Share this on:
 E-mail
106
VIEWS
1
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view hollandkids's profile
    Posted June 14, 2013 by
    hollandkids
    Location
    glenville, North Carolina

    More from hollandkids

    100,000,000 against Pocono Regional Police

     

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Idalia Holland, Plaintiff and mother : Case No. 13-1406 of minor child Ciarra Rodriguez ALSO Plaintiff, Mygdalia Nacarato, Pro-se : Plaintiff's
    Pocono Regional Police, et. al. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Monroe County children & youth Honorable Judge Worthington, : Honorable Judge Moyle, Honorable Judge Geroulo, : Dawn Walker, Faith Glossenger Defendant's
    PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    Plaintiff's Idalia Holland and Mygdalia Nacarato hereby move for Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and this Court’s Local Rule 7, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for entry of an Order granting summary judgment in their favor of in the amount of $40,000,000 against Pocono Mountain Regional Police, $40,000,000 against Monroe County Children and Youth Services, $6,666,666.67 from each Judge Worthington, Moyle, and Geroulo totaling $100,000,000. Specifically, Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their claim that2 U.S.C. § 441e,355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957 violates their rights under the Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs are filing a Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Statement of Material Facts, along with a Declaration and Proposed Order. Plaintiffs For the reasons provided in the supporting Memorandum, Plaintiffs contend that there is no genuine disputed issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their claim. Consequently, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant summary judgment in their favor, declare that 2 U.S.C. § 441e is unconstitutional as applied to
    them. Summary judgment on behalf of their complaint on grounds “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In accordance to federal laws when there are three States involved and some facts and statements comes from CYS in Monroe County of such, it is a Federal matter when a pedophile takes a child across state lines and violates her. In support, Plaintiffs file this brief in support, together with Exhibits. Plaintiffs also rely on all evidence of record submitted in this case, including, but not limited to, their verified complaint and exhibits attached thereto.
    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Pocono Mt. Regional Police Mary E. Butler, esq 2454 Route 940 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Pocono Summit, PA 18346 Philadelphia, PA 19102
    Harry Coleman, esq 41 North Main Street, Suite 316 Carbondale, PA 18407
    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Plaintiff's move to file Motion for Summary Judgment based on sufficient merit and evidence in support of documents entered. Plaintiffs hereby move this Court, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the monetary relief requested in the compliant, with this summary judgment, A proposed Order is submitted with this motion. Also submitted with this Motion is Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, with references to the portions of the record that support it. Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) Federal courts have jurisdiction if your case involves a federal question—that is, the laws you are trying to enforce come from the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 2) Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) Plaintiff's states If their case doesn’t involve a federal question, you can still establish federal jurisdiction if there is diversity jurisdiction in your case. This means a) there is diversity of citizenship (you and the party you are suing are citizens of different states), and b)
    the amount you are arguing over is greater than $75,000 (that is, $75,000.01 or more).
    STANDARD FOR REVIEW
    Pursuant to Federal Question as to if Plaintiff's Holland and Nacarato have cause of action and or merit, and if this Court respectfully has jurisdiction to view this case has been established. Defendant's have at numerous times have not only deprived clients of their 5th, 7th and 14th amendment right but have also fraud and disrespected the Judicial system and it's Courts. First of all the original case that Holland and Nacarato filed in State Courts was not properly argued in court, the only matters the Court's argued was the acceptance of filling the original case and how Plaintiff's filed and how they as per defendants state failed to properly serve parties. Not once has any court system aloud Plaintiff's to argue merit matters and evidence , which would in fact implicate all of the Parties in question. In fact the Plaintiff's Holland and Nacarato stated clearly in the Complaint that it is an original filling and yes it does state claims from case filed in State Courts and also added evidence and federal questions against Judicial Parties. By Federal Law Plaintiff's Idalia Holland and Mygdalia Nacarato have every right to file and have their case properly argued and viewed in court but because it implicated government parties, and now members of the Court it is obvious how the buddy system corroborates plaintiff's claims.
    PROCEDURAL HISTORY Holland and Nacarato filed lawsuit against defendants with the Lackawanna Court system and all parties were properly and timely served. Evidence (1). On April 18th Plaintiff's served all parties again via certified mail return receipt as a reminder giving defendants additional time to respond. Evi (2). By May 25th 2011 still neither defendants had filed any response, which at this time Holland filed intent to default judgment via certified return receipt and place an article in the Times Tribune of such Evi (3). On June 2nd 2011, Holland filed default judgment against both parties. June 5th parties were served by via return receipt mail judgment against them for failure to appear and or respond. June 10th plaintiff sent defendants notice to appear motions Lackawanna Court June
    16th, and once again failed to appear. It is very clear that neither of the parties had taken Plaintiff's filling seriously or had ignore the situation not given plaintiff's the right and respect. Evi (4) Again on June 18th plaintiff sent defendants notice return receipt of notice to appear June 22, in motion court. Evi (5) Plaintiff was at appointed court date on June 22nd 2011, on said date no representation for either defendants was present, and Judge Geroulo would not sign the Writ of Execution even though defendants disrespectfully failed to respond or appear. Judge Geroulo told Plaintiff Holland to give defendants yet more time to answer beyond the 59 days given. On same day June 22nd 2011, Judge Geroulo sign an order to consolidate and a stay in motion after Holland left, without any notice or plaintiff given the proper respect and law given right to represent herself and argue such motion. Evi(6) On August 23rd 2011, presiding Judge Moyle was changed without notice plaintiff, by the time plaintiff arrived at correct courtroom the defendants were coming out of Judge's chambers again with no regard to Plaintiff. On such date Plaintiff exerted all evidence and merits against parties and with no regard to the fact that representation for Pocono Regional Police present and they cannot argue that the cases were consolidated because it was to be argued on August 23rd 2011. Judge Geroulo specifically struck judgment against CYS and not Pocono Regional, evidence also states Monroe County Judge Worthington stating in her opinion how judgment against Pocono Mt Regional Police was never stricken. Also evidence shows furthermore were Lackawanna County Court Clerk filed writ of execution and service by US Marshals sign and sealed and certified by Lackawanna Court. Evi (7) . On September 9th 2011,Plaintiff Idalia Holland filed an Amended Complaint, but defendants made it impossible for Holland to properly served them with notice of amended complaint because defendants immediately filed Preacipe for Argument to argue first amended complaint before the court accepted it and returned it to plaintiff. Evi(8) On September 13th Defendants filed preliminary objections. Evi(9). And on September 14th the court issued a rule to show cause. On November 7th there was an oral argument with Judge Worthington , (same judge who handled Plaintiff Hollands children s custody case at the same time a child abuse investigation was ongoing) Plaintiff at oral argument started stating the facts and merits and evidence of her case but was told by Judge Worthington she was done listening did not even recollect or acknowledge any
    facts just told plaintiff her ruling would be in the mail. As this Court would respectfully take into consideration how often and how obvious parties involved on numerous occasion purposely denied plaintiff's rights and proper due process of law.
    ARGUMENT Plaintiff's Holland and Nacarato argue that this court does have Jurisdiction to view this case based on the facts and merits presented and the many different Government agencies in three different states involved. And how Pocono Regional Police CYS and three Judicial Judges have not allowed Pro-Se attorney privilages, and proper procedure of the court for plaintiffs, which in fact is against the constitution. A Judge does not have the authority to disallow a citizen from filling any and all forms with the court. Especially when the party dissallowed has open cases that the opposing parties are still filling. To decide who is allowed due process and who is not, is not within a judge's scope of authority. The single act deprives the public atlarge of their constitutional rights. A Judge is to remain impartial regardles of whom their friends are.
    CONCLUSION Plaintiff's Idalia Holland and Mygdalia Nacarato respectfully requests that the court awards plaintiff's $100,000,000 in damages for the willful and reckless disregard of the plaintiff's and minor child, the denial of constitutional rights, conspiracy to comit fraud and false pretenses, and scheme to defraud under the color of law. Plaintiff's and minor child have suffered irreparable, psychological, emotional, and mental damages from abuse. Defendants knowingly failed to protect and advocate for the children and furthermore, they purposely imposed further emotional and mental distress and harm without any regard for humanity. For the past nine years plaintiff's have experienced the darkest side of the justice system. Witnessed firsthand government official's abusing their power to humiliate, intimidate, and cause further harm with no regard to a childs life or well-being.

    PROOF OF SERVICE On this day of June 12th, 2013 Plaintiff's Idalia Holland and Mygdalia Nacarato sent first class mail notice of Motion For Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, and Corrected Complaint.
    Pocono Mt Regional Police 2454 Route 940 Pocono Summit, PA 18346
    Harry Coleman, esq. 41 North Main Street Suite 316 Carbondale, Pa 18407
    Mary E. Butler, esq 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 Philadelphia, PA 19102 ___________________________ Idalia Holland, Plaintiff P.O. Box 644 Glenville, NC 28736 ____________________________ Mygdalia Nacarato, Plaintiff 3821 Apt. 228, Avalon PK Orlando, FL 32828

    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story