UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 14 - 3049



Deb Whitewood, et al plaintiffs
v.
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, et al defendants




Appeal of James D. Schneller







MOTION FOR EXPEDITED ACTION AND CONSOLIDATION OF ARGUMENT WITH
RELATED APPEALS










James D. Schneller pro se appellants
Philadelphia Metro Task Force
430 East Lancaster Avenue # E 25
St. Davids, PA 19087
610-688-9471



Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2014


James D. Schneller, representing himself, and Philadelphia Metro Task Force, in all ways
possible, (appellants) request, pursuant to F.R.A.P. 27, LAR 8.2, LAR 27.7, and LAR 34.3,
expedited action, and consolidation of any and all argument scheduled in this matter with that
requested in appeal No. 14-3049, No. 14-2871, and appeal No. 14-3048, stating as follows:

I. Background
1. The Middle District Court, in the orders entered on March 17, 2014, and on April 24,
2014, dismissed, as moot, appellant's motions for stay (D.I. 107 ,119 ) pending decision on
reconsideration and any appeal.
2. Appellants, in this appeal, filed a motion for stay on June 27, 2014 ( ), requesting an
order staying proceedings in the District Court and the injunction issued by the District Court,
pending this appeal and the appeal by appellants' from denial of intervention and denial of leave
to amend motion to intervene, No. 14-2871, requesting a finding that a stay was warranted
pending determinations in related State Court cases and the other Federal case, Palladino, see
appeal No. 14-2766, supra, and any action imposing conditions and additional scope of stay, and
any appropriate conditions and additional scope of stay.
3. The trial court in said concurrent case, focused generally on the full faith and credit
clause, Palladino v. Corbett, E.D. No. 13-5641, ( denial of intervention appealed by appellants at
No. 14-2766), entered orders on May 22, 2014, as amended on May 28, 2014, upon plaintiffs, to
show cause, on or before June 20, 2014, why their case should not be dismissed as moot,
pursuant to the opinion and injunction deciding the instant case Whitewood v. Corbett, Wolf , et
al M.D.Pa. No. 13-1861. No pleading was filed and the docket shows since then only a minute
entry for telephone conference held June 17, 2014.
4. Appellants, who appealed to the Court from denial of intervention in the Whitewood v.
Corbett case at No. 14-2871, promptly filed this appeal from the final order in Whitewood v.
Corbett . Appellants have duly filed statements permitted by the Clerk, in support of jurisdiction
and the merits of the stated three appeals, and motions for reconsideration of Simbraw orders,
and for stay, in them. Appellant's initial, prompt, motion for stay filed in No. 14-2871 was
inexplicably denied by the Clerk, for mootness, after said final order was entered, even though
intent to appeal the final order was clear in the documents. Appellants' motions for expedited
reconsideration of that order, and expedited appeal, is pending. Appellees admit in No. 14-2766,
Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2014
the Palladino appeal, as to the delay in docketing of appeal from denial of intervention in
Whitewood, 3d Cir. No. 14-2871, by the Clerk, until after the final Whitewood order was
handed down.
5. Schuylkill County Register of Wills Theresa Gaffney, other appellant in this Whitewood
case, has filed a motion for reargument en banc in her appeal No. 14-3048, Appeal of Theresa
Santai-Gaffney, taken from the Middle district's dismissal of appeal from denial of intervention
in the Whitewood case and denial of her motion for stay, these filed by her two weeks after
entry of said final order.
6. Each of these appeals has as a principal issue the constitutionality and validity of
Pennsylvania's Marriage Act, namely, that Act's definition of a married couple, and it's
preclusion and non-recognition of marriages created under conflicting definitions, issued in
other States. Appellants claim, above all of their reasons, a reverse discrimination; a stunting of
the record, otherwise capable of competent presentation by appellants; and debilitating effects
on appellant's existing litigation.

II. Request for Relief

7. Appellants, pursuant to F.R.A.P. 27 and Third Circuit Local Rules 4.1, Rule 8.2, and
Rule 27.7, claim ample good cause and justification for this Honorable Court to grant
appellants' motion requesting an expedited resolution of preliminary matters including motion
for stay, hearing on same, and expedited appeal. Under Third Circuit Rule 8.2, the court or clerk
may determine that a motion for stay under L.A.R. 8.1 requires expedited treatment.
8. Reference is made to the record, and the records of the concurrent appeals, notably,
appellants' motion to supplement the record and brief in No. 14-2766, filed this week.
9. Appellants request a finding of compliance with Local Rule 4.1 because appellants
timely moved for expedited appeal in predecessor case No. 14-2781 (taken from the order
denying intervention) , and have requested expediting in this case in some shape or form in the
motion for stay, the motion for reconsideration and submission to a Judge or to the panel of
Judges the Simbraw order, and the earlier statements in support of merit and jurisdiction, one of
them regarding the Clerks submission for consideration under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Also under
Rule 4.1, appellants became aware of reasons, which increase, since that time, for expedited
status, and have filed this motion within 14 days, or otherwise punctually, of that time.
10. Appellants had every reason to expect very prompt or expedited action in these appeals,
Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2014
and relied also on a quickening of the pace, by way of time frames directed in Clerk orders, in
this and the Whitewood appeals concurrent with the addition of the Gaffney appeal, which
ultimately did not result in any action in appellants' appeals. Sixty days have passed.
11. There is in these circumstances an aspect of unequal treatment, in addition to absence of
what could be the best case scope of fact and law, beneficial to all of the stated appeals.
12. Concurrent resolution of these matters is urgent in the interests of full and fair
adjudication, full record, and full exposition of the matter, which is of public importance, to the
Court, all at one time.
13. The prompt decision on the Gaffney appeal No. 14-3048,was not conducive to the above,
and the Gaffney motion for reargument stands to bring a more reasonable and encompassing
adjudication to that case.
14. The reasons presented of record, along with the public importance of the appeal, issues of
sovereignity and federalism, and the dependence, to varying degree, of four other cases filed in
Pennsylvania courts concerning the same subject matter, constitute extraordinary reason for
expediting of review.
15. The parties will not be prejudiced by an expedited status of the matters.
16. Appellants, and voluminous numbers of Pennsylvania citizens and classes of citizens
with immutable characteristics, and the citizens of the United States will be severely damaged,
if this matter is not resolved immediately and in a manner most conducive to justness and
fairness.
17. Expedited status, including a learning of the Court's view of appellants' motions and
appeal as soon as possible, is in the best interest of the parties, other cases, and appeals in this
and other jurisdictions on the same issue, and the efficient administration of justice.
18. The appeal and the claims are meritorious and feasible of reversal and exercise of the
Court's authority.
19. The Clerk, in setting pre-briefing proceedings, for reason of mootness, sufficiency, and/or
1915 sufficiency, has acted as of course, as opposed to acting on the specific circumstances in
this appeal, and/or has acted overzealously. This has slowed appeal, and this by way of issues
qualifying more as substantive than ministerial, including by a complex inter-relatedness, thus
conceivably deciding in conflict with Third Circuit LAR 27.6 entitled Motions Decided By The
Clerk, because the decision has exceeded the confines as directed, that such decisions relate only
to ministerial matters.
Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2014
20. Even the Simbraw matter is inappropriate for preliminary submission, because it was at
issue in the proceedings, and is not cut and dry issue.
21. Appellants have shown reasons why injury is certain to appellants and other classes or
subclasses of citizens, including the pendency of state actions more appropriate for resolution of
these legal questions, along with the public importance of the appeal, issues of sovreignity and
federalism, and the apparent possibility of these or closely related questions in other states,
being presented to the Highest Court in the short term,
22. The rights of appellants' and other classes and subclasses of citizens with immutable
characteristics, undeniably whittled away by Court decisions, now stand in a controversy
appropriate for addressing of this oft-unsubmitted facet of the sex/orientation arena.
Purported issues of basic rights, have inappropriately pushed the basic rights of religious
freedom and core Constitutional rights to the background, and these are already and stand to be
instantaneously changed. This is most definitively now heightened, by an effort to keep
appellants from full participation, which is exclusionary and unconstitutional. The public
likewise will be harmed, perceiving any such tacitly permitted narrowness of the record, already
aware of infringements on basic rights, amidst unproven, short-term theories which boil down to
a state condoning of infusion of a sub-classes choice of non-biological sex partners.
23. Appellants filed jury demands in the district court proceedings.
24. The matter of the request for stay adds urgency, because the Commonwealth is
undergoing activity highly likely to be nullified by reversal or other results, ordered in these
appeals.
25. The questions and issues present in this appeal and appellants' Whitewood appeal No. 14-
2871 and Palladino appeal No. 14-2766 are likely to relate to any ultimate case in the central
issue when it is again presented to the us supreme court and stay will decrease unwanted results
of delay, rather than cause delay in this case so that this matter would be available in time for
same. Other circuits have been presented with the general questions presented by plaintiffs but
not the material, or much of the material, sought to be of record through appellants in this case
and in Whitewood. The Sixth Circuit Court heard argument on Wednesday of this week,
August 6, 2014, challenging the male-female definitions of marriage found in the constitutions
of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan. Each of those states had defined marriage as the
union of one man and one woman, and each was declared unconstitutional by federal district
courts in those respective states. The four cases have been consolidated into one appeal. A
challenge by the state of Utah to the ruling by the 10th Circuit Court, which affirmed a ruling
Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/08/2014
that the state could not stop same-sex couples from marrying, has been filed in the Supreme
Court.
26. Any important decision in another circuit or the Supreme Court could change also the
circumstances and parties' posture in the concurrent Palladino case. E.D.Pa. No. 13-5641, C.A,3
No. 14-2766
27. Appellants request that the Court balance the appellants' being treated differently by the
Clerk, most probably due to pro se status but also, with all respect, apparently because
appellants' appeal stands as decisively relevant and controversially in opposition to the order and
injunction presently in force. The Clerk has used different time limits in these appeals, with
what appeared for a time to be a stepping up of the pace, focused on prompt resolution, around
the time that the Gaffney appeal was filed, but then the Gaffney matter was decided, while the
above stated pre-merits pleadings in this appeal, and appellants' Whitewood appeals, have
remained undecided.
28. The appeal stands a very high likelihood of resulting in reversal of the dismissal of
intervention requests and finding substantial reversible error in the final order and enjoinment of
the pertinent sections of the Marriage Law.
29. Schuylkill County Register of Wills Theresa Gaffney has filed a motion for reargument
en banc of dismissal in her appeal 3d Cir. No. 14-3048, taken from the Middle District's
dismissal of petition for stay and denial of intervention in the Whitewood v. Corbett case and
denial of her motion for stay, these filed by her two weeks after entry of said final order.
30. Consolidation of any and all argument scheduled in this matter with that requested in
appeal from denial of intervention in this case, No. 14-2871, and appeal from denial of
intervention to appellants in related case Palladino v. Corbett, appeal No. 14-2766, and in the
request for reargument of dismissal of appeal and denial of stay, in the Gaffney appeal No. 14-
3048, will cause economy, fullness of record, the most appropriate record and scope of
argument for the benefit of the Court, and fairness and justness, in all of the stated appeals.


III. Request for Relief

The above reasons constitute extraordinary reason for expediting of review.
Appellants therefore respectfully request an order establishing an expedited briefing
schedule.
Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/08/2014
Appellants, in the event that any or all of these questions are deemed reliant on substantive
issue(s), respectfully request submission of the matters to a Judge or to a panel of Judges, and
oral argument, pursuant to .

Appellants for these reasons urgently request action on the motion to this effect in appeals
No. 14-2781 and No. 14-2766, and the Court's consideration of these requests, in their treatment
of pending action No. 14-3048



WHEREFORE appellants respectfully request expedited action, including hearing on pre-
briefing matters, if deemed appropriate, so that immediate action may proceed on appellants'
appeal and concurrent appeals.

WHEREFORE, appellants respectfully request an order establishing an expedited briefing
schedule.

WHEREFORE, appellants respectfully request oral argument on the issues of stay, merit of
the appeals, the motions for expediting, and/or any Simbraw issue, combined with same in
appeals No. 14-2871, No. 14-2766, and/or No. 14-3048.




Respectfully submitted,



__________________________________ Date: August 8, 2014
James D. Schneller







Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/08/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 14 3049


Appeal of James Schneller
v.
Deb Whitewood, et al plaintiffs
v.
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, et al defendants




ORDER


THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Appellants's Motion Requesting an Expedited
Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution on Appellant's Motion for Expedited Action on this appeal
including on appellants motions for Stay and Statements of Jurisdiction and Merit of the appeal
filed in response to Orders entered by the Clerk.

AND NOW, having reviewed Appellants' Motion and any response thereto, and having
heard argument on the matter in this and appellant's concurrent appeals in the matter, and in
related appeal No. 14-3048, and good cause having been shown, it is hereby ORDERED that
Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Action is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk
shall immediately schedule this appeal for expedited briefing schedule.




. __________________________








Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/08/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 14 - 3049


Deb Whitewood, et al plaintiffs
v.
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, et al defendants




CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James Schneller, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the motion for
expedited appeal and coordinated argument, upon the parties, by way of service made by the
ECF system, or by email, as follows:

Nathan D. Fox nfox@begleycarlin.com
Begley Carlin & Mandio LLP
680 Middletown Blvd.
Langhorne, PA 19047

William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
Lamb McErlane P.C. jfrank@lambmcerlane.com
24 East Market Street
P.O. Box 565
West Chester, PA 19381-0565

James D. Esseks jesseks@aclu.org
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

John S. Stapleton jstapleton@hangley.com
Dylan J. Steinberg
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
One Logan Square 27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933

Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/08/2014


Leslie Cooper lcooper@aclu.org
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Mary Catherine Roper mroper@aclupa.org
American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania
P.O. Box 40008
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Rebecca S. Melley rsantoro@hangley.com
Segal Pudlin & Schiller
One Logan Square 27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Seth F. Kreimer skreimer@law.upenn.edu
3400 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19144

Witold J. Walczak vwalczak@aclupa.org
American Civil Liberties Union of PA
313 Atwood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213





__________________________________ Date: August 8, 2014
James D. Schneller pro se
Case: 14-3049 Document: 003111703130 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/08/2014