Eastern District of Virginia – Page 4

Plaintiffs argue the 2015 Guidelines violate the APA, due process of birth parents and children, equal protection of birth parents and children, the 10th amendment, and manage a quick sideswipe at ICWA itself on page 38 (exceeds Congress’s authority under the Indian Commerce Clause).

Fake Indian Habeas Challenge to State Conviction Fails

March 21, 2015March 19, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Metaphyzic El-Ectroraagnetic Supreme-El v. Director, Dept. of Corrections (E.D. Va.):

27 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Additionally, in Claims 8 and 9, Supreme–El argues that the Virginia courts violated “Article 39 of Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” because “Moorish nationals operate through a fee simple absolute estate lien,” (§ 2254 Pet. 11–D), and violated the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” because “officers hindered Petitioner in his official duties” and “deprived the Petitioner of his nationality,” through an arbitrary arrest and detention (id. at 11–E). Supreme–El fails to demonstrate that the “Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” entitle him to federal habeas relief. See Bey v. Ohio, No. 1:11–CV–01048, 2011 WL 4007719, at *2 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 9, 2011)(explaining that the “ ‘Universal Declaration of Humans Rights’ “ … and “ ‘Rights of Indigenous Peoples 1994’ … are not recognized by United States courts as legally binding”).

Washington Football Team Argues Lanham Act/TTAB Decision Violates First and Fifth Amendments

February 24, 2015February 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opening brief in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

53 DCT Order on Briefing Schedule

56 Pro-Football Motion for Summary J on Constitutional Claims

According to the briefing schedules, briefs are going to be flying fast and furious. We’ll try to keep up.

Prior materials on the federal government intervention here, and the now-denied motion to dismiss here.

Western Sky-Related Debt Collector Successfully Compels Arbitration in Virginia Case

January 22, 2015January 22, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp. (E.D. Va.):

An excerpt:

This matter cornes before the Court on the defendant’s motion [2] to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. (Dk. No. 30.) The plaintiffs, borrowers from internet payday lender Western Sky Financial, LLC, brought this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Delbert Services Corporation, a third-party debt collecter. The plaintiffs allege Delbert violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) in the course of its collection efforts. Delbert moves to dismiss based on the Loan Agreements’ forum-selection clause or on the basis of the tribal exhaustion doctrine. Alternatively, Delbert moves to compel arbitration.

The forum-selection clause does not reach third-party debt collectors such as Delbert, and the doctrine of tribal exhaustion does not apply under the facts of this case. The language of the arbitration agreement, however, covers disputes with third-party debt collectors.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration under the terms of the Loan Agreement and DISMISSES the claim without prejudice.

US Intervenes in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc. (Washington Football Team Trademark)

January 12, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new materials in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

41 Answer

46 US Notice of Intervention

Prior materials here.

Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Washington Football Team’s Suit against the Blackhorse Plaintiffs

December 1, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

1 Complaint + Exhibits

19 Motion to Dismiss

25 Opposition

27 Rebuttal Brief

40 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Blackhorse Plaintiffs Move to Dismiss Washington Football Team’s Suit

November 21, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the motion to dismiss in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

19 Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

In June 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), a component of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), decided that the USPTO acted contrary to federal trademark law when it issued six trademark registrations to Plaintiff Pro-Football, Inc. (“PFI”), the owner of the Washington NFL team. The TTAB concluded that the marks were not eligible for registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1502(a) because they contain matter that “may disparage” Native Americans.1 Accordingly, the TTAB scheduled the registrations for cancellation by the Director of the USPTO. The TTAB acted after five Native American individuals, the defendants in this action (“Blackhorse Defendants”), petitioned it to cancel the registrations.

PFI could have appealed to the Federal Circuit, where the USPTO could have defended the TTAB decision, but PFI declined to do so. See 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a). Instead, PFI filed this civil action against the Blackhorse Defendants, under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4).

PFI’s dispute, however, is with the USPTO, not with the Blackhorse Defendants. PFI alleges that the TTAB — not the Blackhorse Defendants — acted unlawfully by scheduling its registrations for cancellation. Likewise, PFI seeks relief only against the USPTO — a declaratory judgment to prevent the Director of the USPTO from carrying out the cancellations. PFI alleges no conduct on the part of the Blackhorse Defendants other than filing a petition with the TTAB. It does not allege that they acted unlawfully or tortiously. Nor does PFI allege that the Blackhorse Defendants claim any interest in PFI’s trademarks or in similar trademarks. This lawsuit will not affect the legal rights or obligations of the Blackhorse Defendants in any way. As a result, the Complaint should be dismissed for the following two reasons:

• The Blackhorse Defendants are not “parties in interest” who may be sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4); and

• This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no “Case or Controversy” under Article III of the Constitution as between PFI and the Blackhorse Defendants.

The complaint is here.

Washington Football Team’s Complaint

August 15, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

1 Complaint + Exhibits