Supreme Court Overrides Any Local Judge on Constitutional Issues

Supremacy Clause, Pro Se litigants not held to same standard as lawyers

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, <\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.


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) <> . In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because they are already void.


28 USC 1367
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.


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.


A clear violation of Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d 957, 962 (N.D. Cal. 1999 <\
200757A51/$file/9915662.PDF?openelement> ).



- "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 <> , 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).


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. <>


SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES Part VII. Practice and Procedure

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.


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).
See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648
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).