(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of

the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a
violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C.
794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et
seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the
provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by
recipients of Federal financial assistance.
(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in
paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity)
are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies
are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private
entity other than a State.

That last clause of (a)(1), "the provisions of any other Federal statute
prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance"
means that ALL of the state court systems, and their "programs and
activities" which are all at least partially funded by federal
funding automatically waives all immunity for the 50 States and
Commonwealths. In other words, because the family courts are at least
partially federally funded, any discrimination by family courts (i.e.,
gender discrimination, class discrimination, racial discrimination, etc.)
automatically waives all so-called immunity in a suit against them within
federal court, and (a)(2) expressly then also provides for full availability
of ALL remedies "both at law and in equity" against the States and
Commonwealths, just exactly the same as are available against any
other public or private entity... There is no immunity defense even
available, whatsoever. We're not suing individual state actors, like
individual judges. We are just directly suing States and
Commonwealths, and they have no immunity in this case, period, per
the above.

Class numerosity threshold is also already far beyond any question or

dispute. In the "old" days, like 15+ years ago, it took only 40
persons/entities, already as named plaintiffs listed, to be considered and
qualified/certified as the "Class" for purposes of a class action, whether
or not those plaintiffs were *also* suing on behalf of all similarly
situated persons/entities. In more recent years, the federal courts
generally look for at least 100 persons/entities, already as named
plaintiffs listed in the case, for those same purposes/threshold, whether
or not those plaintiffs were *also* suing on behalf of all similarly
situated persons/entities. Within our class action lawsuit, the primary
named plaintiff listed, CAPRA, is already a duly recognized legal
association of 51,764 natural persons directly victimized, AND is also
suing on behalf of all other similarly situated persons out there, i.e., the
several millions of other biological parents being victimized currently or
within the last four years (i.e., within the relevant statute of limitations).
In other words, even IF the federal court falsely ignored all of those
other millions out there (who are most certainly equal class plaintiffs),
we still will already have something on the order of 500X that current
"100-ish" number of lead plaintiffs already in the suit as what it
currently takes in federal courts to be certified as a Class, i.e., its
*already* a Class, already in and of itself, and overwhelmingly so,
even before the federal court considers all of the other proposed millions
of putative class plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction is another topic that shouldn't even be questioned,

truthfully, as it is also so straightforward and easy, that again, it's not
even remotely a concern. The federal Constitution provides direct
jurisdiction, 42 USC 1983 provides us direct and express statutory
jurisdiction, the False Claims Act also provides direct and express
statutory jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction is expressly and
routinely provided by 28 USC 1331, etc., etc., etc., and in fact, there are
a variety of other federal statutes to use, a variety of federal case laws
to use, and so forth and so on. It's not whether there is jurisdiction, it's
only a question of just how many of the widely available jurisdictional
routes do we wish to incorporate (and spend our time writing the
language for within the lawsuit's Complaint). Jurisdiction is not even
remotely any concern, whatsoever, other than just deciding which
several of the many available routes/devices are used.

Legal standing is likewise absolutely no issue. Pretty close to the very

same thing as jurisdiction, they are often tied directly together. Again,
there are several available routes, under the different "types" of legal
devices, i.e., Constitution, federal statutes, federal case law, etc. The
United States Supreme Court has even itself provided direct and express
legal standing for all Members of CAPRA (the parents, like you, who
joined the class action suit directly via the website registration form), to-
wit: "Parents have a fundamental right to the custody of their
children, and the deprivation of that right effects a cognizable injury.
See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397,
71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)." Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68-69, 147 L.
Ed. 2d 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000). In other words, the SCOTUS has
already expressly provided our direct legal standing (and direct
jurisdiction) to be in federal court to sue over these exact,
same unlawful deprivations of fundamental parental rights, and that is
also *in addition* to all of the many other available routes/devices in
legal standing, so as long as the CAPRA Association has established its
identified leadership coverage over all 50 States and Commonwealths,
then all aspects of legal standing are covered.
 Please visit our Arguments page to review exampled descriptions
behind some of the various constitutional and other legal arguments that
will be used in this class action.

Despite being a large and clearly important federal class action lawsuit,
the actual number of hammering constitutional arguments (counts or
claims) will be kept tight, limited and focused, in order to keep things
fairly clear, simple, straightforward and, most importantly, pretty quick
and easy to understand by any average American.

The fourteen (14) "National" communications army leaders will be the

actual CAPRA signatories upon the lawsuit, together, on behalf of CAPRA,
as the duly appointed top officers of CAPRA (as 14 equal Co-Presidents
of CAPRA, in addition to dividing up other Association officer roles
between them, i.e., one of those 14 will also be the official Secretary of
CAPRA, another one will be the official Treasurer of CAPRA, and etc.).

Finally, many people, and even some lawyers, mistakenly think

that all whistleblower actions must be filed "under seal" (like a case with
a gag order). However, that is not true for all whistleblower cases. Only
when there is secret or hidden or other sensitive material involved is
there also then the additional "under seal" requirements, and the point
is to allow federal investigators to do criminal surveillance and so forth
to bolster their companion criminal charges, and that sort of thing, to
keep new investigations under wraps for the first little while. Here,
when simply arranging all of the "in plain sight" facts about everyday
fraud and corruption and obvious fundamental violations of
constitutional rights, due process, etc., within the various counts of a
complaint, and there is nothing secret or hidden about anything
regarding the family court systems or their related federal funding
schemes, there is also then no actual legal requirement for being a
sealed case, as everything is already public domain, already in plain
sight.

Money/Costs/Expenses/Rewards

The actual named Defendants include each and every State and
Commonwealth (each Governor and each Attorney General to be served
separate process by email through the Office of the President or the Office
of Attorney general) to answer for their wayward state family court
systems, along with the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, served separately
and together because Congress are by strict federal laws the real
defendants in answer for the constitutionality or not of their Acts (laws
passed and enacted), and we are directly challenging the (un-)
constitutionality of various federal funding programs which all fall under
the Social Security Act (Title IV-A, IV-B, IV-D, IV-E, etc.), which is why
we also add all Secretary, to be receiving service of process on behalf of
U.S. HHS, and the Office of the Acting Assistant Secretary for the
Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF). The Rules of court
do not serve the people of this country when involving such huge
expenses, separate Notices and summons etc. This suit specifically at
least temporarily excludes the POTUS, new cabinet members and the
Office of U.S. Attorney General (now confirmed former Senator. Jeff
Sessions). To avoid useless and wasted expenses, the complete set of
this complaint will be produced on an I-Cloud link for electronic
distribution, to be served out upon all those different government
agencies affected through the Office of the President of the United States.
(hereafter POTUS). It is allowable to add and alter timely by these two
offices, to the lawful arguments contained herein, but shall not in any way
deduct from these base issues.

Miscellaneous Topics

The primary focus is to hold all existing Offices accountable for gross
violations of law; terminate all funding for these programs immediately;
and cause the adjustments required of those responsible for these
violations of trust, treason and sedition against the American families.

One natural byproduct of this lawsuit is also slashing divorce in America

to probably one-tenth of the current rate, since there will be no more
financial carrot-and-stick incentives to divorce, so that byproduct goal
will be used to attract support from various mainstream family
organizations, plus almost all if not all American faith-based entities.
Additionally, stopping six to seven billion dollars in counter-productive
ACF annual program wastes will can be used, in much more critical
areas.

Zero Tolerance Policy

The Office of Private Attorney General will not tolerate any attempted
blockages by any party in any form. In full equal measures, we will
inform the Military of these attempts as we are against the nefarious
behaviors of family courts, the BAR association and all other covert or
foreign agents attempting to destroy our inalienable natural rights, as
described within the Declaration of Independence. Confirmed violators
are subject to immediate removal from office and shall be subject to
court martial. Moreover, depending upon the severity of such violations,
we may well also implement civil and /or criminal prosecution against
those perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. In short, dishonesty,
unclean hands, bad faith, violations of Oath of Office will not be
tolerated.
Obvious examples of strictly prohibited behaviors include, but are
certainly not limited to, using unlawful types of behaviors (i.e., threats,
intimidation, undue influence or other coercive tactics)

The true enemies of American natural/biological parents within family

courts are the BAR Association (confirmed front for communists
activities by Congress) (see Communist manifesto on the destruction of
the family efforts) malfeasant court officers, their court leeches, unlawful
statutes, and especially the fraudulent and unlawful federal funding
schemes that create and support most of these injustices within all the
state-run court systems.

These systems are the result of the politically contrived term of

Globalism which can be succinctly termed the VATICAN and all its
tentacle operations by any and all franchises such as the Jesuits.