June 28, 2026 Post

        This post has something for people to see: whether the Court is trustworthy and whether Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are dumb and shameless. Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves serve as United States circuit judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

        This post is from an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, docketed in 25-1073. Judge Patty Shwartz, Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, and Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica are the panel for reviewing the appeal. The panel ruled against this author. Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica granted a rehearing and did not agree with the majority (e.g., Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves). The decision of Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves is the Court's decision. We can see from the following that the Court deliberately ruled against this author arbitrarily.

        The background is about a student's special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). After an independent educational evaluation ("IEE"), the school district scheduled a meeting and issued a meeting notice to review the IEE report and develop an individualized education program ("IEP"). The author is the student's parent and attended the meeting. The problem is that the school district's special education supervisor, Geoffrey Ball, on his own, permitted the evaluator not to attend the meeting, but never informed or sought an agreement of this author. This author was unaware that the independent evaluator could not attend until the meeting began. Given that such a school district never respects or complies with the IDEA regulations, it is conceivable that what is seen in the meeting is the school district's brutality. The point is that any rational attorney or advocate in special education knows the meeting could not create an IEP because the independent evaluator did not attend. Eventually, no IEP was agreed upon in the meeting.

        However, after the meeting, under the direction of the school district's special education supervisor, the school district finalized the IEP that had never been agreed upon. That is violent; the school district should not do so. Because the independent evaluator did not attend, the meeting could not create an IEP. However, the school district intentionally created one. That is the cause of this litigation.

        Because the independent evaluator did not attend the meeting, this author raised the issue that the IEP failed the first prong of Rowley, thereby denying a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"). In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court determined the question four decades ago. Supposedly, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding, this author should prevail in the proceeding. Still, Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves ruled against this author for the following.

Luo relies on Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982), which set forth a two-part inquiry for courts addressing §1415(i)(2) suits: first, determine whether there is a procedural violation, and second, determine whether the IEP is substantively adequate. Luo argues that due to procedural violations, both the School District and the IEP "failed the first prong test" and thereby denied him a FAPE. Appellant's Br. at 20, 22. He is mistaken. (C.A. 25-1073 page 5)

Really? We can follow the Supreme Court's holding, step by step, to see if this author is mistaken, as the Court wrote, or if the judges are dumb and shameless. In Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982), the Supreme Court has the following holding:

Therefore, a court's inquiry in suits brought under §1415(e)(2) is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? [Footnote 27] And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? [Footnote 28] If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress, and the courts can require no more.

That is in plain language; everyone can read it. To fulfill its obligation to provide a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"), the school district must comply with the two-fold obligation. Failing a prong test means the school district fails to comply with its obligation to provide a FAPE. That is the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the law; no one can object to it. We follow the plain-language provisions, step by step, to show how dumb and shameless Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are. The first prong is as follows:

First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? [Footnote 27]

We need to see which procedures are within the scope of the first prong. An interpretation of the first prong needs footnote 27, which is as follows:

This inquiry will require a court not only to satisfy itself that the State has adopted the state plan, policies, and assurances required by the Act, but also to determine that the State has created an IEP for the child in question which conforms with the requirements of §1401(19).

According to footnote 27, the first prong determines whether the State (or school district) has established a plan, policies, and assurances required by the IDEA, and whether the creation of an IEP has satisfied the procedural requirement of §1401(19). The relevant matter here is only whether the creation of an IEP has satisfied the procedural requirement of §1401(19). Next, let us see the provision of §1401(19). The 1976 edition, §1401(19) is as

(19) The term 'individualized education program' means a written statement for each handicapped child developed in any meeting by a representative of the local educational agency or an intermediate educational unit who shall be qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of handicapped children, the teacher, the parents or guardian of such child, and, whenever appropriate, such child, which statement shall include (A) a statement of the present levels of educational performance of such child, (B) a statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives, (C) a statement of the specific educational services to be provided to such child, and the extent to which such child will be able to participate in regular educational programs, (D) the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration of such services, and (E) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved.

From the above, under §1401(19), the creation of an IEP must conform to the requirement of "membership" (e.g., the "collective group" who creates the IEP) and itemized statements as from (A)-(E). The Rowleys' first prong tests the procedure for creating an IEP, in particular, the "membership" and itemized statements as from (A)-(E). Those are in plain language; no one would object.

        The 1976 edition §1401(19) has been recodified: The itemized statements as (A)-(Z) has been recodified into §1414(d)(1)(A)(i); the membership is recodified into §1414(d)(1)(B), which includes school district's representative, regular/special education teacher, evaluator, parent/guardian, student, and professional/individual who has information about the student's educational needs. Because the independent evaluator did not attend the IEP development meeting, the IEP was not created by the membership. Therefore, the first-prong test failed. Those are in plain language; absolutely, no one can object.

        According to Rowley, Supra, the IEP denied FAPE because it failed the two-prong test; that is, the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the law—no one can object. This author is correct that the IEP denies a FAPE, and should prevail in this case. Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are shameless to rule that this author is mistaken. The point is that Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, two circuit judges, are not qualified to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's holding. Why did they do so? The answer is not hidden that they have a strong intent to favor the school district and, on purpose, ruled against this author. Under the circumstances, it is undeniable that this author should prevail in this litigation, the Court ruled against this author. Do you trust this kind of Court? If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining the non-existent justice. Those judges may be no different from a scumbag, even rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's holding. You are submitting yourself to be tortured by the Court. Anyway, let us enjoy the opportunity to see what kind of garbage Court the Third Circuit is and how dumb and shameless Judges Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are. Especially, do Judges Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves know what shame is?

        Besides shamelessly rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's holding, Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves wrote a sentence as the basis to favor the school district. We can further see that Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are dumb for writing such a sentence. For example, Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves wrote the following.

Thus, as relevant here, even assuming that the School District ran afoul of IDEA's procedural requirements with regard to Dr. Robin's appearance at the IEP meeting, such "procedural violation[s] [are] actionable under the IDEA only if [they] . . . seriously deprive[d] [Luo] of [his] participation rights." Bayonne, 602 F.3d at 565. (C.A. 25-1073 page 5)

The above is the Court's reason to favor the school district. We can see that Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are stupid to write it. The Court's statement has several problems. It is not the time to show all of them in this post. We only show the problem on the "face" of the statement.

        First, we can see the Court's strong intent to favor the school district at all times, regardless of evidence. Please keep in mind: if you are nobody, like this author, you will most likely submit yourself to being tortured by the Court; the Court is not trustworthy and will turn its back on you no matter what. Given that no evidence disputed the independent evaluator's absence from the meeting, the Court used the words "even assuming." You can see how strong the Court's intention to favor the school district is. Supposedly, the Court should be impartial. What kind of garbage court is the Third Circuit, having a strong intent to favor one side? Do Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves know what shame is? If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining the non-existent justice. On the contrary, you submit yourself to be tortured by the Court.

        Second, what the Court wrote is false. For example, the Court wrote: "procedural violation[s] [are] actionable under the IDEA only (Emphasis added) if [they] . . . seriously deprive[d] [Luo] of [his] participation rights." That is false; you can ask any experienced special education attorney who will tell you that the Court's statement is false. Please pay attention to the Court's statement: the Court used the word "only." That is the problem. A procedural violation may also result in a denial of FAPE if it caused a student to lose educational opportunity, not only a deprivation of the parent's right to participate. It is shameless for the Third Circuit to write a false statement as a basis for favoring the school district. What kind of garbage court is the Third Circuit? Do Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves know what shame is, writing a false statement as a basis to favor the school district? If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining a non-existent justice; you may submit yourself to being tortured by the Court. Anyway, we can enjoy the opportunity to see how dumb and shameless Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are.

        Third, Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are extremely dumb and shameless, incapable of comprehending the laws. Indeed, failing the first-prong test is a procedural violation. However, the procedural violation will result in a substantive violation and the denial of FAPE—fundamental knowledge held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rowley. The point is that the independent evaluator had information about the student's educational needs. An IEP must be created to address those educational needs. Without the independent evaluator's attendance, the IEP was defective for failing to address those educational needs identified by the independent evaluator. The student lost opportunities to receive such an educational program for the needs identified by the independent evaluator. Since the procedural violation caused the student to lose educational opportunity, it has resulted in a substantive violation and a denial of FAPE. That is fundamental knowledge in special education. Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are extremely dumb, failing to comprehend the law and writing a nonsensical statement as the basis for favoring the school district. Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves should know what shame is, dumb, and having a strong intent to favor the school district.

        In the above, we have seen how dumb and shameless Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are. They rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's holding. They are circuit judge; how could they reject the U.S. Supreme Court's holding? They should know what shame is. They also wrote a false statement as the basis to favor the school district. Additionally, such a false statement shows nothing but that Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are extremely dumb and incapable of comprehending the law. Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves should know what shame is. It is undeniable that this author is correct that the IEP denies a FAPE, and should prevail in this litigation. Under such circumstances, the Third Circuit, on purpose, ruled against this author; how do you think?

        In short, it is undeniable that this author should prevail in this litigation. As compared with other circuits, the Third Circuit's judges are dumb and shameless. For example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a similar case in which the first-prong test failed because the IEP's creation did not conform to the membership requirement. The Ninth Circuit held that failing the first-prong test denied a FAPE, not necessarily to determine the second-prong test. For example, in Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified School District No. 69, 317 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court stated the following.

We engage in a two-part inquiry to determine whether the PVUSD afforded Dorie a FAPE. First, we must determine whether the PVUSD complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA. Second, we must determine whether the IEP developed through the IDEA's procedures was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit upon Dorie. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07, 102 S. Ct. 3034; Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 890; Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 1995).

We agree with the district court's ruling that the PVUSD's violations of the IDEA's procedural mandates resulted in lost educational opportunity for Dorie. We have held that:

Procedural flaws do not automatically require a finding of a denial of a FAPE. However, procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, clearly result in the denial of a FAPE.

W.G., 960 F.2d at 1484 (internal citations omitted); see also id. (holding that the school district did not provide a FAPE because it failed to comply with procedures for preparing an IEP such as parental and teacher involvement); …… The PVUSD's failure to include the persons most knowledgeable about Dorie's educational levels and needs …… at the June 8 IEP meeting and its concomitant creation of a defective IEP resulted in lost educational opportunity for Dorie.

Because we conclude that the PVUSD's procedural violations of the IDEA resulted in a loss of educational opportunity for Dorie, it is unnecessary for us to address the second prong of the FAPE analysis. See Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 895 (declining to address the question of whether the proposed IEP was "reasonably calculated to enable [the child] to receive educational benefits" because the school district failed to comply procedurally with the IDEA); W.G., 960 F.2d at 1485 (same). On the basis of the first prong of the FAPE two-part inquiry, which is a procedural analysis, we conclude that the PVUSD denied Dorie a FAPE.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling, above, confirms that this author is correct. Failing the first-prong test denies a student FAPE because the creation of the IEP fails to conform to the "membership" requirement, resulting in a loss of educational opportunity.

        The Third Circuit's judges, Patty Shwartz and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, are 100% pure idiots, incapable of comprehending the law, and are shameless in their strong motivation to rule against this author; they should know what shame is. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court had determined the matter in Rowley; even though judges Patty Shwartz and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are extremely dumb, they only needed to follow the Supreme Court's holding, e.g., the two-prong test, but refused to do so. Especially, the first-prong test only examines the record, as easy as 1-2-3. Judges Patty Shwartz and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves could not do it; what kind of garbage judges are they? They are so dumb as to write nonsense to show further that they are dumb. Judges Patty Shwartz and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves should know what shame is, stupid, incapable of comprehending the laws, also having a strong intent to favor the school district.

        What we have seen is as follows: it is undeniable that this author should prevail in this action; however, the Third Circuit ruled against this author. How do you think? Is the Third Circuit trustworthy? Those judges may be no different from a scumbag. If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining non-existent justice; you will get nothing but submit yourself to be tortured by the Court. In particular, Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves had caused the student to lose his educational opportunities. Do judges Patty Shwartz and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves know what shame is? Presently, we can enjoy the opportunities to see what kind of garbage Court the Third Circuit is and how dumb and shameless Judge Patty Shwartz and Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves are.

        Again, it is undeniable that this author should prevail in the matter; however, the Third Circuit ruled against this author. If you are a nobody like this author, are you still pursuing justice? You are wasting your time.

        It is worth mentioning that the Third Circuit is fierce, acting like the headquarters or a branch of the American Communist Party. It is either lawless or the law, and it does not allow anyone to criticize it; it will exercise its so-called "power" to punish anyone who does. Does the Third Circuit know what shame is? Let us enjoy the opportunities to see what kind of garbage Court the Third Circuit is. The above is what happened in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.