Petition — Meeker v. Attorney General of the United States

oni $

82-1064 vite "a

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED ST#BESS a

T ’ | 23

OCTOBER TERM, 198 |

CHARLES A. MEEKER, PETITIONER, PHO-SE;

vs

U.S. STATE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS, AND THE

U.S. ATTORNEY FOR NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE,

RESPONDENTS:

CHARLES A. MEEKER;

2605 Virginia St.,N.E.

Albuquerque, New Mex

Tel: 505-299-6406

THE U.S. STATE & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT |

WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THE

U.S. ATTORNEY FOR NEW MEXICC, FIFTH AND GOLD

STREETS, P.O. 607 ALBUQUERQUE, N.MEX.

RESPONDENTS:

A_ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO:

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. ON AN

APPEAL FROM TENTH CIRCUIT, DENVER,COL.

TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE:

Questions presented for review:- - - - ae |

Jurisdiction- ------------- i)

Statutory Provisions Involved ----:;: ]

Statement of Case presented -----+ ] to7

Pelief Sought by this Writ- - - - - - - : 7 tog

SOEs LON RY ARGUMENTS:- - ----- - ; 9,16,24

Opinion August 17,1982- ------- - : 10-163

Denial of Rehearing dated Oct 6,1982- -: 16;

Affidavit dated Jan 2,1981- - - - - - -; 20-24;

Mr Elliot Light letter, Dec 20,1979- - 26;

Stipulation Agreement of Sept 6,1979- -: 27-28;

Ammended Complaint Dated, Mar 12) 1982 29-36;

Relief bg $3 BS coc cece rere 35;

Affidavit store. a Notary of Service- -: 36;

DATED, December 10, 1982.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI:

The questions presented for review

are all outlined under the heading: RE-

lief sought in this Petitjon, so will iot

be repeated. The Parties involved are all

listed on the Front Cover of this Writ &

in the TABLE OF CONTENTS.

JURISDICTION:

This is based on the OPINION of the

TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, of Aug-

usr 27,1982, and that Courts Denial of a

Rehearing dated October 6,1982, reproduc-

ed in the APPENDIX THAT FOLLOWS.

Also: Title 28,U.S.C. 2101 & 2403-a;

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:

The IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

of 1952 is being challenged as Un-Consti

-tutional.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE PRESENTED:

It is estimated that there are more

than 300,000 illegitimate children, fath-

ered by American Service Men who will be

directly affected by the outcome of this

case. The rights of these unfortunate U.S

Citizen Children who are being denied all

Constitutional Rights by Whim and not bas

-ed on any Law or the U.S. Constitution

are in a state of complete confusion, and

these rights are in desperate need of cla

-rification.

As treated now thes? unfortunate ill

-egitimates are rel©Zateu to a low form of

"Second Class Citizenship’ where it is

made next to impossible for any of them to

benefit from the fact that they are as much

a U.S. Citizen as are the remainder of us..

The cruelty administered is almost unbeliey

able as so accurately mentioned in many TV

Page (1).

Documentaries, and Syndicated writers a

large number of which have en outlined

in the Congressional Record, and also re-

produced in the file now held by the Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals.

Defendant's representatives are able

to continue this harsh, sadistic, and cru

-el as well as grossly unfair treatment of

these ‘Second Class Citizens' they have

created by whim rather than based on any

law or the U.S. Constitutior mainly because

law is in such a complete state of uncert

-ainty and confusion. And this uncertainty

has existed for more than 85 years or when

our Service Men first went to the Philipp

ines around 1898. tt is time that the mea

-ning of this IPMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

ACT be clarified by the Supreme Court.

The United States i:: being criticized

all over the World for its misbehavior,

its sadistic denial of all human and Civil

Rights to these ‘Love-Children' who suffer

untold hardships through no fault of their

own, and a failure of the United States to

recognize its obligation to these ‘Second

Class Citizens that have for so long been

ignored so cruelly,

The primary reasons for bringing this

Writ is an intent to try and help these un

-fortunate children who this Petitioner has

seen by the thousands in many countries

where military bases are located,

The SECOND REASON FOR PROSECUTING

CASE. is of far less important or signi

ficant. It relates to the mang frauds and

Torts practiced against Petitioner by the

Defendants as fully detained in the Amend-

ed Complaint, «nd accompanying Affidavit

re-produced in the Appendix of this Writ .

It should be further noted that this Pet-

ioner has in not one instancebeen permitted

to put input into this case, aj}

Opinions, and rulings by Trial Court having

Page (2).

been resolved by Trial Judge and Defendants

attorneys with never the Plaintiff-Petioner

ever being permitted to put input into this

case. The entire trial and appeal to this

point has been a sham, a farce, where all

Constitutional Rights have been denied to

Petitioner.

Even the Tenth Circuit continued the

farce, and in its Opinion chose false facts

to base the Opinion on, which of course made

Opinion seem reasonable when in fact it is

a.monster of denial of all Constitutional

Rights. This wi'’ be discussed in depth .

later on. ie

In the Amended Complaint which is re-

produced in the Appendix the basis for the

Juruisdiction of the District Court is in

depth pleaded so will not be repeated here.

In factsfacts pleated along with the

Affidavit of January 2, 1979 accompanied

by the many references to the Congressional

Record and the numerous articles by Syndi-

cated Writers is all the proof needed to

set up a cause of action, and the denial

to have these facts tried to a jury is a

denial of basic Constitutional Rights to a

fair and impartial trial:

It is absolutely impossible for any

father of any illegitimate child to ever

comply with the demands made to him by the

representatives of Defendants so as to get

U.S. Citizenship for his child without br-

inging a law suit. Petitioner has witness

-ed hundreds of such fathers attempt to get

Citizenship, and he has never seen one suc

-ceed But just as soon as a lawsuit is fi

-led, Defendants come running in as they

did with this Petitioner and offer to sett

-le the case by granting the U.S. Citizen

-ship.This is of course unwarranted, and a

terrible unneeded expense.

If Defendants dare deny this Petiti-

ener challenges Defendants to produce and

such a case to this Honorable Court.

Page (3).

The purpose of such harrassment by the

Defendants is to financially exhaust all

applicants so that they will go away and

quit bothering Consular Officials so that

all illegitimates are prevented from enter

-ing into the United States irrespective

as to whether or not they are in fact enti

-tled to U.S. Citizenship. As previously

observed cases, unless a lawsuit is brought

are decided by whim, and no father of any

illegitimate is ever permitted to gain such

such Citizenship without first bringing a

law suit.

And even then, regardless of the large

expenses such fathers are forced to needles

sly make by this gross misbehavior, lies &

openly practice of fraud, the Plaintiff by

such tactics as practiced against this Peti

-tioner is denied all rights to a fair and

impartial trial before a jury. If any indi

-vidual or business ever dared practice

even 1/20 of what Government Officials have

done to this Petitioner, they would be boi

-led in oil... Government Officials should

not be granted such immunities for it enco

-urages the practices as outlined in Petit

-ioners Affidavit of January 2, 1979 that

is reproduced in this Writ in Appendix.

As a result of the lies and misbehavi

-or pleaded this Petitioner lost some

25,000 dollars. (See Affidavit and Amended

Complaint in Appendix). Petitioner even

offered to pay the expenses of witnesses

from the Philippines and Korea who know

facts but his Complaint, inorder to pro-

tect misbehaving Government Officials, was

dismissed as outlined above with a denial

to Petitioner of all Constitutional Rights.

To this point the entire proceedings stinks

with the qrossest type of misbehavior prac

-ticed at all levels of this case to this

points, nost immediately after filing this

case and exactly as the pattern described

above was outlined, Defendants came running

Page (4); ;

to Plaintiff-Petitioner claiming a simple

error on their part and offered to give

Citizenship to his four daughters if Peti

-tioner would drop his damage claims, and

which he agreed to do. However beCause he

did not trust Defendants as a result of

their past lies, fraudulent practices and

other gross misconduct, he retained the

right to reopen the case.

A Stipulation of Settlement was enter

-ed into and which is part of the Appendix

in this Writ.Defendants did not fulfill

what was agreed to in Mr Lights letter

of December 20,1979 or in the Stipulation

dated September 6, 1979. Through lies and

intentional fraudulent practices they caused

Petitioner to rake a fifth useless trip to

Manila,and when Petitioner arrived at the

Consulate in Manila he discovered that:

(1) :Manila Consulate had not been sent

one single paper or notification they were

supposed to have been sent by Defendants;

(2): Consulate first refused to give

the Citizenship to Petitioners four children

but then agreed to make contact with State

Department if Petitioner would advance money

for telephone calls and telegrams and

thus caused Petitioner to have to remain in

Manila for some three weeks attempting to get

the mess unraveled that developed as a result

of Defendants failure to comply with Settle

-ment agreement.

(3): That the letter from Mr Light was

never sent to Manila Consulate, and they

were given a copy of same by Petitioner,

which they refused to recognize or comply

with.

(4): Visas were given to Petitioners

four children but were refused for the mothers.

Petitioner immediately returned to the

U.S. and filed Affidavit fully expla tion

what happened, and then an Amended Complaint.

Page (5).

Complaint, (all filed) were dismissed

with a claim that Petitioner had not submi

-tted sufficient evidence to support his

pleadings. Petitioner offered his several

Affidavits that were sworn to under oath

and then offered to pay the way of witnes

-ses into the U.S. in support of facts he

had pleaded, and which facts are in depth

outlined in the numerous articles in Cong

-ressional record and the many T.V. docu-

mentaries and Syndicated Columnists.

All the above is fully detailed in

Amended Complaint and Affidavit contained

in the Appendix, and in much greater detal)

in the record now in the hands of Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals, in Denver, Col.

And in particular note that all these rul.

-ings were made with only Defendants lawy

-ers and the Judge in trial court in Albu

-que preparing same. No hearings were

held or was Petitioner even informed when

all these papers were being prepared again

-st him by Defendants lawyers and the trial

judge. In other words to date this has

been a complete 'Railroad-Job' where alt

Civil, Human, and Constitutional Rights

have been denied Petitioner.

Everything as outlined here is contai

-ned in official records, and repeated aft

-er Tenth Circuit made its Opinion, and

confirmed said Opinion even after having

all called to its attention once more.

Here is where Tenth Circuit after hav

-ing same called to its attention none the

less chose false facts to make its Opinion

appear just and reasonable. If truth was

contained in Opinion many knowledgeable

parties would raise up in indignation for

as observed this entire trial has been an

absolute farce and sham from beginning to

the end,

Page (6).

Opinion says of the Stipulation Agree

-ment that was supposed to settle case, &

of Mr Lights Letter that the agreement was

that:, Application rs visas for mothers

would be prompty considered"

But observe that Stipulation and Mr Lights

letter actually says a much different thing

when it says:

"The Embassy has also requested,per agree

-ment to prompty process any visa applicat

-ions which might be submitted on behalf of

the mothers of the children or their serva’

-nts.”

The meaning is vastly different. This

is fully illustrative of the frauds, lies,

and other misbehavior always practiced aganst

all fathers of illegitimate children who

try to get U.S. Citizenship for their chil

-dren.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY THIS WRIT:

The Petitioner and his four daughters have

ail peep yyversery if ected by all twelve

0 the Ollowing rulings that are challeng

-ed here & outlined below:

(1): To deny minor children,who are

U.S. Citizens an opportunity to live with

and have the advantages of a loving mother

is a denial of Civil, and Human Rights.

(2): It is cruel and inhuman txveatment

to have made these U.S. Citizen children

choose between the benefits of living in the

U.S. as Citizens and the major benefits that

would have come from having their mcthers

available in the U.S. to care for their

children.

(3): To rule that a child must reach

twenty one years of age before he can peti-

tion its mother when illegitimate, and to

not require same of legitimate children vi-

PLPESEmELS SAyideand human rights of these

Page (7).

(4): There is only one class of U.S

Citizen, and to give special rights and

privileges to legitimate children and to

deny similar rights to illegitimate foreign

born children is a failure to give due pro

-cess under the Constitution of the U.S.

(5); All that is required for either

an illegitimate or an legitimatechild to

become a U.S. Citizen is for that child to

have one parent who is a U.S. Citizen.

(6): To require a different set of pr-

oof from the illegitimate child to est >lish

such Citizenship than is required of a

legitimate child is a denial of Civil, Hum-

an rights and a denial of Due Process un-

der the Constitution.

(7): To prevent a parent to pass on

Citizenship to its child just because that

parent has not resided in the United States

if that parent is otherwise a U.S. Citizen,

is a Denial of Due Process under the Con-

stitution.

(8): To reauire a different set of

rules to establish Citizenship for ill-

egitimate children from their father than

is required of a U.S. Citizen Mother to get

Citizenship for her child is a failure to

give due process under the Constitution.

(9): The right to become a U.S. Citiz

-en is a National Right, and no State Law

enn be used to determine this right to US

Citizenship.

(10): The assuming of false facts to

justify the Opinion rendered by Tenth Cir-

cuit and to thus deny a fair and impartial

trial of Petitioner violates Due Process.

(11): The requiring of an illegitim -

ate foreign born child to assume the Citi-

zenship of its foreign mother when the same

is not required of legitimatechildren is a

Page (8).

steer bY 5 of Due Pro

): To deny this Petitioner a right

to kate ye case for both Exempliary, and

actual damages tried before a jury is a

denial of Due Process, his Civil and Human

rights under the U.S. Constitution.

CONCLUSIONARY ARGUMENT

The status of the law relating to the

some 300,000 illegitimate children fathered

by U.S. Service Men around every military

base all over the world is in a most urg-

ent need to be clarified. The cruelty as

practiced against these most unfortunate

children who are every bit as much U.S.

Citizens as are the rest of us is almost im-

possible to describe.

There is little or no case law that

is applicable to the twelve situations ap-

pearing above and as pleaded in the Amend-

ed Complaint reproduced in the Appendix.

About all that exists now are a few anci-

ent Attorney Generals Opinions many of

which are at least 100 years old. As a

result the officials in the State Depart-

ment decide casew by whim and not by law

and are thus able to inflict the cruelties

as outlined in this Petition.

If this case is denied_a hearing the

law will be in even greater confusion and

these Defendants will be given even more

ammunition to be sadistically applied to

these unfortunate illegitimate children

and to the fathers who desire to help the

-ir children.

Keep in mind that few of these fath-

ers have the knowledge and skill or the

money to prosecute a law suit as is invar-

ijabely required to gain Citizenship as

illustrated by Affidavits, and Amended Com

-plaint in Appendix. This is just typical

of what develops when 'Big-Brother' is giv-

en a free hand to abuse power_against those

who can not help themselves,

Page (9).

BPPEND IX

Please note ne 4 count Uiteds Teen

the Opinion oom enth Circul cm

quite obvious that they are ashame

their ruling and thus do not wish i ab-

surd denial of all Constitutional Rights

Published in case Doors for others to see

how low even an Appeals Court can stoop

in geny 109 al Const i suti ona! Rights to

prorec sever rent Officials, and to retal

-jate against any person who dares appear

in a Pro-Se Status?

UNITED STRTES COURT OF APPEALS,

TENTH CIRCUIT,

Charles A. Meeker, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vs

Attorney Civil 82-4193

General of the United States,

Department of State, Filed in

U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, NM Tenth Cir-

Defendants Appelllees. a 17,

‘Howard Philipps

Clerk.

Appealed from the United States District

Court for the District of New Mexico,

D.C. Civil NO 79-559M

Submitted on the Briefs persuant to Rule 9

Charles A. Meeker, , pro~-se;

Don J. Svet; United States Attorney, and

L.D. Harriss, Assistant United States Att-

orney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defen-

-———_w eee aanaanaes “———— ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe ee ee

Before Barrett, Logan, and Seymour, Circuit

Judges.

Per-Curiam:

Page NO.(10).

This three judge panel has determined

uminously that oral arguments would not be

of material assistance in the determinat-

ion of this appeal. See Fed R. App.P. 34

(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e).The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral

arguments.

Plaintiff, Charles A. Meeker, appeals

from an order of the district court dis-

missing his Declaratory Judgment action in

which he sought to have certain sections of

the Immigration and Nationality Act 86 U.S.C.

1101, et seq. declared unconstitutional.

He also sought compensatory and punitive

damages. We affirm the dismisal

The Plaintiff, the father of four.

illegitimate children born in the Philipp-

ine Islands, to two Filipina Mothers, ori-

ginally brought this action to establish

the United States Citizenship of the chil-

dren and to obtain a Declaratory Judgment

that 8 U.S.C. 1409 is unconstitutional. (*)

(*): 8 U.S.C. 1409 provides:

1409 Children born out of wedlock

(a): The provisions of paragraphs

(c), (ad), (e), and (g) of Sections 1401

of this title, and of paragraph (2) of

Section 1408, of this Title shall apply

as of the date of birth to a child born out

of wedlock on or after the effective date

of this chapter, if the paternity of such

child is established while such child is

under the age of twenty one years by legit-

imation.

Soon after the complaint was filed the

parties entered into a stipulation in which

they agreed that the claim would be dismi-

ssed without prejudice provided the United

States would confirm the Citizenship of the

children and issue passports to them. In

addition, the Stipulation provided that,

vigm epotications for the childrens mothers

Page (11).

eir servants would be promptly considered.

foot note(*) cont. (b): Except as

otherwise provided in Section 405 of this

Act the provisions of section 1401 (g),

of this vitie shal] apply to a child born

out of wedlock on or after January 13,1941

and prior to the effective date of this

chapter as of the date of birth, if the

paternity of such child is established

before or after the effective date of this

chapter and while such child is under age

of twenty one years by legitimation,

(c): Not withstanding the provision

of sub section (a) of this section, a per-

son born on or after the effective date

of this chapter, outside of the United Sta

-tes and out of wedlock shall to have acqu-

ired at birth the nationality status of '

his mother if the mother had the nationai-~

ity of the United States at time of such

person's birth, and if the mother had pre-

viously been physically present in the Un-

ited States or one of its outlying possess

-ions for a continuous period of one year,

8 U.S.C. 1401 (g) provides in pertinent part

(g): A person born outside the geogra-

phic al limits of the United States and its

outlying posessions of parents one of whom

is an ailen, and the other a citizen of Bid

the United States, who, prior to the birth

of such person, was physically present in

the United States or its outlying possess-

ions for a period totaling not less than

ten years at least five of which were after

attaining the age of fourteen years.

The plaintiff argues in essence, that

the statute denies United States citizen

fathers of illegitimate foreign born chil-

dren Dueprocess and equal protection and

that it discriminates against illegitimate

foreign born children of United States Ci-

tizens. See Fiallo v Bell, 430 U.S. 787

(1977) ¥.T. v Bell 478 F. Supp. 828,(W.D.

Pa. 1979.

Page (12).

(2): 8 U.S.C. 1151 (b) defines “imm-

euiate relatives" as"

the children,spouses, and parents of a ci-

tizen of the United States: Provided, That

in the case of parents, such citizen must

be at least twenty one years of age. The

immediate relatives specified in this sub

section who are otherwise qualified for

admission as immigrants shall be admitted

as such without regard to the numerical

in this chapter.

8 U.P.S.C. 1151 (a) gives preferential im-

migration status to “Immediate Relatives"

of United States Citizens.

The Plaintiff also challenges the re-

sidency requirement which children born

abroad to United States Citizens must meet

to retain their citizenship. 8 U.S.C. 1401

(b) (This subsection was repealed, Pub. L.

95-432 1, effective Oct 10,1978) In Ro-

gers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 1971, the cou-

rt held such a residency requirement consti

batraaes ¢ | In Meeker vs Attorney General,

inpublished No. 81-1963 (Tenth Circuit file

March 8,1982) the Appeal was dismissed as

premature.

The District Court issued an opinion

upholding the constitutionality of the st-

atute. In addition, the court denied the

damages sought holding that the Defendants

were immune. Following the entry of the

courts order and the dismissAl by this

court of subsequent appeal,, (See 3 above)

the Plaintiff made a motion to file an Am-

ended Complaint. The District Court denied

the motion.

On appeal the plaintiff contends that

the District Court erred in holding the

Statute constitutional, in dismissing his

Claim for damages, and denying his motion

Page (13).

o-

to file an amended complaint. He also com-

Plains of the manner in which the District

Court handled the litigation.

In the present posture of the case

we can not rule on the merits of the Plain-

tiffs challenge to 1409. This issue has

become moot. Plaintiffs children have been

granted United States Citizenship and are

presently residing in New Mexico.

Federal Courts do not render advisory

opinions and are limited to deciding iss-

ues in actual cases and controversies. Un

-ited States Const. art. 3, 1 et seq.; No

-rvell v Sangre de Cristo development Co.,

519 F 2nd 370, 375 (10 th Circuit, (1975).

There must be a case or controversy betw-

een the named plaintiff and the Defendant

with respect to the validity of the Sta-

tute at issue, Board of School Commission-

ers v Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128 (1975), unless

either of two circumstances are present;

The case presents an issue capable of rep

-tition, yet evading review or the suit

has been duly certified as a class action.

Sosna v Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975); Napier

v Gertrude, 542 F. 2nd 825 (Tenth Circuit

1976, cert. denied. 429 U.S. 1049 (1977).

Neither situation is present here. The

issue does not fit within the first excep

-tion because there is no reasonable exp-

ectation that 1409 will be enforced again-

st the plaintiff again. Weinstein v Brad-

ford, 423 U.S. 147, (1975). Nor is it a Ce

-rtified class action. Although the plai

ntiff st yles his action as a class acti-

on, the district court found, and the rec-

ord supports, that he never attempted to

have it so certifi:d as required by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23. Accordingly, the class acti-

on exception can not prevent the issue fr-

om being considered moot. Board of School

Commissioners v Jacobs, Supra.

The plaintiff's challenges to 8 U.S.C.

Page (14).

1151 (b), however, are not noot. He alle-

ges that the statute is unconstitutional in

-sofar as it does not allow a citizen und

-der twenty one years of age to bestow im

-mediate relative benefits upon his pare-

nts. This argument has been repeatedly re-

jected. Rubio De Cachu v Ins, 568 F. 2nd

625 (9th Circuit 1977); Qureshi v Ins, 519

F 2nd 1174, (Fifth Circuit 1975); Faustino

v Ins, 432 F. 2nd 429 (2d cir (1970), Cert

denied, 401 U.S. 921 (1971); Perdido v Ins

420 F 2nd 1179 (Fifth Cir 1969). See also

De Robles vs Ins 485 F. 2nd 100 (Tenth Cir

1973)

The plaintiff's claim for damages also

lacks merit The complaint makes concluso

-ry allegations of fraud and malicious con

-duct without any factual support. This is

insufficient to state a claim for relief.

Plaintiff con tends that the district

Court erred in denying his motion to file

an amended complaint. The motion was filed

after the plaintiff's first appeal was di-

smissed. The plaintiff's amended complaint

merely reiterates the conclusory allegati-

ons made in the first complaint. It did not

recite any new facts and requested relief

already denied.

While rule 15 (a) requires that

leave to amend be freely given,

the Supreme Court has declared that

that this requirement is not ap

-plicable when "futility of ame

-ndment" is “apparent." Foman v

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.C

t. 227, 230 9 Le. Ed 2a 222(1962)

“Where a complaint is amended, wou

-ld be subject to dismissal, leave

to amend need not be granted." De

Loach v Woodley, 405 F. 2d 496,

497 (Fifth Cir. 1969).

Mountain Pharmacy v Abbott Laboratories 630

Page (15).

F. 2d 1383, 1389 (Tenth Cir, (1980).

The plaintiff also alleges that the

Trial Court was guilty of numerous improp

-~rieties. We conclude that these sweeping

and unfocused accusations are without merit.

Accordingly, the order of the district

court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

END OF OPINION,

Denial of Rehearing, Dated Sept Term Oct 6,

1982.

Same Heading as in original Opinion

This matter comes on for consideration

of the Appellant's Motion for clarifica-

tion which will be construed as a motion to

recall the mandate. Upon consideration the-

reof,, the motion is denied.

HOWARD K. PHILLIPS, clerk.

GUMENTS AND_POINTING

THIS MANDATE_OF AUG,

REHEARING DATED OCT,

SPECIFIC APPLICABLE AR

OUT OF MAJOR ERRORS IN

17,1982, AND DENIAL OF

6, 1982,

This Mandate is replete with major er

-rors many of which would appear intention-

al. THUS:

(1): In Mr Lights letter that wil'be

reproduced in following pages along with

the ‘Settlement Agreement dated Sept 6,1979

that was supposed to have settled this ca

S€ both documents say a different thing

than was used in mandate. The word 'CONSID

ERED" does not mean the same thing as PROC

ESSED". And the sad part of this is that

Page 16

this was specifically called to the atten-

tion of the Tenth Circuit in the motion for

a Rehearing which was denied on Oct 6,1982.

Another instanceof intentional doctor-

ing the Mandate to make it seem reasonable

when in fact it is a monstorous farce are

the conclusions that Petitioner failed to

document the facts pleaded in his pleadings

In the record held by the Tenth Circu.

-it are many many articles by Syndicated-

Columnists, and even a reproduced Congres-

sional Record wherein these atrocities th

-at were pleaded as practiced against this

Petitioner are clearly discussed as being

common practices used by Defendants when -

ever any father of any illegitimate child

attempts to gain citizenship for his child.

Most such fathers or the children sim-

ply can not cope and are soon financially

exhausted and have to quit, which is the

obvious purpose of the lies, and farces as

used against these poor unfortunate people.

All this is fully documented in Affidavit

dated Jan 2, 1981 and reproduced in foll-

owing pages. Also Petitioner has made at

least 100 trips for extended periods into

many Oriental Countries where these cruel

harsh and unreasonable practices are con -

tinuing daily agains¢these illegitimate ki:

-ds as fathered by American Serice men &

he has witnessed the same practices as are

pleaded being used against many many oth-

ers. To grant immunities for such gross in

-tentional fraudulent practices will just

increase the frauds and lies currently be-

ing used as a policy all over the Orient.

SHO G T t

even the President of the U.S. had no such

absolute immunity as granted by this Court

In fact this error alone should he su-

fficient to reverse this entire farce.whi-

ch this case has been to this point.

Page (17).

(2): The Tenth Circuit also refused

to mention and discuss the fact that so

far the Petitioner has never even once be

-en allowed to attend any hearing or put

any input into this case, absolutely eve-

ry thing having been decided by Judges ,

defendants lawyers, and the lawyers in

the State and Justice Departments against

the interests of Petitioner. This kind of

gross misbehavior is many times more severe

than if a jury trial had been denied.

It is little wonder that the Tenth

Circuit chose not to publish this monstor-

-ous denial of all rights under the Cons-

titution plus the fact that all judges to

this point have flagrantly violated their

oaths of office. If true facts were pub-

lished every college of law and dean of a

department covering Constitutional Law wo-

uld be outraged over this blazen circumve

-nting all rights a citizen should have un-

der the U.S. Constitution.

(3): The failte of the Tenth Circuit to

rule on the major portion of the items as

listed in the Notice of Appeal, and as are

are also listed on pages, (7) to (9) in th

-is WRIT was a pure case of begging the is-

ue to make its Mandate seem reasonable 4&

just. Almost every issue directly affects

this Plaintiff-Petitioner and his children

as well as some 300,000 other poor help

-less illegitimates, and as observed are in

a most desperate need to be resolved,

In todays mail, Dec 4,1982 Petitioner

received a letter from Congressman McKinn-

ey who is a sponsor of new legislation that

will hopefully relieve some of these atro-

cities, and which has just passed into law

Congressman Mc Kinney remarked, “Maybe Am

erasians will be able to escape their cur-

rent cruel life style and come to the U.S.

and enjoy SPPOr Uns. G8 we believe they are

entitled to."

Page (18).

The Petitioner has carefully review-

ed the Bill in question which is now a law,

and it is very helpful; but it will relieve

only a small portion of the problem. What

is needed is a sweeping review of the Im -

migration and Nationality Act of 1952 with

an intent to put a stop to the atrocities,

as described in Congressman Mc Kinneys le-

tter, as well as by the many Syndicated Co

-lumnists and in a recent Congressional Re

-cord mentioned in this Writ. We need to

have judges take off their blinders and try

to corréct these attrocities, and not to,as

is imvolved in this case do all in their

power to make any correction of the farce

possible.

(4): Petitioner attempted to bring the

case as a ‘'Class-Action'; but may I ask how

QE FBTERNSWAS BRyB¥endSASELSnS Hs avace

he was treated as some low form of sqim at

all levels in this case just because he re-

fused to employ counsel?

Petitioner stood near top of his cla

-ss in;a very large and prestigious collge

of law and he has developed several oil-gas

fields, but never practiced law as a living.

Also, -if any registered attor ney ever tr-

ied tn get before the court the farce and

the trau@ apd lies involved in this case he

would ‘TaV@beon debaréd. The case to this po-

int, has been:

" About like an appendectomy performed by a

'skid*row' bumb who was just recovering fr

“Om a ten day drunk."

It is little wonder that so few have

any confidence in our legal system. You

are only given those constitutional rights

that judges, by whim, and not by law allow

you to have.

Few Dictators have achieved better th

-an judges in this case have in a complete

denial of all Constitutional Rights.

Page (19).

AFFIDAVIT, DATED JAN, 2,198) ;

IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW MEX, lst Dist

Charles A. Meeker,

Vs Civil NO: 79-559-M

Attorney General, U.S. State Dept, et al;

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT

Charles A. Meeker the Plaintiff-Affiant in caption

action deposes and swears that:

(1): The Manila Consulate

has just informed him that they are above the law

and are not subject to any orders or settlements

of any U.S. District Court, and would not honor

the settlement arrived in the above case last Sept

6,1979, other than to grant reluctantly that the

children of Charles A. Meeker are U.S. Citizens.

(2): Plaintiff has been required as a result

of the most barbaric behavior, and grossly irres-

ponsible conduct of said Consulate to make, over

past three years, six trips to the Philippines in

his attempt to get Citizenship for his four child-

ren, and the first five useless trips resulting in

this lawsuit which was resolved in his favor by

Settlement Agreement of Sept 6, 1979. And in do-

ing the above, Plaintiff has been required tc spen

nd a minimum of $20,000 over and above what he sh-

ould have spent had Consuls in said offices acted

within the law and not violated his Constitutional

Rights.

(3): It is a policy of said Consulate to har-

ass male citizens of the U.S., and this is being

done on a wholescale basis causing untold mental

anguish, expenses, and it seems to be done with a

sadistic glee and pleasure tha tmost of these U.S.

Citizens are currently U.S. Service Men or U.S.

Government employee- who happen to have fathered

illegitimate children. That Affiant has seen hun-

dreds treated with disdain, and irresponsible be-

havior and the policy as was done directly to Pla

-intiff over a three year period, is always to cr

-eate the greatest possible problem, impossible of

Page (20).

any reasonable solution to all males who apply to

legitimize their children.

(4): That as a result of this behavior thous

-ands of U.S. Citizen males have gotten special -

acts of Congress through our U.S. Congress to pre

-vent further harassment. Plaintiff has seen seve

-ral Special Acts with large numbers of males on

each Bill. In fact Plaintiff was told privately by

one Consular Officer of rank in said Manila Consu

-late that he should seek such a private bill as

so many hundreds of others have done.

(5): The manner that the above atrocious beh

-avior is practiced as a rule rather than the exc

-eption on U.S. Citizen males is to violate ,their

Constitutional Rights, by mininterpreting the U.S.

Statutes that are already are part of this case,

plus also doing the same as to several other U.S.

Statues. Thus:

(a): A female who happens to give birth to ;

an illegitimate child in a foreign land, and this

irrespective of who the father was is required on-

ly to swear that the child is hers to gain U.S.

Citizenship for the child. Men on the other hand

are required to submit to some of the most irresp

-onsible proof imagineable, and to a point where

it is virtually impossible to satisfy the absurd

demands made of all males who may have fathered a

child of this type whithout first bringing a Civil

Action such as Plaintiff did in captioned action.

(b): These absurd demands made against males

even though they have since legally married the

woman involved. As a result U.S. Citizens are of-

ten denied the right for these wives or their chil-

dren to enter the U.S. (Special Acts are often so-

ught. In other words no attempt whatever is made

to apply the statues equally, and there is the gro

-ssest of unequal protection of the law being ap-

plied against all U.S. Citizen Males who happen to

fall into the hands of the U.S. Consulate in Mani

-la, P.I.

(6); Service Men in particular have and are fa

thering untold thousands of children in the Phili-

pines and in other areas. These children are igno-

red and regardless of fact that as a matter of Law,

Page (21)

they are U.S. Citizens, are by aforsaid policies

left to starve or live a life of want and at lev-

els that most would not believe unless seen first

hand as has the Plaintiff. That even where a Ser-

vice man or other U.S. Citizen father acknowledges

the child as his, he and the childs rights are ig-

nored, and both are harassed to a point where the

man gives up & oftenabandonsthe child and moth-

er.

(7): Even in those cases where the man wish

-es to support his child and bring it to the U.S.

he is prevented from doing so until the child rea-

ches 21 years of age at which time the child can -

petition its mother if the child has been declared

0.0.8. Citizen. But to get the child in the U.S. be

-fore it is too late the man must bring a legal -

action as previously pleaded. Other wise the child

will be denied U.S. Citizenship even though so en-

titled.

(8): That reason and common sensein resolv -

ing matters discussed above are never resorted to,

but instead that it is invariably ruled that impo-

ssible conditions and demands be met by all U.S.

Male Citizens It would be reasonable to assume th-

at the intent is tog@ny Constitutional Rights by

these absurd demands and rulings.

(9): When Charles A. Meeker brought caption-

ed action, high ranking attorneys in the U.S. Sta-

te Department admitted that the statues named were

likely unconstitutional, but in their words ‘if

plaintiff continues this action and causes said

statues to be so ruled as unconstitutional, it wo-

uld open up a barrell of worms for them all over

the world, so as a result of this that they, Defen

-dants in this action would be willing to make a

very favorable settlement with the Plaintiff if he

would settle case rather than pursue it to conclu-

sion’ As a result. Plaintiff did settle case but

intentionally didso with recourse, for he does

not trust the State Department or for that fact

most other U.S. Government activities.

(10): That based on the settlement made with

him by defendants herein, Plaintiff bought and

Page (22);

furnished a $60,000.00 home for his children here

in Albuquerque, and paid mostly cash for this pro-

perty. Plaintiff now has this property and does not

not have a use for same because the Manila Consula

-te refuses to allow the mothers of his children to

have visas to come here and care for these childr

-en. He is almost 76 years of age and tak ing care

of these lovely little girls is an almost impossi-

ble task for him, This denial is a violation of the

Settlement Agreement, (See letter dated Dec 20,1979

from Attormey Elliot Light of the State Department

and which is a part of this case). That he has

been told that they did not have to follow any co-

urt order or settlement and that the only possible

relief plaintiff could get would be a special act -—

of Congress that would permit said mothers to ent-

er the U.S. on a Non-Quota basis. This he is now

attempting to do. During the meantime taking care

of these U.S. Citizen children is almost. beyond

the mental and physical capacity of the plaintiff.

(11): That Charles A. Meeker,the Plaintiff

gives notice that if scamething is not soon resolv-

ed so that the Setclement Agreement of Sept 6,1979

is made practical that he will re-open this case

and take it as far as is needed to try and prevent

the atrocious behavior of Government Officers

and employees as practiced so widely in Manila Co-

sular Offices. The Plaintiff is old and has no

desire or the physical or mental energy to fight

this cause Over a several years basis. All he as-

ks is some re solvment.

(12): That Plaintiff intentionally fathered

children involved because his only son refused to

have children, and as a result he took advantage

of the awful poverty that is so current in the Ph-

illippines to get fine young women to cooperate

with him in achieving his plan. He has spent large

sums educating these women and taking care of his

children whom he loves very much He wishes to pro-

perly care for these children. This is made almost

impossible due to the Manila Consulates belief th-

at it is not required to follow the Settlement Ag-

reement that was reached by Plaintiff with the U.S.

Page (23).

Attorney General, and the U.S. State Department

and which was outlined in letter dated Dec 20,1979

a copy of which is attached hereto.

(13): That patienceof Plaintiff is running

thin and he is thoroughly disgusted and in particu

-ular as the result of the trip, (sixth one) he has

just concluded to the P.I. There he met the usual

harrassment and indifference. They delayed twenty

two days in just granting his children U.S. Citiz-

enship. Then they denanded that he pay $30.00 for

cost of telegrams to U.S. Attorney Generals Office

to correct some of their own stupid indifferent

conduct and behavior before he was allowed anythi-

(14): The policy is to exhaust a person finan

cially and if this is not accomplished then to de-

lay action as was just done to plaintiff until his

time allowance has expired and he has to return to

America without accomplishing what he needed to do.

It is believed by Plaintiff that , large exempliary

damages should be assessed against the U.S. Govern

-ment for permitting such gross misbehavior to con-

tinue, and that it is his intention to seek such

damages if he is forced to re-open this case.

ChARLES A. MEEKER, PLAINTIFF-

END OF PLAINTIFFS AFFIDAVIT

SPECIAL COMMENT ON ABOVE AFFIDAVIT:

Repeatedly reference was made at trial level,

& Tenth Circuit that Petitioner did not furnish

any proof for his allegations. This Affidavit along

with the many articles by Syndicated Writers, &

TV commentaries should be enough to establish his

right to bring this lawsuit.

The real problem is that judges wished to pro

-tect Defeidants irrespective of their gross ille

~gal behavior, and also to punish Petitioner beca

-use he dared appear Pro-Se and thus deny some law

-yer a fee irrespective of his qualifications to

prosecute this suit.

Had he hired a lawyer, irrespective of his

capability the case would likely have been tried,

Page (24).

-o—->

If for no other reasons this cause should be-

tried before a jury as to the meaning of Mr.

Lights letter that appears next and in particular

since both that letter and the stipulation agreem-

so that follows after Light letter differs. mat -

lly from the Tenth Cir's Opinion appearing on

pages, 10 to 16 of this Writ. Also since Defend -

dants failed to cary out one single part of their

agreement in said Stipulation, and then had the

nerve to charge Petitioner $30 to find out what the

stipulation in fact required, that needless brazen-

ly demand of money should have been put before a

jury for resolvment. Another highly important fac-

tual issue that should have been determined, not by

a judge asws resolved sunmarialy by judges is the

expenses Petitioner was put through in Manila when

he made the sixth useless trip there and was kept

waiting for three weeks at his expense so the Def-

endants could find out facts contained in Light

letter and the contents of Stipulation Agreement

all of which Defendants by Stipulation agreed to

send to Manila Consulate.

When the Constitution was adopted those who

wrote same did not trust judges, and provided limi

-tations as to their powers. In this case all con-

stitutional rights have been denied, and this vio-

lation of the judges oath have been ne 4ly covered

up by adopting false facts as outlined, and then

failure to make a note of this brazen fraud by

not recording it in Opinion’ and then make the Opio

ion the type not to be published.

The contents of the Light Letter of Dec 20,,

1979 was, (note date differences in Stipulation &

Light letter) negotiated by many many telephone

calls between Petitioner and Mr Light. Petitioner

refused to go to Manila until he got that letter,

for he, from three years experience was well aware

of the frauds and lies Defendants representatives

practiced as a rule instead of the exception. He

in fact demanded wording relating to visa sO @mnven

ientlychanged by Opinion of Tenth Cir, that does

not have the _Temotest nearness to what Opinion cla

-ims

Page NO: (25).

ELLIOT LIGHT LETTER

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Washington, D.C.

December 20, 1979.

Charles A. Meeker,

246-B Manuel de la Fuente St.

Sampaloc, Manila,

Republic of the Philippines

Dear Mr Meeker:

The Department of State has thoroughly review-

ed the applications for registration as citizens

which were submitted on behalf of your four child-

ren and has decided that you have complied with

Section 309 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act of 1952. The Embassy in Manila has been notifi

-ed of this and will register your children as ci-

tizens.

The Embassy has also been requested, per agre

Civil 79-555-M of

The U.S. District

of N.M.

-ement, €6 promptly process any Visa applications

Cc 7g s on fe) mothers

Of the children or their sérvants.

Sincerely,

William B. Wharton, Director,

Office of Citizenship,

Nationality and Legal Assistance

BY: Elliott B. Light,

Attorney Advisor

cc: Ms. Mary C, Narrido, ‘Signed by Mr Light.)

Charles A. Meeker, (Albuquerque)

Note: Your Passport NO. A 668031 issued on May 4,

1970 at Los Angeles is returned hearwith.

NOTE: IMPORTANT PARTS UNDERLI -NED)

Page NO: (26).

STIPULATION AGREEMENT OF SEPT 6.1979;

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF UNITED STATES,

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO,

Charles A. Meeker, Plaintiff,

Vs

Attorney General of of the

United States; Deptartment Civil Ws

of State; and United States 79=5559-M

Attorney for the District

of New Mexico,

Defendants.

STIPULATION

Comes now the plaintiff, Charles A. Meeker,Pro

Se, and the Defendants herein by R.E. Thompson,

United States Attorney for the District of New Mex.

and Charles F. Sandoval, Assistant United States

Attorney for the said district and hereby stipulate

and agree as follows:

(1): That Plaintiff is the Natural Father of

Ada Marie Meeker, Minnie Constance Meeker, Cynthia

Anne Meeker, and Catherine Mellonie Meeker, all of

whom are current residents of the Philippine Isl-

ands.

(2): That plaintiff for personal reasons int-

entionally fathered the aformentioned children,

(3): That plaintiff has in the past adequate

ly provided for the maintenance and support of said

children and that inorder to provide for their fur

-ther maintenance and support has inter alia creat

-ed a trust for their benefit.

(4): That plaintiff appiied for passports for

said children which applicatior caused the State

Department to perform a detailed investigation

with regards to their paternity.

(5): That the State Department denied said

application for rts based on the mistaken be-

lief that said children were not united States Ci-

tizens as a matter of law,

Page NO: (27).

(6): That the said children are in fact United

States Citizens as a matter of law.

(7): That the State Department will prepare a

letter to the plaintiff which states that the said

children are United States Citizens and that pass

ports should be issued upon the submission by the

plaintiff of proper photographs of the children,

The letter will further request that if visa appli-

cations are made on behalf of the mothers of said

children said applications be promptly processed.

The letter further request that if visa applicati-

ons are made for two servants said applications be

promptly processed. Said visa applications are

processed at the discretion of the United States

Embassy in the Philippine Islands and it is empha-

sized that with regard to their processing said

requests will be given whatever weight the Bnbassy

Officials determine it should be given. Additionly

it should be emphasized that no representations

are made with regard to whether the visa applicati

-ons of said mothers and servants will be granted

or denied.

(8): Copies of said letter will be sent to the

following:

(1): United States Embassy, Philippine Islands;

(2): Mary C. Narrido, 246-B M de la Fuente Street

Sampaloc District of Greater Manila, Philipp-

ine Islands.

(3): The United States Attorney.

(9): That passports will be issued to said children

(10): That the petition herein is to be dismissed

without prejudice,

September 6,1979.

Charles A. Meeker, Pro-Se,

246-B M de la Fuente Street

Sampaloc, Manila Philippines

R.E. Thompson, United States Attorney,

Charles F. Sandoval, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

PO Box 607, Albuquerque, N.M. (87103) (

Telephone NO: 505-766-3341.

Page NO: (28).

NOTES ON; ‘STIPULATION AGREEMENT”:

Petitioner refused to sign stipulation of Sept

6,1979 and did so only after being assured by Mr

Light on telephone that the State Department would

at least see that mothers got visas. At least (25)

such calls were made. Also contents of the Light

Letter of December 20, was agreed to exactly as it

is shown above. The Tenth Circuit had no right to

alter their Opinion to contain false facts as it did.

IN THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR STATE OF NM, ALBUQUERQUE

Charles A. Meeker Pro-Se, Plaintiff;

Vs

Attorney General of the U.S.

United States State Dept, pr NO: 79-

U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque, NM. feta!

Mar 12, 1982.

AMMENDED COMPLAINT DATED MAR 12,1982.

(1): That Plaintiff asks this Court to take

judicial notice of all papers that have been prev-

iously filed in this Civil Action, and in particu-

lar the Affidavits and Law Briefs that are part of

this Civil Action. These papers are adopted in this

Amended Complaint as though written out in full

and made part of this Complaint now submitted.

(2): This Complaint has a two fold purpose in

that Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment declar

-ing the Inmigration and Nationality Act of 1952

unconstitutional, and further that the Plaintiff

seeks monitary damages against the U.S. State and

Justice Departments for their wilful and pre-medi-

tated misconduct practiced over a several year per

-iod against this plaintiff, including exempliary

Damages. More details will be pleaded in subsequent

paragraphs.

(3): That this Plaintiff-Petitioner is 77 yea

-rs of age, a Citizen of the United States, and the

State of New Mexico, That this Court has jurisdic-

Page NO: 29).

tion of all matters involved. That this cause in-

volves an actual controversy between this petitioer,

and the Defendants named above, and the United Sta-

tes Government relating to the Constitutionality

of the Inmigration and Nationality Act of 1952, &

in addition substantial damages that were caused

Petioner-Plaintiff by wilful, intentional, miscon-

duct of the grossest type of misbehavior as pract-

iced in particular by the representatives of the

Department of State in the Consulate in Manila, PI.

(4): That there is no other action pending or

contemplated by parties who are here involved and

that issues here involve more than just a difference

of opinion. That this petitioner is adversely aff-

ected by rulings of the Defendants, as are litter-

ally tens of thousands of other US Citizens all

over the world, and need for resolvment of issues

is acute World-Wide.

(5): That the Inmigration ang Nationality Act

of 1852, as interpreted and applied on a World-Wide

basis, fails to give Due Process of Law, and/or

equal protection of the law, and is therefore not

Constitutional because Defendants by its use have

turned the rights of foreign born US Citizens into

an unachievable status by practicing the following

gross US Constitutional violations by whim and not

by law and all by the grossest of violations against

said parties and in particular illegitimate child-

ren born to foreign mothers and US Service Men fa-

thers. As a result of this gross misbehavior of

Defendants the US Government has been criticized,

not only in the Congressional Record, but as well

as in many articles appearing in widely published

condemnations. (See Exhibit One attached to and

made a part of this Complaint). In particular is

this act not constit:.tional because of rulings by

Defendants in enormous numbers of cases, that folow

dictates similar or like the following twelve cla-

sses of gross constitutional violations:

(1): Second Class Citizenship has been created

for these unfortunate foreign born children, when

the constitution declares that there is only one

class of US Citizenship.

Page NO: (30).

(2): Policies are followed that make it almost

impossible for any person to ever fulfill the absu-

rd demands and rules made by the Defendants that

permit achieving Citizenship, regardless of the

fact that most such parties, if laws were fairly &

justly applied should be granted such US Citizen -

ship. As a result there are many many thousands of

these 'Second-Class U.S. Citizens living around all

military base all over the world. (See Exhibit One

(Affidavit of Plaintiff printed above).

(3): That when Defendants can not find a pro-

vision that they can warp the interpretation of, to

refuse citizenship to those entitled to same, they

will create a regulation that will prevent such

US Citizen minor children to have and to enjoy the

privilege their mothers into the US. In other words

these small children, by whim and the most sadistic

behavior are forced to choose between their mothrs

and the right to live in the United States.

(4): Defendants follow a practice of present-

ing to all applicants for US Citizenship impossible

requirements that they can not meet, and Defendants

keep doing this until applicants are financially

exhausted and go away without ever being given the

Citizenship that they are entitled to easily and

within reason be granted. That to gain such Citizen

~ship one must bring a Federal Law-Suit and that

Plaintiff was advised after a three year effort that

the only way to achieve would be to do this. That

to follow this practice and others mentioned is

cruel and inhuman treatment applied World-Wide to

tens of thousands of helpless parties entitled to,

but who by whim are denied US Citizenship.

(5): Defendants refuse to follow the US Cons-

titution which provides that any person is entitled

to US Citizenship need to have only one parent

that is a US Citizen. Defendants by whim completely

ignore this basic constitutional right and inject

all sorts of absurd demands not required, such as

living in the US for long periods of time and/or

not living in a foreign land, all of which are the

grossest type of US Constitutional violations,

Page NO: (31.)

practiced World-Wide against thousands of applica-

nts who come to our US Consulates daily in an att-

empt to get that which they deserve yet are daily

denied by fraud and deceit bu Defendants.

(6): Defendants apply a different set of rules

when determining the rights to be granted US Citi-

zenship and a US Passport, when a female US Citi-

zen applies for for same for her illegitimate chil-

dren, as compared to rules applied to a US Male

US Citizen who seeks similar relief all in direct

violation of Constitutional Rights of both the fa-

thers who apply and their illegitimate children.

(7): That the policy followed World-Wide by

all Embassies, of making these 'Second-Class US

Citizens' or their fathers bring a Federal Law-Suit

to gain US Citizenship for his illegitimate child-

ren is cruel and inhuman treatment as well as in

violation of the right to Due Process under the

law, along with fair and equal treatment under the

Due Process, and misconduct of the Defendants.

(8): The granting of a child over twenty One

a right to petition its mother and to not grant

the same privilege to children under twenty one is

cruel and inhuman treatment under our law as well

as the grossest of Constitutional violations.

(9): Defendants making distinctions between

types of US Citizens by whim and in thus creating

these many thousands of substandard US Citizens are

in direct violation of all basis laws of fairmess

and reason as well as our Constitution.

(10). That the common practice of Defendants

of creating standards and rules making it impossi-

ble for any person to comply with such absurd de-

mands violates all reason and common sense and that

these practices are in the grossest way in need of

resolvment. ((See Affidavit pages (20 to 24 this

Writ) )

(11): Defendants use State Laws in determiing

Legitimacy and illegitimacy, and in determning whe

-ther or not a child is entitled to US Citizenship,

all in direct violation of the Constitution which

declares that the right of US Citizenship is a

Page ( 32).

National and not a State controlled right.

(12): That it is the grossest of misbehavior

and denial of Constitutional Rights for Defendants

to create terms and conditions and an impossible

morass Of confusion, thus allowing them to rule by

whim and not by fair and just resolvment of the

fate of these poor illegitimate children that the

US Government owes a duty to for protection again-

st the grossest of bureaucracy by practices outlin

-ed above.

VI

That Defendants representatives lied to plain

tiff, intentionally misled him covering a period of

over three years, and by these gross misrepresenta-

tions caused plaintiff to make five useless trips

to the Philippines and caused him to spend a mini-

mum Of $20,000 in his attempt to gain legitimacy

for his four small daughters. That during this lo-

ng period of time Plaintiff witnessed many other

men going through the same experiences. The obvi-

ous purpose seems to keep leading applicants for

Citizenship for their illegitimate children on and

on until they give up and go away without achieving

such citizenship for they are financially exhausted

by the disgraceful,wilful, and malicious conduct

towards them of Consular Officials. In other words

Defendants keep asking for more and more impossible

demands until it is absolutely impossible to meet

such absurdities.

VII.

Plaintiff was advised after about three years

of effort to gain citizenship for his children that

if he left New Mexico, and became a Citizen of Calif,

that he would be able to achieve this; but by that

time 'Plaintiff had had it’ with the Manila Consu-

lar officials, and no longer believed what they

said, He was further advised by one of these offi-

cials that if he brought a Civil Law Suit in Feder

-al Court that he would quickly gain this Citizen-

ship for that Defendants did not want the Inmmigra-

tion Act of 1952 tested as to: its Constitutionality,

for most officials feared that it could never meet

the test of Constituionality. Plaintiff then ret-

urmed home after making five useless trips to Manila

and filed captioned lawsuit (Civil 79-559-M in the

Federal Courts here in Albuqueryue, New Mexico. And

just as predicted within a very short period Defen-

dants contacted Plaintiff and offered to grant US

Citizenship as a matter of law to plaintiffs four

illegitimate children. This was done by ‘Stipulation

Agreement' in which Defendants agreed in writing to

do numerous important things, all of which they

failed to do except to grant as a matter of law

US Citizenship to the four children mentioned. (See

Affidavit pages 20 to 24 this Writ)

VIII

Among the things agreed to was the issuance of a

letter in which Plaintiff was advised that they had

made an error in not granting the Citizenship dur-

ing the long three years of effort described above,

and that they would allow the mothers of these ch-

ildren to come over to the US to care for the chil-

dren to care for the children. After waiting a

full year Plaintiff made his sixth useless trip to

Manila, and to his dismay discovered that the Def-

endants had not done one single thing they had by

Court-Stipulation agreed to do, and that Manila

Consulate started the same malicious run-around

that plaintiff had gone through for the three ye-

ars mentioned. They even charged Plaintiff $30 to

pay for a telegram to verify that the citizenship

had been granted to his four daughters. Plaintiff

expended over $2,000 in making this sixth useless

trip.

. IX.

Plaintiff immediately returned to Albuquerque

and filed captioned lawsuit. The Judge gave an op-

inion denying damages and also refused to make a

ruling as to the Constituionality of the Inmigra-

tionon and Nationality Act of 1952. That ruling

was appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,

and the Appeals Court refused to rule on the two

issues involved here (Damages du Plaintiff; and

wnether the Inmigration and Nationality Act of 1952)

Page (34).

was Constitutional. On March 8, 1982 Tenth Cir.

gave as a ruling that they would not act on case

because the Albuquerque Court had not acted on two

motions and dated July 22, and 27, 1981. Incident-

aliy the plaintiff had twice attempted to get the

Cle:.k of, and the Judge of the Court Below to make

these essential rulings. Just as they always did,

both refused to cooperate in the matter thus caus.

-ing this useless expense and second appeal. Since

plaintiff was limited in time, to file his Notice of

Appeal, he went ahead and filed same just a few

days before expiration of time limit.

(X) :

As of March 12,1982 plaintiff has en

-tered a new motion which is attached to

this proposed new Amended Complaint, in

which Plaintiff again asks the judge to ru

-le on the the two motions mentioned as

well as the third motion that accompanies

this proposed Amended Complaint and then

get along with a SrdAad ChrdsSHstioke thOS:

ryda A&r bin ag tRat Plaintiff can file moth

-er Notice of Appeal and get the Tenth Cir

-cuit Appeals Court to make its final rul-

ing with proper jurisdiction which it did

not previously have because of the failure

of the Court Below to make its rulings even

though requested two times by plaintiff

to do so.

RELIEF PRAYED FOR:

That the Immigration & Nationality Act

be declared unconstitutional because of the

twelve reasons as outlined in paragraph five.

of this complaint.

That Plaintiff be reimbursed the $25,000 for

actual expenses made by him in making six

useless trips to Manila that he was forced

to make by the wilful, sadistic, miserable

conduct of Defendant's representatives. That

in addition that Plaintiff be awared $500,

000. Exempliary damages against the Defen-

dants. There is a most urgent need to teach

Page NO: (35).

°

» ¥"

the Defendants a lesson to prevent the gro

-ss misbehavior against US Citizens and

which they practice World-Wide on a whole-

scale basis.

Charles A. Meeker,

A TRIAL BY JURY 2605 Virginia St.,N.E.,

IS REQUESTED. Albuquerque, N.M. (87110)

It is certified that a copy of this Compla-

int, the Motion attached plus a copy of Ex-

hibit A, was hand delivered to Defendants

Attorney, and to Judge Mechem's office, on

March 12, 1982, just four days after the

Tenth Circuit made its ruling.

Charles A. Meeker.

END OF AMENDED COMPLAINT.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

SS: State of New Mexico, DATED,

County of Bernalillo: December 6,1982.

Mr Charles A, Meeker. known to me to

be the party signing below. :deposes and Swe

ars that he will mai) opposing coung;

The United States istrict ne eainey or New

Mexico, and both defendants in Washington,

N.c. and in addition to,

SOLICITOR GENERAL,DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. (20530)

three,(3) copies to each of the four parties

named above, ON:

December 10 1982,

(Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court

VrFICIAK Sehar lés_A,, Meeker >

Pall. ~ {7 ,

NOTARY PULL © "e whe co Bid a Notary,

Notury oor d:, sPage NOv OB G:dee THE END,

Sy Commisstun Expires ._) Ny ehes as