For a writ to issue,
the respondent must have a clear duty,
the petitioner must have a beneficial
interest in respondent's performance
of that duty, <http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/176F19934A5D42A28825695\
200757A51/$file/9915662.PDF?openelement>
respondent must have the present ability
to perform, respondent must have failed
to perform a duty or have abused his
discretion in performing the duty,
and petitioner must have no other
plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
V
On an inspection violated a person's
due process rights, or where fraud
was involved in the attempted procurement
of jurisdiction, is sufficient for
an order to be void. Potenz Corp.
v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill.
App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175
(1988) <http://webpages.charter.net/lah1321/mot30app.doc>
. In instances herein, the law has
stated that the orders are void ab
initio and not voidable because they
are already void.
VI
28 USC § 1367
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001367----\
000-.html> provides that when a
district court has original jurisdiction
over a claim, the court shall have
supplemental jurisdiction over all
other claims in the action, which
are related so as to form part of
the same case. Here, as all the claims
arise from the same set of facts,
the claims would probably considered
sufficiently related.
VII
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
410.10.
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=4340796196+2+0+0&W\
AISaction=retrieve> A court of
this state may exercise jurisdiction
on any basis not inconsistent with
the Constitution of this state or
of the United States.
VIII
A clear violation of Estate of Macias
v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d 957, 962 (N.D.
Cal. 1999 <http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/176F19934A5D42A28825695\
200757A51/$file/9915662.PDF?openelement>
).
IX
SUPREMACY CLAUSE <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art6.html>
- "This Constitution, and the
Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and
all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2.
" Stone v. City and County of
San Francisco <http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s105.htm>
, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).
X
Any denial of my rights by your office
is a denial of my counsel to access
the courts to be heard at law: ""...his
right to be heard through his own
counsel is unqualified." Chandler
v. Fretag, 348 U.S.
3. <http://www.constitution.org/brief/right2counsel.htm>
XI
SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES
Part VII. Practice and Procedure
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/39.html>
Rule 39. Proceedings In Forma Pauperis
1. A party seeking to proceed in forma
pauperis shall file a motion for leave
to do so, together with the party's
notarized affidavit or declaration
(in compliance with 28 U. S. C. §1746
) in the form prescribed by the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, Form
4. See 28 U. S. C. §1915 . The motion
shall state whether leave to proceed
in forma pauperis was sought in any
other court and, if so, whether leave
was granted. If the United States
district court or the United States
court of appeals has appointed counsel
under the Criminal Justice Act, see
18 U. S. C. §3006A , or under any
other applicable federal statute,
no affidavit or declaration is required,
but the motion shall cite the statute
under which counsel was appointed.
2. If leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is sought for the purpose of filing
a document, the motion, and an affidavit
or declaration if required, shall
be filed together with that document
and shall comply in every respect
with Rule 21. As provided in that
Rule, it suffices to file an original
and 10 copies, unless the party is
an inmate confined in an institution
and is not represented by counsel,
in which case the original, alone,
suffices. A copy of the motion, and
affidavit or declaration if required,
shall precede and be attached to each
copy of the accompanying document.
XII
The courts provide in propria persona
parties wide latitude when construing
their pleadings and papers. When interpreting
pro se papers, the Court should use
common sense to determine what relief
the party desires. S.E.C. v. Elliott,
953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992).
<http://www.birminghambar.org/data/SlipOpinions/11thCir/01-15124.htm>
See also, United States v. Miller,
197 F.3d 644, 648
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/caldwell/99v2181.pdf#search='Unit\
ed%20States%20v.%20Miller%2C> (3rd
Cir. 1999)(Court has special obligation
to construe pro se litigants' pleadings
liberally); Poling v. K.Hovnanian
Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07
(D.N.J. 2000).
Pro se litigant's pleadings should
not be held to the same high standards
of perfection as lawyers. "Significantly,
the Haines case
involved a pro se complaint - as does
the present case - which requires
a less stringent reading than one
drafted by a lawyer. Puckett v. Cox
United States Court of Appeals (1972)
Defendant has the right to submit
in propria persona briefs on appeal,
even though they may be inartfully
drawn but the court can reasonably
read and understand them. See, Vega
v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.
1998).
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CourtWatchers/,%20Vega%20v.%20Johnson,%20\
149%20F.3d%20354%20(5th%20Cir.%201998).>
|