“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil proceedings in the United States district courts.

The purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The rules were first adopted by order of the Supreme Court on December 20, 1937, transmitted to Congress on January 3, 1938, and effective September 16, 1938. The Civil Rules were last amended in 2023. “



Similarly, in Testa v. Katt, the Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to enforce a federal statute containing a punitive damages provision, finding that the law was penal in nature and the state need not enforce the penal laws of a government which is ‘foreign in the international sense.’11 The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rhode Island court must enforce the federal statute, and that a state policy of not enforcing penal statutes of other sovereigns was not a valid excuse under Douglas.12 Among other things, the Court explained that [i]t cannot be assumed, the supremacy clause considered, that the responsibilities of a state to enforce the laws of a sister state are identical with its responsibilities to enforce federal laws.13

In the 2009 case Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a state statute that divested New York state courts of jurisdiction over suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages from corrections officers, as well as similar state law claims against corrections officers.14 The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens explained, we have emphasized that only a neutral jurisdictional rule will be deemed a ‘valid excuse’ for departing from the default assumption that state courts will hear federal claims.15 Although the New York statute removed jurisdiction over both state and federal claims, the Court held, equality of treatment between state and federal claims does not ensure that a state law will be deemed . . . a valid excuse for refusing to entertain a federal cause of action.16 Rather, by distinguishing between Section 1983 claims against corrections officers and all other Section 1983 suits, New York undermined the federal policy of making relief under Section 1983 broadly available. The Court held that this was impermissible: having made the decision to create courts of general jurisdiction that regularly sit to entertain analogous suits, New York is not at liberty to shut the courthouse door to federal claims that it considers at odds with its local policy.17

Note: I am not a lawyer – this is not legal advice. You should understand the risks of not hiring an attorney, including retaliation and violation of law.

Preempted Justice

When justice is preempted, it is stopped. If states don’t follow federal law, rules and constitution, they preempt due process. This has happened in the State of New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Oliver Twist
New Hampshire Oliver Twist is the true story of injustice in the Family Court and State Government

Supremacy Clause Requires Application of Law

Printz v. United States – distinguished Supreme Court distinguished between federal control over state courts and commandeering branches of state government.

Justice Scalia majority opinion notes state courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, which expressly requires them to apply Federal Law

Testa stands for the proposition that state courts cannot refuse to apply federal law — a conclusion mandated by the terms of the Supremacy Clause (“the Judges in every State shall be bound [by federal law]”)” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 928-29 (1997)


Congress’s intent to supplant state authority in a particular field may be “explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.” 3 Because preemption cases, when the statute contains no express provision, theoretically turn on statutory construction,4 generalizations about them can carry one only so far.

Thus, we turn to Authority for Promulgation of Rules § 2072



§ 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.


Substantive Rights

Substantial Right  – an important or essential right that merits enforcement or protection by the law a right related to a matter of substance as distinguished from a matter of form – Merriam

That part of the law which the courts are established to administer, as opposed to the rules according to which the substantive law Itself is administered.

Substantive Right

That part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. Blacks Law, 2nd Edition                   _____________________________                                                                                                                         

(2) Any meeting for the transaction of business under this chapter, by a committee appointed under this section, shall be preceded by sufficient notice to enable all interested persons to attend.

(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.

(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.

(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IV, § 401(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4649,

eff. Dec. 1, 1988.)

Family Courts Do Not Follow Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The Family Courts operate without rules of evidence. Further, the DV was heard on offers of proof, in violation of New Hampshire Family Court Rule 1.28, which was objected to. In my case, Attorney Ames (the mother’s attorney), didn’t file an appearance, said she would, never did, and then lied latter saying she didn’t know what I was talking about.

The Family Courts don’t follow Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but appears they should.

The Family Courts operate in the district court, and also handle civil restraining orders. In New Hampshire, Domestic Violence Protection orders are controlled by RSA 173B.

This is direct violation of the New Hampshire Constitution, Article 15 Rights of the Accused.

Amdt10.4.2 Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure may apply in appeals at the state level.


Removing State Case to Federal Court

Federal law allows for a defendant who has been sued in a state court to “remove” the
case to federal court if a federal court would otherwise have jurisdiction over the complaint. See
28 U.S.C. § 1441. Two of the most common grounds for federal jurisdiction are “federal
question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and “federal diversity jurisdiction” pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

For removal cases, the Supreme Court has “long held that the presence or absence of
federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that
federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s
properly pleaded complaint.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).9 Under the
well-pleaded complaint rule, the focus is on what claims the plaintiff alleges in the complaint,
and the fact that a defendant may raise federal law defenses or counterclaims does not allow the
defendant to remove the case to a federal court.


author avatar
Robert Tanguay
Author of "Incentives and the Environment" and founder of EmissionsTax.