Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

,.,,, Zim. ..s-.-...._..... ..................._._ ..,.........._.._. .........._..;w_.w,.,........._-......a,_._...-_-...1,;_;__,___h_I _
Case 3:03-cv-00609-SRU Document 87 Filed 12/13/2004 Page 1 of 3 I
W UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F E D
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
[2: nu ~
ROBERT L. BROCKWAY, JR. : mu BEE \ 3 p I
. . » ict cuujti
Plaintiff 2 gégiihirt. Gilt-tt J
V.
YALE UNIVERSITY; JEROME N. FRANK : CIVIL ACTION NO.
LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION OF 3:03cv00609(SRU)
YALE LAW SCHOOL; RICHARD C. LEVIN, :
President of the University, Official Capacity, I
ROBERT A. SOLOMON, Director of JEROME N. 1
FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
OF YALE LAW SCHOOL, I/O; ANTHONY T. 1 t
KRONMAN, Dean of Yale Law School, I/O;
CARROLL LEE LUCHT, Law Professor, :
and Attorney at Law, I/O; STEPHEN WIZNER,
Law Professor, and Attorney at Law, I/0. : DECEMBER 9, 2004
MOTION TO MOVE THIS MATTER TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I I
(This matter also involves Brockway v Connecticut Department of Mental Health, I
et al, No: 3:95cv9S6(JBA) USDC; 99—90l8, USCAZC; and 00-5269, USSC.)
Based upon the May 17, 2004, Supreme Court ofthe United States ruling in
I Tennessee v. Lane, No. 02-1667, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 2004 WL 1085482 I respectfully I
request that this matter be moved to the honorable Supreme Court ofthe United States of
America.
Should any time limitations be waived in this matter? This due to my
documented disability, and how this disability has interfered with my efforts, as a pro se
plaintiff? Now that I have successfully informed the Court, of the documented evidence I
of attorney malpractice should I be compensated for my labor, and expenses? ,
i



l
Case 3:03-cv-00609-SRU Document 87 Filed 12/13/2004 Page 2 of 3 {
`
1
MEMOQANDUM OF LAWS N
On May 17, 2004, the Supreme Court ofthe United States ruled in Tennessee v. I
Lane, No. 02—1667, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 2004 WL 1085482, the Congress validly exercised i
its power under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate states’ sovereign immunity in
suits brought under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act involving access to
courts. While the Court limited its holding to cases involving access to courts, its i
expansive analysis documents the history of state-sponsored discrimination against J
people with disabilities in many different areas and contains broad statements about the
careii1l tailoring of Title II’s requirements generally.
The Court held that Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate
sovereign immunity in ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12202, and that Congress’s Section 5 power
includes "the authority both to remedy and deter violation of Fourteenth Amendment
rights. . ." which includes the right of access tothe courts. The Court’s analysis focused
on the history of unconstitutional discrimination against people with disabilities, which
includes voting, education, institutionalization, marriage, family rights, etc. All of which
could be remedied when constitutionally protected, coun: access is straight forward, and
equitable for all disabled Americans.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Q
. /
‘`"` .‘ ~ E
Ro ert L. Bro 4 i’ r. ’ _
28 Boston Terrace
Guilford, CT 06437
(203) 214-0202 1

l
Case 3:03-cv-00609-SRU Document 87 Filed 12/13/2004 Page 3 of 3 {
I RE: BROCKWAY V. CT DEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH USDC, NEW HAVEN
3:95CV986(.lBA); BROCKWAY V. YALE UNIVERSITY, ET AL USCOA2C.99-
9018; USSC 00-5269 AND USDC, BRIDGEPORT 3:03CV00609(SRU).
CERTIFICATION
It is certiiied that on this date December 9, 2004 the foregoing was mailed postage 1
prepaid to the following: OFFICE OF THE CLERK, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001; to GEORGE
W. BUSH, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC
20500; to the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND i I
CIRCUIT, Foley Square, New York, NY 10007; to the HonorabIe]é'EFAN R. A
UNDERHILL, U.S.D.J. United States District Court, District of Connecticut, 915 I
LaFayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT 06604; to the Honorable JANET BOND
ARTERTON, U.S.D.J., United States District Court, District of Connecticut, 141
Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510; to JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, United States
Senator, State of Connecticut, I Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06106; to JOHN
c G. ROWLAND, Governor, State of Connecticut, Room 200, State Capitol,
Hartford, CT 06106; to M. JODI RELL, Governor, State of Connecticut, Room
200, State Capitol, Hartford, CT 06106; to RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Attorney
General, State of Connecticut, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106, MAITE 1
BARAINCA, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, P.O. Box 230,
Hartford, CT 06141-012 ; and served in person to the law office of PATRICK M.
NOONAN and BROCK T. DUBIN of DELANEY, ZEMETIS, DONAHUE,
DURHAM & NOONAN, P.C., Concept Park—Suite 306, 741 Boston Post Road,
Guilford, CT 06437. y