wou ld be different charges in ****uvenile, as would be in adult. Miller v. Alabama, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences without parole are unconstitutional for ****uvenile offenders. - Graham v. Florida, * U.S. * (*): The Court held that ****uveniles cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non -homicide offenses. But plaintiff was unfairly so, thus continuing, he in fact is still in the same limbo, regardless of prison sentences, and punitive sentences, stemming from the same limbo in *, because federal questions was never resolved, and have never been resolved, regardless of being stated. Prohibition of cruel, and unusual punishment, and th e rights of ****uveniles in the criminal ****ustice system are important, legally reasoned so, thus apply to the plaintiff here, that was un****ustly denied. To clarify here, plaintiff states baxter may not have known about, all ****uvenile orders, and events in her assessment, but could have known, rather should have known, while plaintiff is unsure as to that point, she clearly denied him his rights, through mundane legal traps, trapping both him and his cou nsel under a two bytes doctrine, causing ineffective counsel, and thus, deprived plaintiff of his rights, while also finding him actually innocent, thus helping him, this was pre****ud icial, because it disallowed under habeas all of his issues, causing further know punish ments after the fact. While he praises her for finding him innocent, she had no choice, he proved his actual innocence in not being there, and has new evidence to prove further that backs that up, ie, school records, in-fact new evidence proves the second * case was fraudulent, no ****uror, or legitimate trier fact, not corrupt one, would convict. Showing that the victim was making up stories, along with her mother, direct witnesses catching her, testimony on tape, to a host of other evidence, and witnesses, such as evidence she sat on her grandfathers lap, and stated he never touched her, to her brothers molesting each other at the same time, to her brother, vindictively trying to rape other 14 year olds, meet them at a gas station, to entrapment again by the same victims mother akin to *, and * allegations after habeas relief, to the victims attempting to state, she had his confe ssions, when he lived in a basement of a sheriffs home, with no internet access, including evidence, originally of, witness’s taking him to work saturdays, and sundays, he was state d charged for, school records show, he was in school, and not tardy. This is all new evid ence ****ust for case * and * of *. The other evidence is new from * arson, and stolen child, including all cases, further * traffic offense in front of a corrupt ****udg e, and forced * over confession by state police, which gives him a right to sue, and file habeas corpus, and a COA, to which he did, after hiring counsel to do it loosing his fund s.

To clarify here, plaintiff states baxter may not have known about, all ****uvenile orders, and events in her assessment, but could have known, rather should have known, while plaintiff is unsure as to that point, she clearly denied him his rights, through mundane legal traps, trapping both him and his cou nsel under a two bytes doctrine, causing ineffective counsel, and thus, deprived plaintiff of his rights, while also finding him actually innocent, thus helping him, this was pre****ud icial, because it disallowed under habeas all of his issues, causing further know punish ments after the fact. While he praises her for finding him innocent, she had no choice, he proved his actual innocence in not being there, and has new evidence to prove further that backs that up, ie, school records, in-fact new evidence proves the second * case was fraudulent, no ****uror, or legitimate trier fact, not corrupt one, would convict. Showing that the victim was making up stories, along with her mother, direct witnesses catching her, testimony on tape, to a host of other evidence, and witnesses, such as evidence she sat on her grandfathers lap, and stated he never touched her, to her brothers molesting each other at the same time, to her brother, vindictively trying to rape other 14 year olds, meet them at a gas station, to entrapment again by the same victims mother akin to *, and * allegations after habeas relief, to the victims attempting to state, she had his confe ssions, when he lived in a basement of a sheriffs home, with no internet access, including evidence, originally of, witness’s taking him to work saturdays, and sundays, he was state d charged for, school records show, he was in school, and not tardy. This is all new evid ence ****ust for case * and * of *. The other evidence is new from * arson, and stolen child, including all cases, further * traffic offense in front of a corrupt ****udg e, and forced * over confession by state police, which gives him a right to sue, and file habeas corpus, and a COA, to which he did, after hiring counsel to do it loosing his fund s. Showing he has continuing suffering derived, while under collateral suffering, without an y ability do to his disabilities to render appropriate legal help, as per his entitled Consti utional rights, thus causing continuous legal monopoly of illegal sentencing schemes, cau sing direct abuse, mentally, physically, emotionally.

the defendants filed Defendant BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND NOW, come the Defendants, Department of Children & Youth CYS, Robert Blakely, District Attorney Kathleen Ann Scibetta, Jim K. Vogel, and the Erie County Prison, by and through their counsel, Marshall Dennehey, P.C., Patrick M. Carey, Esquire, and Emily C. Downing, Esquire, and submit the following Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, averring as follows: IL PROCEDURAL HISTORY In *, James R. Tice ( “Plaintiff’), was charged by the Erie City Police Department with two sets of criminal charges concerning his alleged sexual abuse of his niece. See Exhibits A and B. Plaintiff was convicted by a ****ury at both dockets of all criminal charges, including attempted rape, indecent assault, and corruption of minors. /d. On November *, *, Plaintiff was sentenced to a cumulative sentence of seven to fourteen (*-*) years of incarceration, followed by two years of probation. Jd. On March *, *, Plaintiff's conviction at Docket No. *-* was overturned and his sentence was vacated after his Writ of Habeas Corpus was granted, pursuant to the Court’s finding that his trial counsel was ineffective. He was released from custody in *. Jd. Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * Plaintiff commenced this civil action, over nineteen years later, by filing a * page, pro se Complaint on February *, *. ECF No. *. Plaintiff's Complaint names forty-three (*) defendants, including the Department of Children & Youth CYS (“Erie County Children and Youth”), Robert Blakely, District Attorney Kathleen Ann Scibetta (“Kathleen Scibetta, Esq.”), and Jim K. Vogel (“James Vogel, Esq.”), or collectively, the Erie County Defendants. Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS Rather than focusing on alleged constitutional violations stemming solely from his criminal prosecution, the factual allegations contained within Plaintiff's Complaint appear to span the course of nearly his entire life, as he describes his involvement with the Erie County Children and Youth as a child and continues into present day, describing himself as a “shadow- prisoner”. See generally, ECF No. *. The claims raised against the County Defendant largely relate to his criminal prosecution. /d. However, they are incomprehensible, leaving the County Defendants unable to respond to the nonsensical claims including “Rico Act Violations,” “Forcing a false confession for a ****udge for clout,” “violation of USERA governing military rights,” “triple-****eopardy,” and “octa-****eopardy.” Jd. Although unclear, it appears that Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of dismissal of his criminal conviction at Docket *-* and compensation for his allegedly unlawful incarceration. Jd. Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *(b)(*) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, * F.3d *, * (3d. Cir. *). When ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a ****udge must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Wayne Land & Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * Mineral Grp. LLC v. Delaware River Basin Comm’n, * F.3d *, *-* (3d. Cir. *). In order to survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, * US. *, * (*) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, * U.S. *, * (*)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are insufficient to establish plausible allegations. Jd., at * (citing Twombly, * U.S. at *). Plausibility means “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Jd., at'}*, * (citing Twombly, * U.S. at *, *). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” /d., (citing Twombly, * U.S. at *). Pursuant to Twombly and Iqbal, a District Court should the following three-step approach when ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss: First, the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.’ Second, the court should identify allegations that, ‘because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.’ Finally, ‘where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *) (quoting Santiago v. Warminster Twp., * F.3d *, * (3d. Cir. *)). This determination is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its own ****udicial experience and common sense.” Jgbal, * U.S. at *. Applying the standard from Twombly and Jqbal, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted in full. See e.g. Capetillo v. Prime Care Medical Inc., * WL * Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * (E.D. Pa. *); Schlaybach v. Berks Heim Nursing & Rehabilitation, * F. Supp. 3d * (E.D. Pa. *); Warren v. Prime Care Medical Inc., * WL * (E.D. Pa. *). It is well settled that: "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a Complaint contain ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ Federal Civil Procedure *(a)(*), and that each averment be 'concise, and direct,' Federal Civil Procedure *(e)(*)." Scibelli v. Lebanon County, * F.Appx. *, * (*" Cir. *). IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS A. §* Actions Claims brought pursuant to * U.S.C. §* “impose civil liability upon any person who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Shuman v. Penn Manor School Dist., * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *). “It is well settled that §* does not confer any substantive rights, but merely ‘provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Williams v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *)(quoting Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cty., * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *)). To establish a claim under §*, a plaintiff must establish a deprivation of a federally protected right and that this deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *). B. Plaintiff's Complaint Should Be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule * Federal Rule of Civil Procedure * requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. *(a)(*); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, * U.S. *,* (*). While Plaintiff is afforded leniency in his filings as a pro se litigant, he is not exempt from satisfying basic pleading requirements. Haines, Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * * U.S. at *. Rule *(e) further provides that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. *(e)(*). “Taken together, Rules *(a) and *(e)(*) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” * Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice, and Procedure § * at * (2d ed. *). If the Complaint is “illegible or incomprehensible,” Scibelli v. Lebanon Cnty., * F. App’x *, * (3d Cir. *), “it is not only of an unwieldly length, but it is also largely unintelligible,” Stephanatos v. Cohen, * F. App’x *, * (3d Cir. *), or “is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised,” Tillio v. Spiess, * F. App’x *, * (3d Cir. *) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, * F.3d *, * (2d Cir. *)), it is necessary to dismiss the complaint for violating Rule *. See Mincy v. Klem, * F. App’x * (3d Cir. *); Rhett v. New Jersey State Superior Ct., * F. App’x * (3d Cir. *); Bennet-Nelson v. Louisiana Bd. Of Regents, * F.3d *, * n.* (Sth Cir. *). “Rule *(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that ****udges and adverse parties need not try to fish a cold coin from a bucket of a mind.” U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., * F.3d *, * (7th Cir. *). Similarly, dismissal is warranted under Rule * when a complaint leaves the “defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constitute[s]’” a cause of action, Binsack v. Lackawanna Cnty. Prison, * F. App’x *, * (3d. Cir. *), or when the complaint is so “rambling and unclear” as to avoid permitting defendants to present an appropriate response. Tillio, * F. App’x *. Plaintiff's Complaint is the very type of complaint Rule * guards against. Plaintiff's * page complaint is unwieldly in length and largely incomprehensible. The Erie County Defendants are unable to provide a meaningful response to Plaintiff's claims, as they are a Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * collection of nonsensical and improperly used legal words. Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed, as it does not meet basic pleading requirements and clearly violates Rule *. Cc. Plaintiff’s Claims are Barred by the Statue of Limitations The statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to § * is governed by the statute of limitations for tort claims in the state in which the claim was brought, which in Pennsylvania is two years. Kach v. Hose, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *); Petsinger v. Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, * A.2d *, * (Pa. Cmwilth. *); * Pa.C.S. § *. The cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the in****ury on which the action is based; that is, when the in****ury and its cause can reasonably be discovered. This is usually the date of the last action necessary to complete the tort. Kach, * F.3d at *-*; Boyd v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, * WL * at ** (Pa. Cmwlth. *) (citing Wilson v. Garcia, * U.S. *, *-* (*); Pennock vy. Lenzi, * A.2d *, * (Pa. Cmwilth. *)); Saxberg v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, * WL * at ** (Pa. Cmwlth. *) (citing Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, * A.3d *, * (Pa. *)); Sloan v. Coleman, * WL * at ** (Pa. Cmwlth. *) (citing Wilson, supra; * Pa. C.S. §*). Plaintiff failed to timely file his Complaint and therefore his claims are barred. Plaintiff's criminal conviction occurred in *. He was incarcerated through *, when his conviction at Docket No. *-* was overturned and his sentence was vacated. His conviction at Docket No. *-* was affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in *. See Tice v. Wilson, * F. Supp. 2d * (W.D. Pa. *), aff'd, * F.App’x * (3d Cir. *). Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint, at the very latest, had to have been filed by *. Considering Plaintiff's Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * Complaint was filed nearly fifteen years late, his claims are barred by the statute of limitations and must be dismissed, with pre****udice. D. Defendants Scibetta and Vogel are Entitled to Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity As a general matter, a prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from damages under §* based on activities that are intimately associated with the ****udicial phase of the criminal process such as initiating a prosecution and presenting the state's case. Yarris v. County of Delaware, * F.3d * (*" Cir. *); Imbler v. Pachtman, * U.S. *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed. 2d * (*). This immunity extends to the decision of whether or not to prosecute. Davis v. Rendell, * F.2d * (* Cir. *). Prosecutors also en****oy immunity from investigatory acts taken to the extent that the securing of information is necessary to a prosecutor's decision to initiate a criminal prosecution. Thomas v. Rendell, * U.S. Dist. LEXIS * (E.D. Pa. *) (quoting Forsyth v. Kleindienst, * F.2d * (* Cir. *). A prosecutor's alleged failure to properly investigate before initiating a prosecution is also conduct within the scope of absolute immunity. Schrob v. Catterson, * F.2d * (* Cir. *). It is firmly established that prosecutors are “immune from damages claims arising from their official acts.” Naran****o v. City of Phila., * F. App’x. *, * (3d Cir. *)(citing Imbler v. Pachtman, * U.S. *, * — * (*)). This immunity “extends to acts that are intimately associated with the ****udicial phase of the criminal process” so as to allow a prosecutor to work without being constrained by the “consequences in terms of his [or her] potential liability in a suit for damages.” Yarris v. Cnty. of Del., * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *) (citing Imbler, * U.S. * — *). In Yarris, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set forth as follows: It is well settled that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from claims based on their failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, so long as they did so while functioning in their prosecutorial capacity. As the Supreme Court explained in /mbler, * Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * the “deliberate withholding of ‘exculpatory information’ is included within the ‘legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.” * U.S. at *-* n. *, * S.Ct. *; See also Smith v. Holtz, * F.3d *, * n. * (3d Cir. *). Furthermore, courts have held that prosecutors are entitled to immunity even when they withhold evidence after trial while the criminal conviction is on appeal. See e.g. Parkinson v. Cozzolino, * F.3d *, * (3d. Cir. *)(explaining that “absolute immunity covers prosecutors’ actions after the date of conviction while a direct appeal is pending”). * F.3d at *. The Supreme Court has viewed absolute immunity as "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Mitchell v. Forsyth, * U.S. *, * (*). Thus, absolute immunity defeats a lawsuit at the outset. Jmbler v. Pachtman, * U.S. *, * at n.* (*). See also, Siegert v. Gilley, * U.S. *, *, (*) ("One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit"); Jn re Montgomery County, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *) ("absolute immunity creates not only protection from liability, but also a right not to stand trial"), cert. denied, * U.S. * (*); Boyd y. Biggers, * F.3d *, * (5th Cir. *) ("the [Supreme] Court has described immunity as a threshold question, to be resolved as early in the proceeding as possible"). To the extent that any claims of constitutional violations related to Plaintiff's criminal prosecution can be derived from a reading of his Complaint, Defendants Scibetta and Vogel are shielded from liability due to prosecutorial immunity. Therefore, Defendants Scibetta and Vogel, are entitled to dismissal of any claims related to the prosecution of Plaintiff's criminal cases. E. The Erie County Prison and Erie County Office of Children and Youth are not “Persons” for Purposes of a Civil Rights Claim It is well established that a defendant can only be liable under §* if he can fairly be considered a "state actor" with respect to the conduct at issue. To the extent that Plaintiff has * Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * raised a claim against the "Erie County Prison," and “The Erie County Office of Children and Youth” they are not entities that are proper parties for §* litigation. Beaver v. Union County Pennsylvania, * Fed App’x *, * (3d Cir. *). Accordingly, it is clear that the Erie County Prison and the Office of Children and Youth are not a proper person for civil litigation purposes and must be dismissed. F. Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Monell Claim In Monell v. Department of Social Services, * U.S. * (*), the Supreme Court of the United States established that municipalities and other local governmental units are included among those “persons” sub****ect to liability under §*. Jd. at *. It is firmly established that for purposes of §*, municipalities and other local governmental entities or officials may not be held liable under federal civil rights law for the acts of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Jgbal, * U.S. * (*); See also Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp., * F.2d *, * (3d Cir. *). However, municipalities and other local governmental entities or officials may be held liable “when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly said to represent official policy, inflicts the in****ury that the government as an entity is responsible under §*.” Monell, * U.S. at *. To sustain a Monell municipal liability claim, a plaintiff must first “identify a municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiff's in****ury.” Bd. of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, * U.S. *, * (*); See also McTernan vy. City of York, Pa., * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *). Second, a Plaintiff must allege a “direct causal link between a [local government] policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Jiminez v. All American Rathskeller, Inc., * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *)(quoting City of Canton v. Harris, Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * * U.S. *, * (*). Otherwise stated, the “policy or custom” of the Defendants must be the “moving force” behind the constitutional violation. Berg v. County of Allegheny, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *). Where “the policy or custom does not facially violate federal law, causation can be established only by demonstrating that the municipal action was taken with deliberate indifference as to its known or obvious consequences. A showing of simple or even heightened negligence will not suffice.” Jd. at * (citing Brown, * U.S. at *); See also Warren v. Prime Care Medical Inc., * WL *, ** (E.D. Pa. *) (“When a policy itself is not unconstitutional, ‘rigorous standards of culpability and causation must be applied.””)(citing Brown, * U.S. at *). "Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be attributed to a municipal policymaker. Otherwise, the existence of the unconstitutional policy, and its origin, must be separately proved." Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, * U.S. *, *-*, * S.Ct. * (*). "To infer the existence of a city policy from the isolated misconduct of a single, low-level officer, and then to hold the city liable on the basis of that policy, would amount to permitting precisely the theory of strict respondeat superior liability re****ected in Monell." Id., at *. In the case at bar, failed to establish any, specific policy, practice or custom of Erie County that was unconstitutional or that violated his rights. Based upon the legal authority cited above, the County Defendants are entitled to the dismissal of Plaintiffs alleged Monell claim, with pre****udice. * Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * G. Plaintiff's Claims Related to Docket *-* Are Barred by the Rooker- Feldman Doctrine Under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, a Federal District Court lacks the sub****ect matter ****urisdiction to review state court ad****udications or evaluate constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision. Guarino v. Larson, *, * (* Cir. *), citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, * U.S. *, * n.* (*) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, * U.S. *, * (*). A federal district court should not exercise ****urisdiction over constitutional claims that have been previously litigated in a state ****udicial proceeding or that are inextricably intertwined with a prior state ad****udication. Gulla v. North Strabane, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *); FOCUS y. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, * F.3d *, *-* (3d Cir. *); accord District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, * U.S. *, * (*); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., * U.S. *, * (*). The Supreme Court in Fe/dman explained that, for the purposes of determining ****urisdiction, a ****udicial proceeding resulting in a state ad****udication occurs where the proceeding “‘investigate[s], declare[s], and enforce[s] liabilities ... on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist.” Feldman., * U.S. at * quoted in Guarino, * F.3d *, * (declining ****urisdiction based upon Rooker-Feldman Doctrine). The Third Circuit held in Gulla that “if the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state decision or void its ruling,” the federal court should deny the claim on ****urisdictional grounds. Gulla., * F.3d at * quoting Charchenko y. City of Stillwater, * F.3d *, * n.* (* Cir. *). The Gulla court held that, under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, a federal district court could exercise ****urisdiction only if it could grant the relief requested without disturbing the state ad****udication. Jd. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine also “encompass[es] final decisions of lower state courts.” Jn re General Motors Corp. Products * Case *:*-cv-*-CB Document * Filed */*/* Page * of * Liability Litigation, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *) (declining to exercise ****urisdiction under Rooker-Feldman Doctrine). Federal District Courts lack ****urisdiction once a state court has ad****udicated an issue because Congress has conferred only original ****urisdiction not appellate ****urisdiction on the District Courts. Rooker, * U.S. at *. Based upon the foregoing analysis, all claims raised by Plaintiff in his Complaint, related to Docket *-*, seeking to have that conviction overturned or dismissed, are barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. H. Amendment to Plaintiff's Complaint Would Be Futile The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that a District Court must permit a curative amendment to a Complaint which is vulnerable to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *(b)(*) "unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *). An amendment is deemed to be futile if the Amended Complaint cannot withstand a renewed Motion to Dismiss. Shane v. Fauver, * F.3d *, * (3d Cir. *). In the instant matter, amendment to Plaintiff's Complaint would be futile and therefore should not be not permitted. V. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Defendants, Department of Children & Youth CYS, Robert Blakely, District Attorney Kathleen Ann Scibetta, Jim K. Vogel, and the Erie County Prison, respectfully requests an Order from this Honorable Court granting this Motion to Dismiss and dismissing all claims raised against them, with pre****udice.

plaintiff create his brief here PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE *(b)(*) I. INTRODUCTION This brief responds to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *(b)(*). Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, argues that his claims are well ple aded, and provide specific factual allegations to support his legal theories. These being facts that occurred, creating proper fact based legal theories (new) are firmly grounded in established case law, relevant statutes, and the United States Constitution. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW As per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *(b)(*), the court must accept the complaint's allega tions as true, and determine, if they plausibly suggest entitlement to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, * U.S. *, * (*). The complaint need not be an extensive factual narrative, but, it must offer enough facts, to raise a claim above mere speculation. Estelle v. Gamble, * U. S. *, * (*). The court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Moreso, every fact has been recited, all true, multiple times since the complaint to all defendants, thus far. As Defendants stated it {spans the entire life of Plaintiff}, to which, plaintiff states he is correct, and incorrect, as it is not plaintiffs life he wanted, it was because he was a {stolen child} to begin with, and reflected as true fact by the court orders themselves, that it is incomprehensibl e. The facts speak for themselves, the evidence speaks for itself, and the truth has been stated ov er the same course of his entire life, and supports itself. III. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff was wrongfully convicted in *,*, *, *-*, *, and *, and *, and *, of several charges, including attempted rape, indecent assault, and corruption of mino rs. His convictions at * of *, were later challenged, and partially overturned due to ineff ective assistance of counsel, and [new evidence] showing he was not there, * was the same exact case, and charges causing a double ****eopardy, and lacking ****urisdiction. For the argument regarding lack of ****urisdiction in ****uvenile and adult courts:- Kent v. United States, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that ****uveniles have a right to a hearing, representation by coun sel, and a statement of reasons [prior to] transferring their case to adult court.Plaintiff, who poss esses documented learning disabilities, and ADHD was a ****uvenile by the court, and a ****uvenile prior to that, thus given a new indefinite sentence, specifically for the adult charges negating ****uvenile, and forcing him into adult through multiple orders, both ****urisdictions separate, had illeg al ****urisdiction to do so, as to, all crimes ****uvenile, and adult, based on circumstances, mitigating factors, ****uvenile factors, and, asserts that these conditions, significantly impacted his understand ng of legal proceedings, as the federal magistrate was well aware of, a [stolen-child],For the claim of being a "stolen child" by state actors:- Santosky v. Kramer, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that, before a State may sever completely, and irrevocably the rights of pare nts in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least cle ar and convincing evidence, supports the plaintiff as a "stolen child" by arguing that, the State actors did not provide clear, and convincing evidence before severing the rights of the plaintiff's natural parents. The ineffectiveness of his prior counsel, further compounded his inability to seek timely legal remedies in * Certiorari, including, until he filed in *, a COA, and Habeas [originally coram nobis great writ] in *, after hiring Federal counsel to do so, who took his funds, stated, he would represent him, and file a complaint if needed, to which, he did not, and [*] law profes sors said something was [fishy] with the case, left plaintiff suffering on his own, without hope ,causing grave suffering medically, physically, mentally, and emotionally, thus leaving him in a state of again fighting for his freedom, while under draconian, barbaric, illegal to him, sentences that are punitive, and cannot apply legally, morally, ethically, or in any way possible causing slavery to continue under a roque system that does not apply, cannot apply to him. The gover nment legally, {albeit} :{illegally}: [Kidnapped-him] originally, and held him to this day, abusin g ,and accusing, him without any protections afforded to him, stripping him of his life, liberty, an d freedom, and any rights he would normally have, to which, he has yet to live any form of life on his terms, and has not had any ability to do so under sentences in a continued form under diff erent forms, is absolute slavery, cruel, and unusual, and illegal, because it's blatantly unconstitu tional to do so, and the courts, defendants, and state actors have done so intentionally, knowingly, and intelligently to deprive him of such, while blocking him from retrieving any form of proper relief. IV. ARGUMENT A. Tolling of Statute of Limitations Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. However, the doctrine of equitable tolli ng, allows a court to [pause] the [statute of limitations] when [extraordinary-circumstances] “{hinder}” a plaintiff from pursuing legal remedies. Holland v. Florida, * U.S. *, * (* *). Here, Plaintiff presents such circumstances: *. Continuing Consequences of Wrongful Convictions: Plaintiff continues to suffer repercu ssions, including limitations on employment, housing, and social interaction. These are docum ented harms as established in studies on the impact of wrongful convictions on reintegration into society.Thompson v. City of Chicago, * F.3d * (7th Cir. *): The court recognized that the wrongfully accused may suffer from social stigma, and other collateral consequences even after their conviction has been overturned. -Heck v. Humphrey, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court acknowledged the harm to reputation, and emotional distress in wrongful conviction cases. Petitioner was found wrongly convicted, although now the defendants are trying to minimize it do to case * of *, to which was not only illegal, lacked ****urisdiction, but, was fraudulent, and the same exact case as * in charges, and sentences, violating double ****eopardy, due proc ess, and causing cruel and unusual punishment, including after the fact, retroactive, and expo facto to plaintiff,to which, the federal magistrate [knew] would have occurred, as argued by petitioner in habeas *. In support: Benton v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that the Double Jeo pardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states, prohibiting multiple punish ments for the same offense. - Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*): The Court held that a ****uvenile's ad****udicatory heari ng is equivalent to a trial, and thus, trying a ****uvenile in adult court after such a hearing co nstitutes double ****eopardy. - Miller v. Alabama, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole are unconstitutional for ****uvenile offenders, which strengthens the argument on the sentence of an indefinite period of time, to which, plaintiff had over *, with continuances, equalling Five, resulting in [*] years of life as a ****uvenile taken. This violates "In re Gault, * U.S. * (*)" is a landmark case where the Supreme Co urt held that ****uveniles facing delinquency proceedings must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. Including other protections not even fully added here, resulting in the “[Stolen-Child]” For the argument on illegal split cases, and tainted evidence: - Crawford v. Washington, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that the use of testimo nial evidence without the opportunity for cross-examination violates the Sixth Amendment, he couldn't cross in ****uvenile, because he was not aware of it, the ****uvenile ****udge ****ust stated she had in front of her the information, but was not bringing it, prior to then, forcing him to state through multiple times, duration of minutes to state his guilt, or innocence, leaving that to him, and he stating innocence, then being given an indefinite sentence, and continued on camera is a denovo trial as to the pending charges. The Fax WW was already retrieved, and tainted. For the argument on charging a ****uvenile as an adult: - Roper v. Simmons, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed, while, under the age of-[*]. Without certification, or waiver, and being already continued a ****uvenile *, replaced, then released, and closed, prior to charging, would be illegal in pa, and the united states. The Juvenile Act requires a certification hearing before a ****uvenile can be transferred to adult court Kent v. United States, * U.S. * (*)" and "Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*). The "Blockburger v. United States, * U.S. * (*)" and "Brown v. Ohio, * U. S. * (*), both deal with the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Blockburger, the Supreme Court established the "same elements" test, which states that a person [cannot be tried twice] for the [same crime]. In Brown, the Court extended the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause to [bar]-[successive prosecution] as well as [successive punishment] for the [same] criminal offense. split cases are the [same] criminal offense. Both charges are indeed based on the same set of facts, and resulted in the exact same sen tences as ****uvenile, and in and of itself, it is argued as a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Cases such as "Harris v. Oklahoma, * U.S. * (*)" where the Supreme Court held that when a crime necessarily entails another, the Double Jeopardy Clause bar s retrial for the entailed crime. The prosecution [indeed] split two dockets based on different dates that [originated] from one case in ****uvenile court, and used a [tainted fax with dates] on it, it is seen as illegal and as grounds for suppressing the evidence automatically. Cases like "Brady v. Mary land, * U.S. * (*)" where the Supreme Court held that suppression by the prose cution of evidence favorable to a defendant violates due process, supports the argument. Therefore we can deduce properly, the evidence supports, and proves, the following: lack of a certification hearing or waiver before being charged as an adult, citing Kent v. United States. *. The use of tainted ****uvenile evidence in an adult trial violates due process, referencing Brady v. Maryland. *.The legality of charging a ****uvenile as an adult after the ****uvenile ****urisdiction was closed, cases like Breed v. Jones. *. Arguing that the double ****eopardy clause was violated by charging the same offense in ****uvenile, and adult courts, referencing cases like Blockburger v. United States. The record is illegal, and the illegality was challenged, is challenged, and is allowed to be challenged, including the civil lawsuit, because it is a clear continuing violation of puniti ve punishment in itself, causing others to continue.Robinson v. California, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that laws inflicting cruel, and unusual punishment are i n violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.Solem v. Helm, * U.S. * (* *): The Supreme Court held that a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a non-violent crime was a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel, and unusual punishments, supports your argument against continuous punitive punishments, and a ****uvenile charged again as an adult using the same evidence, that wou ld be different charges in ****uvenile, as would be in adult. Miller v. Alabama, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences without parole are unconstitutional for ****uvenile offenders. - Graham v. Florida, * U.S. * (*): The Court held that ****uveniles cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non -homicide offenses. But plaintiff was unfairly so, thus continuing, he in fact is still in the same limbo, regardless of prison sentences, and punitive sentences, stemming from the same limbo in *, because federal questions was never resolved, and have never been resolved, regardless of being stated. Prohibition of cruel, and unusual punishment, and th e rights of ****uveniles in the criminal ****ustice system are important, legally reasoned so, thus apply to the plaintiff here, that was un****ustly denied. To clarify here, plaintiff states baxter may not have known about, all ****uvenile orders, and events in her assessment, but could have known, rather should have known, while plaintiff is unsure as to that point, she clearly denied him his rights, through mundane legal traps, trapping both him and his cou nsel under a two bytes doctrine, causing ineffective counsel, and thus, deprived plaintiff of his rights, while also finding him actually innocent, thus helping him, this was pre****ud icial, because it disallowed under habeas all of his issues, causing further know punish ments after the fact. While he praises her for finding him innocent, she had no choice, he proved his actual innocence in not being there, and has new evidence to prove further that backs that up, ie, school records, in-fact new evidence proves the second * case was fraudulent, no ****uror, or legitimate trier fact, not corrupt one, would convict. Showing that the victim was making up stories, along with her mother, direct witnesses catching her, testimony on tape, to a host of other evidence, and witnesses, such as evidence she sat on her grandfathers lap, and stated he never touched her, to her brothers molesting each other at the same time, to her brother, vindictively trying to rape other 14 year olds, meet them at a gas station, to entrapment again by the same victims mother akin to *, and * allegations after habeas relief, to the victims attempting to state, she had his confe ssions, when he lived in a basement of a sheriffs home, with no internet access, including evidence, originally of, witness’s taking him to work saturdays, and sundays, he was state d charged for, school records show, he was in school, and not tardy. This is all new evid ence ****ust for case * and * of *. The other evidence is new from * arson, and stolen child, including all cases, further * traffic offense in front of a corrupt ****udg e, and forced * over confession by state police, which gives him a right to sue, and file habeas corpus, and a COA, to which he did, after hiring counsel to do it loosing his fund s. Showing he has continuing suffering derived, while under collateral suffering, without an y ability do to his disabilities to render appropriate legal help, as per his entitled Consti utional rights, thus causing continuous legal monopoly of illegal sentencing schemes, cau sing direct abuse, mentally, physically, emotionally. *. Documented Disabilities: Plaintiff possesses documented learning disabilities,J.D.B. v. Nor th Carolina, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court acknowledged that a child's age prop erly informs the Miranda custody analysis. and ADHD, which can significantly impact a person's abil ity to understand complex legal issues, as recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – * U.S.C. § * et seq. *. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Plaintiff asserts his previous attorneys were ineffective. This claim, if proven, can further toll the statute of limitations. McQuiggan v. Perkins, * U.S. * (*); Muhammad v. Close, * U.S. * (*). We know this was true, since counsel was found ineffective, and new counsel after habeas counsel, including habeas counsel was ineff ective.Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court set the standard for determining when, a criminal defendant's [Sixth] Amendment right to counsel is violated, by that counsel's inadequate performance. B. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Does Not Apply Defendants argue the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, bars this lawsuit, due to, prior state court procee dings. However, this doctrine only applies, when a federal lawsuit seeks to directly review, or rev erse state court decisions. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., * U.S. *, * (*). The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the narrow scope of the doctrine, it does not bar federal ****urisdiction simply because a party attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously litigated in state court.Plaintiff's claims focus on violations of his federal constitutional rights, including: Freedom of Speech, (First Amendment) Right to Bear Arms (Second Amendment) (Fourth Amendment) Double ****eopardy (Fifth Amendment) Ineffective assistance of counsel (Sixth Amendment) Cruel and Unusual Punishment (eighth Amendment) Due process (Fourteenth Amendment) Lack of ****urisdiction on the state court's part Abuse Constitutional violations All Others Stated These claims are independent federal questions not addressed by the state court, and are theref ore not barred by Rooker-Feldman, including the fact, that they automatically will call into que stion, and show the illegality of the state, rendering all orders illegal is secondary, and a by product of the violations automatically also, is [not barred]. Although they should be first,and foremost, not in a [corrupt system] or [Flawed System], how can they be. C. Plaintiff's Claims Have Merit *. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Plaintiff contends his prior attorneys were ineffective, faili ng to properly represent him and investigate his case. Such ineffectiveness violates his Sixth Am endment right to counsel. Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (*); Com. v. Grant, * Pa. * (*); Preston v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *). *. Lack of Jurisdiction: Plaintiff raises questions about the state court's ****urisdiction over his ca se due to improper procedures, and violations of ****uvenile law. It’s proven, these arguments could demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the underlying state court proceedings. D. Countering Defendant's Misconceptions *. Frivolous Claims: Defendants may argue Plaintiff's claims are frivolous or lack supporting evidence. However, the pleading stage requires a low bar. The well-pled factual allegations in the Complaint, coupled with relevant case law and constitutional references, satisfy the plausibility standard under Twombly. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(a)(*). *. State Court Deference: Defendants might argue the federal court should defer to the state cou rt's decisions. While federal courts generally respect state court rulings, this deference does not extend to situations, where a plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. See AEDP A, * U.S.C. § * (mechanism for federal review of state court convictions on constitution al gro unds). *. Statute of Limitations as Absolute Bar: Defendants claim the statute of limitations is an absolute bar. However, equitable tolling provides an exception when extraordinary circumstances exist. See Holland, supra. The documented disabilities, and ongoing consequences of the wrong ful convictions, present compelling arguments for equitable tolling. Additionally, the discovery rule is applicable in Pennsylvania, delaying the start of the limitations clock, until Plaintiff beca me [aware-of] the facts supporting his claims. See Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, * A.3d * (Pa. *). V. CONCLUSION Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be denied. Plaintiff's claims are timely due to equitable tol ling, and the potential application of the discovery rule, not barred by Rooker-Feldman, and sup ported by established legal principles, and the United States Constitution. Plaintiff deserves the opportunity to have his claims heard, and seek redress, for the immense train of brutal violations of his fundamental rights forced upon him.

based on plaintiffs brief here mine, arguments align with the legal standards in Pennsylvania, it is clear and consise, it is for western district federal court of erie pa, so its correct the arguments are tailored properly legally supported, and seem more supportive than the defendants correct.

is there any weakness in plaintiffs vs the defendants brief, state, and fix.

what would you add to make it legally sound and ****ustified here based on the law cited, and any other new law in support for plaintiffs brief on those topics and doctrines used against him, including rule * and how his complaint in in compliance

Rule * Compliance: Explicitly address how your complaint is in compliance with Rule *. Highlight its concise nature, clear presentation of facts, and the plausible claim for relief. *. Factual Support: Ensure you've provided sufficient factual detail to support your assertions and legal theories. *. Legal Arguments: Make sure all legal arguments are backed by the most up-to-date and relevant case law or statutes. You might want to mention how those cases are similar to yours. *. Address Each Point: Respond to each point raised by the defendants in their motion to dismiss. *. Professional Help: If possible, seek advice from a legal professional to ensure that all legal arguments are sound and properly presented. Note: I'm an AI and my suggestions are general in nature. Please consult with a legal professional for advice tailored to your situation. was this done in plaintiffs brief

how does he satisfy rule * in the complaint explain,

here is the complaint for one defendant does this satisfy rule *, *.Denial of P.C.R.A. *.Illegal Torture of Duress under Continued Runaway Imprison ments to same location of abuse. *.Mentally unstable Probation officer deployed with denial of oth ers. *.Known abuse without taking action to protect ****uveniles under care. *.Forcing a false confession for a ****udge for clout. *.Forced to strip naked as a 1l-*, year old in front of ****uveniles, and females. *.Preventing the original parent mother from being guardian for 8 years. *.Illegal kidnapping of a child and ****uvenile. *.Obtaining evidence for adult detectives against ****uvenile act *.Unethical attempt at forcing adult prosecution *.Tampering with evidence *.Tainted the evidence retrieved from adult detective in violation of ****uvenile act and US constitution, vindictively. […*…] *.Caused a ****uvenile to be charged as an adult later without rehabilitation. *.Stated in federal court it was for adult prosecution. *.Lacked ****urisdiction to arrest or prosecute a wrongly convicted person. I. INTRODUCTION Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Robert Blakely's conduct in the Hermitage Hou se case stands as a blatant affront to the core principles of the Juvenile Act, the U.S. Constitution, and established Third Circuit case law. His actions towards Pla intiff James Robert Tice, constitute a series of egregious violations that demand decisive legal intervention. This argument dissects Blakely's misconduct, illumi nating how it ****eopardizes, Tice's rights, and undermines, the very foundation of the ****uvenile ****ustice system. II. LEGAL ARGUMENTS A. Tainted Evidence and Violation of Juvenile Rights Claim: Chief Blakely's manipulation of evidence violates Tice's right to fair treat […*…] ment under the Juvenile Act and infringes on his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal Basis: ● Juvenile-Act: * Pa.C.S.A.§*(b) emphasizes fair, and reliable eviden ce in ****uvenile proceedings. ● Fourth-Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches, and seizures by government officials. Case Law Support: ● Third-Circuit: Mulholland v. Berks County, * F.3d * (3rd-Cir. * *) deemed strip searches without proper procedures unconstitutional in the ****uvenile context, emphasizing evidence integrity. ● U.S. Supreme Court: In re Gault, * U.S. * (*) established the right to fair-treatment for ****uveniles, including protection from arbitrary evidence gathering. Counter-argument: Blakely might claim, his actions were routine evidence han dling. […*…] Response: Tampering with evidence, especially to support adult prosecution, con tradicts the rehabilitative focus of the Juvenile Act, and infringes on Tice's right to fair treatment. B. Violation of Juvenile Act and Ethical Obligations Claim: Blakely's preconceived belief in Tice's guilt, and attempts to circumvent ****uvenile ****urisdiction violate the Juvenile Act, and his ethical obligations as a prob ation officer. Legal Basis: ● Juvenile-Act: Outlines procedures and principles for handling ****uvenile cas es, prioritizing rehabilitation and individual evaluation. ● Ethical Code for Probation and Parole Officers: Requires ob****ectivity, fa irness, and adherence to legal procedures. Case Law Support: ● Third-Circuit: J.B. ex rel. Ben****amin v. Fassnacht, * WL * (* rd-Cir.) emphasized adhering to proper ****urisdictional boundaries in ****uveni le cases. […*…] ● U.S. Supreme Court: Kent v. United States, * U.S. * (*) stresse d due process and impartial proceedings in ****uvenile matters. Counter-argument: Blakely might claim his actions were based on his profes sional ****udgment. Response: Preconceived belief in guilt violates the presumption of innocence an d bypasses the individual evaluation at the core of the Juvenile Act. Attempts to sub****ect-Tice, to adult prosecution without ****ustification disregard proper ****urisdicti onal boundaries. C. Inadmissibility of Tainted Evidence and Violation of Sixth Amendment Claim: Blakely's vindictive remarks on the evidence render it inadmissible, infri nging on Tice's, Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, with un-tainted evidence. Legal Basis: ● Sixth Amendment: Guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the prese ntation of relevant, and untainted evidence. ● Brady v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*): Requires the prosecution to discl ose exculpatory evidence. […*…] Case Law Support: ● Third Circuit: Similar cases in the Third Circuit, like State v. Finley, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *), have deemed attempts to bypass proper proced ures in ****uvenile cases inappropriate. Counterargument: Blakely might claim his remarks were sub****ective opinions. Response: Any personal or vindictive remarks on evidence compromise its neutr ality, and cast doubt on its ob****ectivity, violating Tice's right to a fair trial. D. Eighth Amendment Violation and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim: Blakely's actions, if motivated by a desire for harsher adult prosecution, infringed on Tice's Eighth Amendment right against cruel, and unusual punish ment. Legal Basis: ● Eighth-Amendment: Prohibits cruel, and unusual punishment, including disproportionate penalties for ****uveniles. […*…] Case Law Support: ● **Roper v. Simmons, * U.S. * (*). D. Eighth Amendment Violation and Cruel and Unusual Punishment ● Roper v. Simmons, * U.S. * (*): Established that sub****ecting ****uve niles to capital punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. it str engthens the argument against harsher consequences based solely on Blake ly's personal opinions. Counter-argument: Blakely might claim his intention was not to inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Response: The exposure to harsher penalties based on biased conduct, and manip ulated evidence, without due process, is cruel, and unusual punishment in the context of Tice's ****uvenile status. E. Systemic Impact and Erosion of Public Trust Claim: Blakely's actions set a dangerous precedent for future misconduct, and erode public trust in the ****uvenile ****ustice system. […*…] Legal Basis: ● Maintaining the integrity of the legal system: Upholding fair and ethical conduct is crucial for the public's faith in the ****ustice system. Case Law Support: ● No specific case law applies directly, but highlighting similar instances of misconduct impacting public trust can strengthen this argument. Counterargument: Blakely might claim his actions were an isolated incident. Response: The precedent set by his conduct and, if left unchecked, could inspire similar violations and create a systemic issue, further eroding public trust in the ****uvenile ****ustice system's ability to protect and rehabilitate Juvenile individuals. III. CONCLUSION Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Robert Blakely's conduct in the Hermitage Hou se case represents a blatant disregard for the Juvenile Act, the U.S. Constitution, and established Third Circuit case law. His actions threaten the fundamental ri ghts of ****uvenile defendants, ****eopardize the integrity of the legal system, and set a […*…] dangerous precedent for future misconduct. The court must act decisively to hol d Blakely accountable, protect Tice's rights, and restore public trust in the ****uven ile ****ustice system.

so this claims against this defendant state what it is, and sum it up.

The plaintiff seeks accountability for these alleged miscon ducts and restoration of his rights This includes tainting the evidence used in adult prosecution knowingly, and intelligently.

so he has enough stated for an original complaint that rule * is satisfied legally, and the complaint is ****ustified therefore

the next defendant complaint *. Consecutive sentencing *. Violation of the Juvenile Act, and Us Constitution. *.Violation of the Magna Carta *.Violation of International Laws and treated governing human rights *.Violation of USERA governing military rights *.Violation of maritime law. *.Used Tainted, and Tampered with Evidence to gain convictions as an ad ult. *.Lacked Jurisdiction as an adult court *.Presented Fraudulent Evidence *.Had access to ****uvenile records knowing he could not be certified or waiv ed to adult court. *.Limbo, and constructive custody cannot be prosecuted for a crime. *.Closed from ****urisdiction of ****uvenile court decreed *.Double ****eopardy *.Triple-****eopardy *.Octa-Jeopardy *.Brady violations *.Colluding with defense attorney […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.Attempting to gain a plea deal while being told he was wrongly convicte d and couldn't be charged as an adult, because he was in legal limbo. Pl aintiff spoke directly to him at the ****ury trial. *.Illegal withholding of evidence behind ****udicial chamber doors prior to non ****ury trial commencing. *.Illegal prosecution of a ****uvenile in limbo and constructive custody havin a ****uvenile record knowing of de facto trial, and ****uvenile record in posses sion. *.Vindictive prosecution *.Malicious prosecution *.Malicious Prosecution and Malicious Split of Cases *.Double Jeopardy and Scapegoating Juvenile Jurisdiction *.Ethical Torture and Prosecution of Mitigating Circumstances I. INTRODUCTION *. The plaintiff, [JAMES ROBERT TICE], brings this action against the defe ndant, Jim K. Vogel, pursuant to * U.S.C.§*, alleging violations of civ il, state, federal, and U.S. Constitutional rights arising from the defendant's actions during the Plaintiff's, criminal prosecution. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. II. FACTUAL-ALLEGATIONS *. Illegal Pursuit of Prosecution a. Claim: Defendant, Jim K. Vogel, pursued the prosecution of the Plaintiff despite knowing about his wrongful conviction. b. Legal Basis: Prosecuting an individual with knowledge of their wrongful conviction violates their rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendm ent. This includes the right to be free from malicious prosecution. c. Counter Argument: The defendant may argue that he believed in the Plai ntiff's guilt despite the wrongful conviction. d. Plaintiff's Response: The Plaintiff contends that the defendant's pursuit of prosecution, despite knowledge of the wrongful conviction, constitutes a violation of due process. Relevant case law supporting the claim includes Albright v. Oliver, * U.S. * (*). e. Evidence: Records indicating the defendant's knowledge of the Plaintiff's wrongful conviction. *. Brady Violation and Withholding Evidence a. Claim: The defendant withheld evidence seized in ****uvenile court, constit uting a Brady violation. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * b. Legal-Basis: The withholding of exculpatory evidence violates the Plainti ff's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as established by Brady v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*). c. Counter-Argument: The defendant may argue that the evidence was not intentionally withheld. d. Plaintiff's-Response: The Plaintiff asserts that the evidence was intention ally withheld, constituting a Brady violation and denying him a fair trial. Cas e law supporting the Plaintiff's claim includes Strickler v. Greene, * U.S. * (*). Counsels already proved it even at trial. e. Evidence: Documentation indicating the withheld evidence and attempts by the trial attorney to intercept. *. Jurisdictional Questions and Vindictive Prosecution a. Claim: Defendant deployed the victim on the stand to counter ****urisdiction al questions during the ****ury trial. b. Legal Basis: Vindictive prosecution violates due process, and the use of a victim to counter ****urisdictional questions raises ethical-concerns. c. Counter-Argument: The defendant may argue that the victim's testimony was relevant to the case. d. Plaintiff's-Response: The Plaintiff contends that the use of the victim to counter ****urisdictional questions was vindictive and an attempt to avoid addre […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ssing the lack of ****urisdiction. Case law supporting the claim includes United States v. Goodwin, * U.S. * (*). e. Evidence: Transcripts of records indicating the victim's testimony and ****uri sdictional questions during the trial. *. Double Jeopardy and Scapegoating Juvenile Jurisdiction a. Claim: The defendant forcibly scapegoated the ****uvenile ****urisdiction, and i gnored double ****eopardy concerns. b. Legal-Basis: Forcing the Plaintiff into a legal limbo between ****uvenile, an d adult prosecution, violates the protection, against double-****eopardy. c. Counter-Argument: The defendant may argue that the split cases were a legal-necessity. d. Plaintiff's-Response: The Plaintiff contends that the split cases, and conti nued ****uvenile proceedings after reaching adulthood created a legal limbo, vi olating his rights against double ****eopardy. Relevant case law supporting th e claim includes Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*). e. Evidence: Legal records indicating the split cases and continued ****uvenile proceedings after adulthood. *. Malicious Prosecution and Malicious Split of Cases a. Claim: Defendant maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff in a vindictive manner, and split the cases to circumvent ****urisdictional issues. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * b. Legal-Basis: Malicious-prosecution, violates due process, and the malicio us splitting of cases can be an abuse of legal process. c. Counter-Argument: The defendant may argue that the split of cases was ****ustified. d. Plaintiff's-Response: The Plaintiff contends that the defendant's actions were vindictive, and aimed at punishing him ,without regard to ****urisdictional issues. Case law supporting the claim includes Hicks v. Feiock, * U.S. * (*). e. Evidence: Records indicating the prosecutor's actions and communicat ions suggesting vindictiveness. *. Ethical Torture and Prosecution of Mitigating Circumstances a. Claim: The Plaintiff was sub****ected to unethical torture due to adult prosec ution and guilty verdicts, despite mitigating circumstances, including ADA disabilities. b. Legal-Basis: Sub****ecting an individual to torture during prosecution violat es the prohibition against cruel, and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. c. Counter Argument: The defendant may argue that the prosecution was lawful. d. Plaintiff's Response: The Plaintiff asserts that the prosecution, especially […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * in light of mitigating circumstances, amounted to unethical torture. Case law supporting the claim includes United States v. Balsys, * U.S. * (*). e. Evidence: Records indicating the Plaintiff's ADA disabilities and commu nications regarding the prosecution. *. Denial of Double Jeopardy Argument a. Claim: The prosecutor denied the double ****eopardy argument, and wrongfu lly convicted the Plaintiff. b. Legal-Basis: Denying a valid double ****eopardy argument, and wrongfully convicting an individual, violates their rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, of the Fifth Amendment. c. Counter-Argument: The prosecutor may argue that the double ****eopardy argument was without merit. d. Plaintiff's-Response: The Plaintiff contends that the denial of the double ****eopardy argument, and the resulting wrongful conviction were severe, and punitive, amounting to torture. Relevant case law supporting the claim inclu des Burks v. United States, * U.S. * (*). It created Double Jeopardy Twice within a subsequent prosecution literally, while lacking ****urisdiction. e. Evidence: Records indicating the double ****eopardy argument, and subseq uent denial. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * III. CAUSES OF ACTION *. Violation of Due Process: ○ Case Law Support: Albright v. Oliver, * U.S. * (*). *. Brady Violation and Withholding Evidence: ○ Case Law Support: Strickler v. Greene, * U.S. * (*). ○ Brady v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*) *. Vindictive Prosecution and Ethical Concerns: ○ Case Law Support: United States v. Goodwin, * U.S. * (*). *. Double Jeopardy Violation and Scapegoating Juvenile Jurisdiction: ○ Case Law Support: Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*). *. Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Legal Process: ○ Case Law Support: Hicks v. Feiock, * U.S. * (*). *. Unethical Torture and Eighth Amendment Violation: ○ Case Law Support: United States v. Balsys, * U.S. * (*). *. Denial of Double Jeopardy Argument: ○ Case Law Support: Burks v. United States, * U.S. * (*). IV. REMEDIES *. Damages for Unlawful Prosecution: […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ○ The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the unlawf ul prosecution and resulting harm. *. In****unctive Relief: ○ The Plaintiff seeks in****unctive relief to prevent further malicious prose cutions and to rectify the legal limbo created by the split of case s.Immediate Release From Custody with full relief as requested here in, and Habeas corpus. Coram nobis, coram vobis Declaratory Judgm ent: ○ The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory ****udgment declaring the actions of the defendant unconstitutional. *. Attorney's Fees: ○ The Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees pursuant to * U.S.C. § *. *. Any Further Relief Deemed Just, and Proper by the Court does this satisfy rule *

so this claims against this defendant state what it is, and sum it up

state how the claim supports rule *

explain the claim

that is a valid complaint facts and evidence prove it through circumstances already stated prior proceedings.

the next defendant complaint [Defendant-BRAD H FOULK Claims: *. Illegal Prosecution Knowingly, and intelligently […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. Corruption and Bribery *. Denial of ADA Rights *. Wrongful Convictions on all cases *. Excessive Prosecution *. Excessive Punishment *. Consecutive sentencing *. Violation of the Juvenile Act, and Us Constitution. *. Violation of the Magna Carta *.Violation of International Laws and treated governing human rights *.Violation of USERA governing military rights *.Violation of maritime law. *.Used Tainted, and Tampered with Evidence to gain convictions as an adult *.Lacked Jurisdiction as an adult court *.Presented Fraudulent Evidence *.Had access to ****uvenile records knowing he could not be certified or waived to adult court. *.Limbo, and constructive custody cannot be prosecuted for a crime. *.Closed from ****urisdiction of ****uvenile court decreed *.Double ****eopardy […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.Triple-****eopardy *.Octa-Jeopardy CLAIM *: WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND DENIAL OF ADA RIGHTS Plaintiff's-Statement: Defendant Brad H Foulk wrongly convicted the Plaintiff and denied his ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) rights. Application of Law: *. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Prohibits discrimination based on disability. *. * U.S.C. § *: Governs habeas corpus proceedings for individuals in cus tody in violation, of constitutional right’s. Case Law Citation’s: ● Tenn. v. Lane, * U.S. * (*): Affirms that the ADA applies to state court proceedings. ● Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., * U.S. * (*): Establishes that private parties can be liable for ADA violations. Counter Argument: ● No specific counter-argument mentioned, literally there isn't any. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plaintiff's Response: ● Cites Tenn. v. Lane to emphasize the applicability of ADA to state court proceedings. ● Relies on Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. to demonstrate that private parties, including individuals involved in legal proceedings, can be held liab le for ADA violations. CLAIM *: USE OF TAINTED EVIDENCE AND VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS Plaintiff's Statement: Defendant Brad H Foulk used tainted, and tampered evide nce, violating the Plaintiff's civil rights. Application of Law: *. Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Protects against unreasonab le searches, and seizures. *. * U.S.C. § *: Allows individuals to sue government officials for civil rights violations. Case Law Citations: […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ● Brady v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*): Establishes the government's obliga tion to disclose favorable evidence. ● Monell v. Department of Social Services, * U.S. * (*): Holds local governments liable for civil rights violations committed by their employees. Counter Argument: ● Qualified Immunity: Argues that officials are shielded from liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Plaintiff's Response: ● Cites Brady v. Maryland to assert the obligation to disclose favorable evide nce. ● Invokes Monell v. Department of Social Services to extend liability to gov ernment officials. ● Challenges the qualified immunity argument by arguing that the use of tainte d evidence violates clearly established rights. CLAIM *: LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY Plaintiff's-Statement: Defendant Brad H Foulk lacked ****urisdiction due to limbo and constructive custody, resulting in double ****eopardy, after denovo trial in ****uvenil e, and lack of ****urisdiction, by double ****eopardy, of wrongful convictions. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Application of Law: *. Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Protects against double ****eopar dy. *. * U.S.C. § *: Governs habeas corpus proceedings for individuals in custody in violation of constitutional rights. Case Law Citations: ● Benton v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*): Reinforces the protection against double ****eopardy. ● Stone v. Powell, * U.S. * (*): Addresses limitations on habeas corp us review of Fourth Amendment claims. Counter Argument: ● No specific counter-argument mentioned. Can't Counter this one. Plaintiff's Response: ● Cites Benton v. Maryland to emphasize the constitutional protection again st double ****eopardy. ● Invokes Stone v. Powell to show that there are exceptions to habeas corpus review but argues that the lack of ****urisdiction is not one of those exceptions. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CLAIM *: FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE AND ACCESS TO JUVENILE REC ORDS Plaintiff's Statement: Defendant Brad H Foulk presented fraudulent evidence barr ed by lack of ****urisdiction, and had access to complete ****uvenile records. Application of Law: *. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: Protects against the use of fraudulent evidence. *. * U.S.C. § *: Allows individuals to sue government officials for civil rights violations. Case Law Citations: ● Mooney v. Holohan, * U.S. * (*): Establishes the violation of due process when the government uses false evidence. ● Imbler v. Pachtman, * U.S. * (*): Discusses prosecutorial immu nity in civil rights cases. Counter Argument: […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ● Prosecutorial Immunity: Argues that prosecutors are immune from liability for actions within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Plaintiff's Response: ● Cites Mooney v. Holohan to establish the due process violation when using false evidence. ● Acknowledges Imbler v. Pachtman but argues that fraudulent evidence goe s beyond the scope of prosecutorial immunity. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Plaintiff's claims are supported by relevant federal laws, constit utional principles, and case law. The application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Fourth Amendment protections, double ****eopardy safeguards, and due process rights strengthens the Plaintiff's argument. Additionally, the citations of specific ca ses such as Tenn. v. Lane, Brady v. Maryland, Benton v. Maryland, and Moone y v. Holohan provide legal precedent for the alleged violations. The absence of specific counter-arguments in the provided information limits the exploration of potential defenses. However, the Plaintiff effectively responds to the […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * presented counter-arguments, emphasizing the clear applicability of the law to the circumstances at hand. Overall, the Plaintiff's case demonstrates violations of constitutional rights, and stat utes, warranting a thorough examination of the allegations against Defendant Brad H Foulk, and immediate relief in the interest of ****ustice, and a man's life taken unfai rly against his will state how the claim supports rule *

state the complaint

so this supports rule * and is a proper legal complaint

next defendant [Defendant-ASSISTANT DISTRICT-ATTORN EY:KATHLEEN ANN SCIBETTA CLAIM-*: CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICT, AND ETHICAL-VIOL ATIONS Claim: *. Cross Jurisdictional Conflict *. Suppressing claims of double ****eopardy and ****urisdictional issues. *. Hindering proper post-conviction relief *. Unfair prosecution twice for the same offense *. Should have known to recuse herself due to ****urisdictional differences ac ross-state, and federal-courts, ****urisdiction-boundaries. After the Stand. *. Used tainted, false, misleading, and illegally obtained evidence *. Excessive Sentencing *. Wrongfully continued convictions knowingly and intelligently *. Dual-role as a state prosecutor and federal law, clerk put him in danger while incarcerated. Plaintiff's-Statement: The Plaintiff asserts that Assistant District Attorney Kathlee n Ann Scibetta's dual role as a federal law clerk, and state assistant district attorney […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * created a cross-****urisdictional conflict, violating ethical-rules, and pre****udicing his ri ght to a fair legal process. Application of Law: *. U.S. Constitution, Article-III: The Constitution establishes separate federal and state ****urisdictions. Any violation of this separation may compromise the integrity of legal proceedings. *. Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule-*.*: Prohibits conflicts of inte rest, emphasizing that an attorney cannot represent clients with conflicting interests without informed consent. Case Law Citations: ● Holloway v. Arkansas, * U.S. * (*): Reinforces the duty of an attor ney to avoid conflicts of interest for effective assistance of counsel. ● In re Griffiths, * U.S. * (*): Highlights the privilege, not a constitut ional right, of practicing law, sub****ect to ethical standards. Counter Argument: ● Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., * U.S. * (*): While not directly applicable, emphasizes the importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias in the ****udiciary. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plaintiff's Response: ● Stresses the violation of Model Rules of Professional Conduct, emphasizing the potential for bias, and an unfair advantage. ● Distinguishes the situation from Caperton, underscoring the specific cross-****u risdictional conflict involving the same legal professional. CLAIM *: SUPPRESSION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND JURISDICTION AL ISSUES Plaintiff's-Statement: The Plaintiff alleges that Scibetta unfairly argued against him, suppressing claims of double ****eopardy, and ****urisdictional issues, hindering pro per post-conviction relief, especially given his pro-se status while doing so intentio nally. Application of Law: *. Fifth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Protects against double ****eopar dy, ensuring individuals are not sub****ected to multiple prosecutions for the same offense. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * U.S.C. § *: Governs habeas corpus proceedings, emphasizing the ava ilability of relief for individuals in custody in violation of constitutional righ ts. Case Law Citations: ● U.S. v. Felix, * U.S. * (*): Emphasizes the importance of protecting defendants from double ****eopardy. ● McKane v. Durston, * U.S. * (*): Establishes the right to ****urisdictio nal fairness. Counter Argument: ● Oregon v. Kennedy, * U.S. * (*): Argues that double ****eopardy prote ctions may not apply when the defendant causes a mistrial. Plaintiff's Response: ● Highlights the violation of the Fifth Amendment and * U.S.C. § *, asse rting unfair prosecution twice for the same offense. ● Emphasizes McKane to support the argument that ****urisdictional fairness is a fundamental right. CLAIM *: FLAWED SYSTEM AND ABUSE OF POWER […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plaintiff's Statement: The Plaintiff contends that the legal system is flawed, and Scibetta, being a constitutional attorney, should have known to recuse herself due to ****urisdictional differences regardless in both federal and state. The Plaintiff argue s that, her continued involvement in his case across state, and federal-courts, violat ed his rights and principles of fairness. Application of Law: *. U.S. Constitution, Article III: Establishes the separation of powers and ****urisdiction between federal, and state courts, preventing undue influence. *. * U.S.C. § *: Governs the disqualification of ****udges, or other officials to ensure impartiality, and avoid conflicts of interest. Case Law Citations: ● Wardius v. Oregon, * U.S. * (*): Addresses fairness in criminal proceedings, and the importance of providing defendants with adequate infor mation. ● Palko v. Connecticut, * U.S. * (*): Discusses the concept of funda mental fairness in criminal trials. Counter Argument: […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ● Engle v. Isaac, * U.S. * (*): Argues that errors do not necessarily violate fundamental fairness. Plaintiff's Response: ● Asserts that the flawed system compromised fundamental fairness, citing U.S. Constitution Article III. ● Emphasizes * U.S.C. § *, arguing that Scibetta's continued involvement violated the principles of impartiality. CLAIM *: MISUSE OF EVIDENCE AND FALSE INTERPRETATION Plaintiff's-Statement: The Plaintiff claims that Scibetta used tainted, false, mislead ing, and illegally obtained evidence against him, undermining his arguments and potentially contributing to his excessive sentence. Application of Law: *. Brady v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*): Establishes the government's oblig ation to disclose favorable evidence to the accused. *. Napue v. Illinois, * U.S. * (*): Addresses the use of false testimony and the government's duty to correct it. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Case Law Citations: ● United States v. Bagley, * U.S. * (*): Emphasizes that undisclosed evidence must be material to the defense to constitute a constitutional violati on. Counter Argument: ● United States v. Bagley: Argues that undisclosed evidence must be material to the defense, and failure to disclose evidence is not automatically a constit utional violation. Plaintiff's Response: ● Stresses the materiality of the allegedly tainted evidence to the defense. ● Cites Brady and Napue to support the argument that, the misuse of evide nce directly violated constitutional rights. CLAIM *: DANGER AND INCARCERATION DUE TO DUAL ROLE Plaintiff's Statement: The Plaintiff argues that Scibetta's dual role as a state prosec utor and federal law, clerk put him in danger while incarcerated. The Plaintiff alleg […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * es that this dual representation, was inherently unfair, and potentially contributed to the continuation of his wrongful incarcerations by a ma****or factor. Application of Law: *. Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, ensuring the right of prisoners to be protected from harm. *. * U.S.C.§*: Allows individuals to sue government officials for violati ons of constitutional rights. Case Law Citations: ● Estelle v. Gamble, * U.S. * (*): Establishes the right of prisoners to be free from cruel, and unusual punishment. ● Farmer v. Brennan, * U.S. * (*): Addresses the Eighth Amendme nt rights of prisoners to be protected from harm. Counter Argument: ● DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, * U.S. * (*): Argues that the government has no duty to protect individuals from harm by third parties. Plaintiff's Response: […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ● Distinguishes the situation from DeShaney, emphasizing that Scibetta's dual role created a unique circumstance where the government was directly invol ved in the Plaintiff's incarceration. ● Utilizes Estelle, and Farmer to support the argument that the Plaintiff has a constitutional right to be protected from harm while incarcerated. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Plaintiff's claims align with foundational legal principles, constit utional rights, and relevant statutes. The application of these laws, combined with pertinent case-law citations, underscores the seriousness of the alleged-violations by Scibetta. The Plaintiff's call for an investigation, disciplinary-measures, and syst emic improvements resonates, with the need for upholding constitutional-rights an d ensuring a fair, and impartial legal-process for all individuals. The complexiti es of this case highlight the importance of addressing not only individual in****ustices bu t also systemic-issues, that may compromise the integrity of the legal-system.state how the claim supports rule *

provide the complaint

The complaint appears continue

so it was factual enough and complyes with each of rule *

next defendant complaint *. Prison Guards in the Erie County Prison Violated Inmates Rights after attack with a [Mop-Wringer] to guards Back on Max Security F-POD, after wrestling on the floor, and guards came flooding in, being shift change, including wardens, the guard, got up, and steal toe booted, the inmate, in the mouth forcibly in rage of anger, later handcuffed for prot ection, with blood running down the drain, requiring medical care while inmate was subdued violating his civil rights, on F-POD. Plaintiff was standing there, and got the telephone for the guard, then was targeted by goon squad for the same attack, stating he had nothing to do with it. This occurred in his *-* stay prior to being shipped down state, violating both of their civil rights.. [He kicked him like a miniature field goal scoring blood in the hole]. *. Plaintiff had to witness at the Erie County Prison, and Attempted Esca pe, in the Small outdoor F-POD Basketball area he was in, where fellow inmate stole a pair of pliers, and spiderman up to cut his way out, when he pleaded for help, and fell, breaking both of his legs, laying there plain tiff demanded inmates, to immediately help, and take him to his cell, wh ere they placed his legs in the toilet,which they did, where he was found during count time, and taken out by wheel-chair. Plaintiff suffered seve […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * re trauma from seeing, and watching the attempted escape being unsucc essful. *. Erie County Prison does not have a valid yard outside, causing unfair, and pre****udicial suffering, of isolation without exercise, and recreation. Should be deemed, illegal Cruel, and Unusual-Punishment. All Human Life should be entitled to be outdoors, and not isolated within indoor isolation pods for months and years on end. Factual-Allegations: contends, that the prison, under the practice of "go lock it up ,"sub****ected him to prolonged, and arbitrary isolation, violating the Eighth Amendm ent's prohibition against cruel, and unusual punishment (Farmer v. Brennan, * U.S. *, * (*)). Counter-Argument: The prison may argue that the use of isolation was a necessary security measure to control potentially disruptive inmates, and prevent harm within the facility. Plaintiff's Response: Tice asserts that while safety concerns may ****ustify limited us e of isolation, the continuous and arbitrary application without proper ****ustification constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment. He emphasizes that the prison ha d alternative means to ensure safety, as recognized in Farmer v. Brennan. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Claim *: Forced Removal to RHU After a Fight Factual Allegations: Tice alleges that the prison forcibly removed him from the ge neral population to the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) following a fight, denying him due process rights (Wolff v. McDonnell, * U.S. *, * (*)). Counter Argument: The prison might argue that such removals are necessary for maintaining order, and preventing further violence, ****ustifying the immediate transfe r. Plaintiff's Response: Tice contends that due process requires a fair, and impartial hearing before such significant deprivations of liberty. He emphasizes the lack of a proper-hearing, or investigation, denying him the opportunity to contest the decisio n, as established in Wolff v. McDonnell. Claim *: Excessive Punishment in Maximum Security [F] Pod Factual-Allegations: Tice was housed for an extended period in maximum security [F] pod, where he claims he experienced excessive punishment violating the Eighth Amendment (Estelle v. Gamble, * U.S. *, *-* (*)). […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Counter-Argument: The prison may argue that the conditions in [F] pod were nec essary for maintaining order, and discipline, especially considering the Plaintiff's past behavior. Plaintiff's Response: Tice maintains that the conditions exceeded constitutionally permissible limits, and were both excessive, and arbitrary. He refers to Estelle v. Gamble argued that, the punishment was cruel, and unusual, and less restrictive means were available, to achieve the prison's legitimate goals. Claim *: RHU Restrictive Housing Unit Stays Factual Allegations: Tice alleges that prolonged stays in the RHU, resulting from conflicts with other inmates, violated his constitutional rights, including the prohibi tion against cruel, and unusual punishment. Counter-Argument: The prison may assert that such stays were necessary for main taining security and order, especially given the Plaintiff's involvement in altercatio ns. Plaintiff's-Response: Tice argues that his prolonged stays were un****ustified, and am ounted to cruel, and unusual punishment. He refers to Hope v. Pelzer to emphasiz […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e the importance of proportionality in punishment, and asserts that proper ****ustifica tion was lacking. Claim *: Violent Incident Witnessing Factual Allegations: Tice was forced to watch a guard getting beaten, leading to a violent confrontation, and retaliation, and the warden attempted to downplay it. Counter Argument: The prison may assert that the use of force was ****ustified in res ponse to Tice's involvement in the altercation, and his witnessing was incidental. Plaintiff's Response: Tice maintains that the force used against him was excessive and not proportional to the situation. Hudson v. McMillian, * U.S. * (*) to argue that his assistance to the guard was both lawful, and necessary in maintaining order. Claim *: Suffering Due to Escape Attempt Factual Allegations: Tice suffered emotional distress from witnessing an escape at tempt in which an escapee fell, and broke both legs. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Counter-Argument: The prison may argue that the emotional distress was an unint ended consequence of the escape attempt, and the prison cannot control every unfo reseen event. Plaintiff's-Response: Tice asserts that witnessing such traumatic events was avoid able, and the prison had a duty to prevent such incidents. He cites Farmer v. Bren nan, and Helling v. McKinney to argue that the defendant's actions caused unnec essary, and severe emotional distress. Claim *: Interference with Legal Work in RHU Factual-Allegations: Guards in the RHU, repeatedly interfered with Inmate Russi a's federal legal work, impeding his ability to work on his case. Counter-Argument: The prison may claim that any interference with legal work, was inadvertent, or ****ustified for security reasons, especially, if they believed the legal materials posed a threat. Plaintiff's-Response: Tice argues that intentional interference with legal work, esp ecially in the absence of security concerns, represents a violation of his fundam ental right to access the courts. He refers to Bounds v. Smith to highlight the imp ortance of ensuring prisoners' access to legal resources. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Claim *: Inhumane Treatment in the Chair Factual Allegations: was sub****ected to inhumane-treatment, including fights, and, threat’s of further harm. Counter Argument: The prison may assert that the use of the chair was a lawful disciplinary measure, and any harm suffered was unintentional, or ****ustified. Plaintiff's-Response: Tice establishes that the use of the chair went beyond lawful disciplinary measures, amounting to cruel, and unusual punishment. He refers to Whitley v. Albers, * U.S. * (*) to emphasize that the force used must be proportionate to the need for application. Claim *: Illegal Use of the Chair as a Joke Factual-Allegations: The prison placed Tice in the chair as a ****oke, in the gym, hidi ng it, after it was banned, and illegal. This was also told to the Magistrate in Federa l Evidentiary-Hearing. It shows further it existed to still be used, to cause isolation. and torture, as on inmate “(Russia)” in *. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Counter-Argument: The prison may argue, that the use of the chair as a ****oke was harmless, and did not constitute punishment, perhaps emphasizing a lack of intent to cause harm. Plaintiff's-Response: Tice asserts that the illegal use of the chair, even as a ****oke, contributes to a culture of abuse, within the prison, violating his constitutional right s. He refers to Bell v. Wolfish to emphasize the importance of maintaining a constit utional environment within correctional facilities, it was used as excessive force. Claim *: Overall Violation of Rights Factual-Allegations: Tice claims that the prison, as a whole, violated his constituti onal rights through the cumulative impact of the aforementioned actions. Counter-Argument: The prison may contend that any isolated incidents do not con stitute a systemic violation of constitutional rights, and that corrective measures were taken, when necessary. Plaintiff's-Response: Tice argues that the collective effect of these actions establ ishes a pattern of deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights. He refers to Wilson v. Seiter to establish that the failure to address, and prevent such abuses co nstitutes a systematic violation. […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF James Robert Tice seeks relief in the form of declaratory ****udgment, compensatory damages, in****unctive relief, punitive relief, attorney's fees, and any further relief deemed ****ust and proper by the Court. state how complies with rule *

state the complaint

next defendant complaint DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICE S (CYS) […*…] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CLAIMS AGAINST CYS *. Abused in foster care *. Plaintiff was abused as a child/****uvenile. *. Abused in foster-care, unsanitary living conditions, cruel and unusual punishment. *. Denied ability to see family. *. Denied rights under civil, and us constitution *. Deprived of liberty, freedom, and life. *. In Collusion with Judicial-Judges, and Probation, Foster-Hom es. A. Wrongful Conviction and Denial of Due Process (*) In *, CYS wrongfully convicted Plaintiff of child abuse, without providing ad equate due process, including the right to counsel, a trial, or a fair hearing. This violated Plaintiff's fundamental rights, under the Fourteenth-Amendment to the U .S.Constitution,as-established-in, In-re Winship, * U.S. * (*), requiri ng proof beyond a reasonable-doubt. B. Fraudulent Reports, and Punitive Sentences […*…] CYS fabricated, and manipulated reports, against Plaintiff, resulting in punitive sentences, and torture, that violated his constitutional rights. This use of fraudul ent evidence under the Fourteenth Amendment mirrors the actions condemned in Palko v. Connecticut, * U.S. * (*), recognizing the protection against ar bitrary deprivations. C. Exceeding Authority and Abuse of Power CYS exceeded their authority and violated the Constitution by repeatedly accus ing Plaintiff without evidence, using the courts as a shield. This abuse of power directly contravenes Plaintiff's First Amendment right to petition the government, affirmed in Hartman v. Moore, * U.S. * (*). D. Tactical Wrongful Convictions and Child Abuse CYS continues to engage in a pattern of tactically wrongful convictions and child abuse in Pennsylvania. This pattern of un****ust actions violates Plaintiff's rights under the Civil Rights Act of *, * U.S.C. § *, as upheld in Monell v. Department of Social Services, * U.S. * (*), holding local government entities liable for constitutional violations. E. Denial of Access to Records and Evidence CYS denied Plaintiff access to records, and evidence, under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), hindering his ability to seek ****ustice. This violation of the RTKL an […*…] d denial of information infringes upon Plaintiff's rights, similar to the case of Commonwealth v. Office of Open Records, * A.2d * (Pa. Cmwlth. * ),disc ussing principles of disclosure. CONCLUSION The Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, alleges egregious violations of his constitution al rights, by the, Department of Children and Plaintiffth Services (CYS) and Way ne Joseph Alexander. The claims encompass wrongful-convictions, denial of due-process, fraudulent-reports, abuse of power, and various constitutional infr ingements. Through the application of relevant federal laws, statutes, acts, and ca se law, the Plaintiff seeks redress for the harms inflicted upon him. The court is urged to consider the gravity of these violations, and deliver ****ustice, in accordanc e with the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution state how complies with rule *

state complaint claim

based on each complaint stated i nthis set of complaints represented by the counsel filing the brief above, all claims are cognizable, and supported, comply with rule *, and are valid under federal civil procedure, correct?

based on this set of complaints it relfects what

can you go deeper

you would say this set of defendants then plaintiffs brief is spot on legally correct, and provides robust level againt defendants brief IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES ROBERT TICE, : Plaintiff : No. *:*-CV-* : v. : Judge Bissoon : HARRY E. WILSON, et al., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL OF *[*]* PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE *(b)(*) I. INTRODUCTION This brief responds to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *(b)(*). Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, argues that his claims are well ple aded, and provide specific factual allegations to support his legal theories. These being facts that occurred, creating proper fact based legal theories (new), are firmly grounded in established case law, relevant statutes, and Based on the information provided, plaintiffs set of complaints reflects a “[complex legal situation]” with “[complex legal issues]” involving multiple defendants, and allegations of various constitutional and statutory violations spanning decades thus continuing. The complaints aim to argue that plaintiffs rights under the Juvenile Act, U.S. Constitution, and various case laws have been violated. Some of the key issues raised in the complaints include wrongful convictions, denial of due process, use of tainted evidence, ****urisdictional concerns, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) the United States Constitution rende ring an illegal record by operation of law thus supported by all circumstances, evidence, proce dural legal orders, and information, new evidence, old evidence. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW As per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *(b)(*), the court must accept the complaint's allega tions as true, and determine, if they plausibly suggest entitlement to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, * U.S. *, * (*). The complaint need not be an extensive factual narrative, but, it must offer enough facts, to raise a claim above mere speculation. Estelle v. Gamble, * U. S. *, * (*). The court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Moreso, every fact has been recited, all true, multiple times since the complaint to all defendants, thus far. As Defendants stated it {spans the entire life of Plaintiff}, to which, plaintiff states he is correct, and incorrect, as it is not plaintiffs life he wanted, it was because he was a {stolen child} to begin with, and reflected as true fact by the court orders themselves, that it is incomprehensibl e. The facts speak for themselves, the evidence speaks for itself, and the truth has been stated ov er the same course of his entire life, and supports itself. III. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff was wrongfully convicted in *,*, *, *-*, *, and *, and *, and *, of several charges, including attempted rape, indecent assault, and corruption of mino rs. His convictions at * of *, were later challenged, and partially overturned due to ineff ective assistance of counsel, and [new evidence] showing he was not there, * was the same exact case, and charges causing a double ****eopardy, and lacking ****urisdiction. For the argument regarding lack of ****urisdiction in ****uvenile and adult courts:- Kent v. United States, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that ****uveniles have a right to a hearing, representation by coun sel, and a statement of reasons [prior to] transferring their case to adult court.Plaintiff, who poss esses documented learning disabilities, and ADHD was a ****uvenile by the court, and a ****uvenile prior to that, thus given a new indefinite sentence, specifically for the adult charges negating ****uvenile, and forcing him into adult through multiple orders, both ****urisdictions separate, had illeg al ****urisdiction to do so, as to, all crimes ****uvenile, and adult, based on circumstances, mitigating factors, ****uvenile factors, and, asserts that these conditions, significantly impacted his understand ng of legal proceedings, as the federal magistrate was well aware of, a [stolen-child],For the claim of being a "stolen child" by state actors:- Santosky v. Kramer, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that, before a State may sever completely, and irrevocably the rights of pare nts in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least cle ar and convincing evidence, supports the plaintiff as a "stolen child" by arguing that, the State actors did not provide clear, and convincing evidence before severing the rights of the plaintiff's natural parents. The ineffectiveness of his prior counsel, further compounded his inability to seek timely legal remedies in * Certiorari, including, until he filed in *, a COA, and Habeas [originally coram nobis great writ] in *, after hiring Federal counsel to do so, who took his funds, stated, he would represent him, and file a complaint if needed, to which, he did not, and [*] law profes sors said something was [fishy] with the case, left plaintiff suffering on his own, without hope ,causing grave suffering medically, physically, mentally, and emotionally, thus leaving him in a state of again fighting for his freedom, while under draconian, barbaric, illegal to him, sentences that are punitive, and cannot apply legally, morally, ethically, or in any way possible causing slavery to continue under a roque system that does not apply, cannot apply to him. The gover nment legally, {albeit} :{illegally}: [Kidnapped-him] originally, and held him to this day, abusin g ,and accusing, him without any protections afforded to him, stripping him of his life, liberty, an d freedom, and any rights he would normally have, to which, he has yet to live any form of life on his terms, and has not had any ability to do so under sentences in a continued form under diff erent forms, is absolute slavery, cruel, and unusual, and illegal, because it's blatantly unconstitu tional to do so, and the courts, defendants, and state actors have done so intentionally, knowingly, and intelligently to deprive him of such, while blocking him from retrieving any form of proper relief. IV. ARGUMENT A. Tolling of Statute of Limitations Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. However, the doctrine of equitable tolli ng, allows a court to [pause] the [statute of limitations] when [extraordinary-circumstances] “{hinder}” a plaintiff from pursuing legal remedies. Holland v. Florida, * U.S. *, * (* *). Here, Plaintiff presents such circumstances: *. Continuing Consequences of Wrongful Convictions: Plaintiff continues to suffer repercu ssions, including limitations on employment, housing, and social interaction. These are docum ented harms as established in studies on the impact of wrongful convictions on reintegration into society.Thompson v. City of Chicago, * F.3d * (7th Cir. *): The court recognized that the wrongfully accused may suffer from social stigma, and other collateral consequences even after their conviction has been overturned. -Heck v. Humphrey, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court acknowledged the harm to reputation, and emotional distress in wrongful conviction cases. Petitioner was found wrongly convicted, although now the defendants are trying to minimize it do to case * of *, to which was not only illegal, lacked ****urisdiction, but, was fraudulent, and the same exact case as * in charges, and sentences, violating double ****eopardy, due proc ess, and causing cruel and unusual punishment, including after the fact, retroactive, and expo facto to plaintiff,to which, the federal magistrate [knew] would have occurred, as argued by petitioner in habeas *. In support: Benton v. Maryland, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that the Double Jeo pardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states, prohibiting multiple punish ments for the same offense. - Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*): The Court held that a ****uvenile's ad****udicatory heari ng is equivalent to a trial, and thus, trying a ****uvenile in adult court after such a hearing co nstitutes double ****eopardy. - Miller v. Alabama, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole are unconstitutional for ****uvenile offenders, which strengthens the argument on the sentence of an indefinite period of time, to which, plaintiff had over *, with continuances, equalling Five, resulting in [*] years of life as a ****uvenile taken. This violates "In re Gault, * U.S. * (*)" is a landmark case where the Supreme Co urt held that ****uveniles facing delinquency proceedings must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. Including other protections not even fully added here, resulting in the “[Stolen-Child]” For the argument on illegal split cases, and tainted evidence: - Crawford v. Washington, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that the use of testimo nial evidence without the opportunity for cross-examination violates the Sixth Amendment, he couldn't cross in ****uvenile, because he was not aware of it, the ****uvenile ****udge ****ust stated she had in front of her the information, but was not bringing it, prior to then, forcing him to state through multiple times, duration of minutes to state his guilt, or innocence, leaving that to him, and he stating innocence, then being given an indefinite sentence, and continued on camera is a denovo trial as to the pending charges. The Fax WW was already retrieved, and tainted. For the argument on charging a ****uvenile as an adult: - Roper v. Simmons, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed, while, under the age of-[*]. Without certification, or waiver, and being already continued a ****uvenile *, replaced, then released, and closed, prior to charging, would be illegal in pa, and the united states. The Juvenile Act requires a certification hearing before a ****uvenile can be transferred to adult court Kent v. United States, * U.S. * (*)" and "Breed v. Jones, * U.S. * (*). The "Blockburger v. United States, * U.S. * (*)" and "Brown v. Ohio, * U. S. * (*), both deal with the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Blockburger, the Supreme Court established the "same elements" test, which states that a person [cannot be tried twice] for the [same crime]. In Brown, the Court extended the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause to [bar]-[successive prosecution] as well as [successive punishment] for the [same] criminal offense. split cases are the [same] criminal offense. Both charges are indeed based on the same set of facts, and resulted in the exact same sen tences as ****uvenile, and in and of itself, it is argued as a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Cases such as "Harris v. Oklahoma, * U.S. * (*)" where the Supreme Court held that when a crime necessarily entails another, the Double Jeopardy Clause bar s retrial for the entailed crime. The prosecution [indeed] split two dockets based on different dates that [originated] from one case in ****uvenile court, and used a [tainted fax with dates] on it, it is seen as illegal and as grounds for suppressing the evidence automatically. Cases like "Brady v. Mary land, * U.S. * (*)" where the Supreme Court held that suppression by the prose cution of evidence favorable to a defendant violates due process, supports the argument. Therefore we can deduce properly, the evidence supports, and proves, the following: lack of a certification hearing or waiver before being charged as an adult, citing Kent v. United States. *. The use of tainted ****uvenile evidence in an adult trial violates due process, referencing Brady v. Maryland. *.The legality of charging a ****uvenile as an adult after the ****uvenile ****urisdiction was closed, cases like Breed v. Jones. *. Arguing that the double ****eopardy clause was violated by charging the same offense in ****uvenile, and adult courts, referencing cases like Blockburger v. United States. The record is illegal, and the illegality was challenged, is challenged, and is allowed to be challenged, including the civil lawsuit, because it is a clear continuing violation of puniti ve punishment in itself, causing others to continue.Robinson v. California, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that laws inflicting cruel, and unusual punishment are i n violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.Solem v. Helm, * U.S. * (* *): The Supreme Court held that a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a non-violent crime was a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel, and unusual punishments, supports your argument against continuous punitive punishments, and a ****uvenile charged again as an adult using the same evidence, that wou ld be different charges in ****uvenile, as would be in adult. Miller v. Alabama, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences without parole are unconstitutional for ****uvenile offenders. - Graham v. Florida, * U.S. * (*): The Court held that ****uveniles cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non -homicide offenses. But plaintiff was unfairly so, thus continuing, he in fact is still in the same limbo, regardless of prison sentences, and punitive sentences, stemming from the same limbo in *, because federal questions was never resolved, and have never been resolved, regardless of being stated. Prohibition of cruel, and unusual punishment, and th e rights of ****uveniles in the criminal ****ustice system are important, legally reasoned so, thus apply to the plaintiff here, that was un****ustly denied. To clarify here, plaintiff states baxter may not have known about, all ****uvenile orders, and events in her assessment, but could have known, rather should have known, while plaintiff is unsure as to that point, she clearly denied him his rights, through mundane legal traps, trapping both him and his cou nsel under a two bytes doctrine, causing ineffective counsel, and thus, deprived plaintiff of his rights, while also finding him actually innocent, thus helping him, this was pre****ud icial, because it disallowed under habeas all of his issues, causing further know punish ments after the fact. While he praises her for finding him innocent, she had no choice, he proved his actual innocence in not being there, and has new evidence to prove further that backs that up, ie, school records, in-fact new evidence proves the second * case was fraudulent, no ****uror, or legitimate trier fact, not corrupt one, would convict. Showing that the victim was making up stories, along with her mother, direct witnesses catching her, testimony on tape, to a host of other evidence, and witnesses, such as evidence she sat on her grandfathers lap, and stated he never touched her, to her brothers molesting each other at the same time, to her brother, vindictively trying to rape other 14 year olds, meet them at a gas station, to entrapment again by the same victims mother akin to *, and * allegations after habeas relief, to the victims attempting to state, she had his confe ssions, when he lived in a basement of a sheriffs home, with no internet access, including evidence, originally of, witness’s taking him to work saturdays, and sundays, he was state d charged for, school records show, he was in school, and not tardy. This is all new evid ence ****ust for case * and * of *. The other evidence is new from * arson, and stolen child, including all cases, further * traffic offense in front of a corrupt ****udg e, and forced * over confession by state police, which gives him a right to sue, and file habeas corpus, and a COA, to which he did, after hiring counsel to do it loosing his fund s. Showing he has continuing suffering derived, while under collateral suffering, without an y ability do to his disabilities to render appropriate legal help, as per his entitled Consti utional rights, thus causing continuous legal monopoly of illegal sentencing schemes, cau sing direct abuse, mentally, physically, emotionally. *. Documented Disabilities: Plaintiff possesses documented learning disabilities,J.D.B. v. Nor th Carolina, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court acknowledged that a child's age prop erly informs the Miranda custody analysis. and ADHD, which can significantly impact a person's abil ity to understand complex legal issues, as recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – * U.S.C. § * et seq. *. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Plaintiff asserts his previous attorneys were ineffective. This claim, if proven, can further toll the statute of limitations. McQuiggan v. Perkins, * U.S. * (*); Muhammad v. Close, * U.S. * (*). We know this was true, since counsel was found ineffective, and new counsel after habeas counsel, including habeas counsel was ineff ective.Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (*): The Supreme Court set the standard for determining when, a criminal defendant's [Sixth] Amendment right to counsel is violated, by that counsel's inadequate performance. B. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Does Not Apply Defendants argue the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, bars this lawsuit, due to, prior state court procee dings. However, this doctrine only applies, when a federal lawsuit seeks to directly review, or rev erse state court decisions. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., * U.S. *, * (*). The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the narrow scope of the doctrine, it does not bar federal ****urisdiction simply because a party attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously litigated in state court.Plaintiff's claims focus on violations of his federal constitutional rights, including: Freedom of Speech, (First Amendment) Right to Bear Arms (Second Amendment) (Fourth Amendment) Double ****eopardy (Fifth Amendment) Ineffective assistance of counsel (Sixth Amendment) Cruel and Unusual Punishment (eighth Amendment) Due process (Fourteenth Amendment) Lack of ****urisdiction on the state court's part Abuse Constitutional violations All Others Stated These claims are independent federal questions not addressed by the state court, and are theref ore not barred by Rooker-Feldman, including the fact, that they automatically will call into que stion, and show the illegality of the state, rendering all orders illegal is secondary, and a by product of the violations automatically also, is [not barred]. Although they should be first,and foremost, not in a [corrupt system] or [Flawed System], how can they be. C. Plaintiff's Claims Have Merit *. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Plaintiff contends his prior attorneys were ineffective, faili ng to properly represent him and investigate his case. Such ineffectiveness violates his Sixth Am endment right to counsel. Strickland v. Washington, * U.S. * (*); Com. v. Grant, * Pa. * (*); Preston v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *). *. Lack of Jurisdiction: Plaintiff raises questions about the state court's ****urisdiction over his ca se due to improper procedures, and violations of ****uvenile law. It’s proven, these arguments could demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the underlying state court proceedings. D. Countering Defendant's Misconceptions *. Frivolous Claims: Defendants may argue Plaintiff's claims are frivolous or lack supporting evidence. However, the pleading stage requires a low bar. The well-pled factual allegations in the Complaint, coupled with relevant case law and constitutional references, satisfy the plausibility standard under Twombly. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(a)(*). *. State Court Deference: Defendants might argue the federal court should defer to the state cou rt's decisions. While federal courts generally respect state court rulings, this deference does not extend to situations, where a plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. See AEDP A, * U.S.C. § * (mechanism for federal review of state court convictions on constitution al gro unds). *. Statute of Limitations as Absolute Bar: Defendants claim the statute of limitations is an ab solute bar. However, equitable tolling provides an exception when extraordinary circumstances exist. See Holland, supra. The documented disabilities, and ongoing consequences of the wrong ful convictions, present compelling arguments for equitable tolling. Additionally, the discovery rule is applicable in Pennsylvania, delaying the start of the limitations clock, until Plaintiff beca me [aware-of] the facts supporting his claims. See Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, * A.3d * (Pa. *). Rule * Compliance: In general, to satisfy Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include: *. A short and plain statement of the ****urisdiction. *. A short and plain statement of the claim, showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. *. A demand for the relief sought. Based on the information provided, the complaint satisfies Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a [short and plain statement of the claim] showing entitlement to relie f. The complaint: *. Clearly states the ****urisdiction. *. Provides detailed allegations, and legal theories, showing plausible claims for relief. *. Specifies the relief sought. His motions, briefs bolster the said complaint further with facts, and legal theories derived by the facts, and evidence, abuse, suffering, punitive sentencing schemes of the [evil-few] against him. THE COMPLAINT This is a detailed, and complex case with multiple points of contention. Plaintiff provided a considerable amount of information, including legal claims, and cited case laws. Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Robert Blakely The claims against the defendant, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Robert Blakely, primarily focus on the violations of the plaintiff's rights under the Juvenile Act, the U.S. Constitution, and established Third Circuit case law. The plaintiff argues that Blakely's actions, includi ng the mani pulation of evidence, and attempts to, circumvent ****uvenile ****urisdiction, constitute a series of violations that warrant legal intervention. The plaintiff alleges that these actions infringe on his Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights, violate the ethical code for probation officers, and const itute cruel, and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment thereby violating the 14th amendment due process. The plaintiff seeks accountability for these alleged misconduct, an d restoration of his rights This includes tainting the evidence used in adult prosecution knowi ngly, and intelligently, manipulating evidence, and circumventing ****uvenile ****urisdiction, violate ethical codes for probation officers, and constitutes cruel, and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, causing adult punishment in a [continued nexus] to this day specifically. Probation officers, including chief probation officers cannot do what was, blatantly done here. Jim K. Vogel The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Jim K. Vogel, violated his rights under the Juvenile Act, U.S. Constitution, and established Third-Circuit case law. The plaintiff claims the defendant illeg ally pursued prosecution despite knowledge of the plaintiff's wrongful conviction, committed a B rady violation by withholding evidence, engaged in vindictive prosecution, violated double ****eop ardy, and engaged in malicious prosecution. *. Illegal pursuit of prosecution despite knowledge of the plaintiff's wrongful conviction. *. Brady violation by withholding evidence. *. Vindictive prosecution and ****urisdictional issues. *. Double ****eopardy, and scapegoating ****uvenile ****urisdiction. *. Malicious prosecution and malicious split of cases. *. Ethical torture and prosecution of mitigating circumstances. *. Denial of double ****eopardy argument leading to wrongful conviction. The plaintiff seeks damages, in****unctive relief, a declaratory ****udgment declaring the actions of the defendant unconstitutional, and attorney's fees. The plaintiff's complaint appears to meet the requirements of Rule * by providing: *. A clear statement of the court's ****urisdiction over the matter. *. A detailed explanation of the claims being made against the defendant, Jim K. Vogel, includ ing allegations of illegal pursuit of prosecution, withholding of evidence, vindictive prosecution, violation of double ****eopardy, malicious prosecution, ethical torture, and denial of double ****eopar dy argument. Brad H Foulk The plaintiff's complaint against defendant Brad H Foulk alleges a series of violations under the Juvenile Act, U.S. Constitution, and established Third Circuit case law. These violations include illegal prosecution, corruption and bribery, denial of ADA rights, wrongful convictions, exce ssive prosecution and punishment, consecutive sentencing, use of tainted and tampered evidence, lack of ****urisdiction, presentation of fraudulent evidence, double ****eopardy, and ethical torture. The plaintiff seeks damages, in****unctive relief, a declaratory ****udgment declaring the actions of the defe ndant unconstitutional, and attorney's fees. The complaint is detailed, provides legal theories, and specifies the relief sought, satisfying the requirements of Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro cedure. It provides a clear statement of the claim, showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and specifies the relief sought. Kathleen Ann Scibetta The complaint against Kathleen Ann Scibetta alleges several violations of the Juvenile Act, U.S. Constitution, and established Third Circuit case law. These include: *. Cross Jurisdictional Conflict: The complaint alleges that Scibetta's dual role as a federal law clerk, and state assistant district attorney, created a [cross-****urisdictional conflict], violating eth ical rules, and [pre****udicing] the plaintiff's right to a fair legal process, two different ****urisdictions, invoking both state, and federal against a pro se defendant by being a federal law clerk, and state ADA on this case, while speaking off record on witness stand after in federal by way of fedral magistrate communicado with petitioner after she stated he was intentionally prosecuted, thus the ADA on his PCRA with double ****eopardy, and ****urisdictional claim,to which she argued in super ior court after direct appeal crossing ****urisdictional bounds. Plaintiff stated he would sue her, in *, he was not ****oking, was he. Erie County Prison The plaintiff's complaint against the Erie County Prison alleges several violations, including inhumane treatment, illegal use of the chair for punishment, witnessing violent incidents, suffe ring due to an escape attempt, interference with legal work, and overall violation of rights. The complaint argues that these actions violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. The plaintiff requests relief in the form of a declaratory ****udgment, compensatory damages, in****unctive relief, punitive relief, and attorney's fees. The complaint appe ars to meet the requirements of Rule * by providing a clear statement of the ****urisdiction, a conci se statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. *. Suppression of Double Jeopardy and Jurisdictional Issues: The complaint alleges that Scib etta suppressed claims of double ****eopardy, and ****urisdictional issues, hindering proper post-co nviction relief. *. Use of Tainted Evidence: The complaint alleges that Scibetta used tainted evidence, violating the plaintiff's civil rights. *. Lack of Jurisdiction and Double Jeopardy: The complaint alleges that Scibetta lacked ****uris diction due to, limbo, and constructive custody, resulting in double ****eopardy. *. Misuse of Evidence: The complaint alleges that Scibetta used tainted, false, misleading, and illegally, obtained evidence against the plaintiff, undermining his arguments, and contributing to his excessive sentence. Department of Children and Youth Services (CYS) The plaintiff's complaint against the Department of Children and Youth Services (CYS) alleges multiple violations of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. These include allega tions of wrongful convictions, denial of due process, fraudulent reports, abuse of power, and various constitutional infringements. The plaintiff argues that these actions by CYS have caused harm and seeks redress from the court. The complaint satisfies Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as it provides a clear statement of the ****urisdiction, a concise statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. The plaintiff has provided detailed allegations, and legal theories, indicating plausible claims for relief, those claims are further supported by the other sections protecting them with additional facts within the complaint directly, basically stating everything needed to support all claims, and this is further supported by facts within each of the claims cross supporting each of the other claims, strategically crafted by a disabled person intellectually for proper simulation technique of easy understanding, and to help the court easily dictate the said claims properly. V. CONCLUSION Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be denied. Plaintiff's claims are timely due to equitable tol ling, and the application of the discovery rule, not barred by Rooker-Feldman, and supported by established legal principles, and the United States Constitution. Plaintiff deserves the opportunity to have his claims heard, and seek redress, for the immense train of brutal violations of his funda mental rights forced upon him. Based on each complaint stated in this set of complaints represe nted by the Defendant's counsel, filing the brief, all plaintiffs/petitioners claims are cognizable, and supported, comply with rule *, and are valid under federal civil procedure, legally supported. Respectfully Submitted,

plaintiff brief properly represents against defendants brief then on this set of defendants

hello