The claimants also state error made, when it was ruled that (by what federal court and where/when obviously doesn’t matter here), because there is no statute of limitations made in the federal statute concerning a 1983 action, that state law concerning those matters applies instead. More so, a defense is used that, since these matters are already decided in Iowa Courts of law, that these matters are all “Res Ajudicata” and this trumps anything the claimants are asking the Federal Courts to do for them, concerning their requested relief. The claimants, thereby ask that the federal appellate court answer these questions, presented by the claimants. First, should State law say that Marijuana is legal, but then, a federal DEA agent comes in and says, marijuana is still illegal, per federal statute, and arrests the perpetrator - Who wins? The answer is obvious – The Federal Government trumps the several States in matters of the law. Then why is this different in this case? How is it that matters of the state can trump federal law? Is not the SCOTUS the law of the land? Do not the words of the SCOTUS outweigh those of the State Supreme Courts, in order of legal weight in already decided matters, when new ones come before the federal courts? Do not the words of the SCOTUS outweigh ALL legal arguments? Then why should anything spoken by or decided of the State courts matter, when they come before, say, the Appellate Courts of the Federal Government, or before even the Federal District Courts? And yet, when it is convenient for those in office, all of a sudden, everything the State has ruled outweighs the Supreme Court of the United States; the “Law of the Land”? The Claimants, quite simply, smell a rat; and a dead one at that. Jurisdiction of the Federal government is obviously carried here, and proven, (since the federal court Judge has made her ruling over BOTH matters) thereby, anything presented in relation to “Res Ajudicata” DOES NOT APPLY IN THESE MATTERS. These are NEW CLAIMS, and nothing decided in the past in any state court MATTERS AT ALL in these claims. Second; how is it that the Statute of Limitations can be set by the several states, in relation to a statute of FEDERAL LAW? Who is it that is really in charge here? Do we live in a country of 51 countries, or are we a united country of 50 segments; who are all under the Governance of the United States Federal Government?? If the Federal Government has not imposed a Statute of Limitations in a Section 42 U.S.C. 1983 matter, then there should be none…period. This is a federal statute; then let the federal government set the limits on it. Should these statutes and their limitations be set by the several states, then there should be no federal code at all. Finally, the Federal Government and its judiciary should be the last word in deciding if the actions of a state are too corrupted to be considered legally proper. Is it the intention of this federal District Judge to put forth to the claimants that, since a corrupt state court ruled, for instance, that the nationally recognized LEGAL AND PROPER FATHER of the child in question, that child that was asked to be returned to the lawful parents without fail as relief; was ruled by the State of Iowa to be a non-father with NO PARENTAL RIGHTS TO START WITH, then anything the federal government says following this corrupt and empty legal decision doesn’t matter?? If the Federal Government has no power; and State Court can run through the fields legally naked, willy nilly, with no consequences, then why do we need federal courts, federal laws and; most importantly; why do we need the Federal Government and its alleged authority…AT ALL? Obviously, the states rule in all matters, so this court and the SCOTUS may as well pack up, collect your remaining pay and clock out. We don’t need you anymore, since you obviously have no decision, weight or power that you can make that super-cedes the courts of the several states; and their decisions, weight or power
[Link]
X 4 
X36
Tut tut Northland. Sporky’s case is the most important court case in America doncha know.