> The State and Federal District courts can bar all of your pleadings
> pursuant to their local rules.
At least you bother to look at the local rules. Few people do until
after the fact of it being too late.
> I am barred from all States and United
> States District Courts in my area as a civil plaintiff. It has been
> this way for 16 years. The reason I am barred is I am considered an
> "intellectual terrorist" and "recreational litigate".
I was warned about achieving that status myself, so have kept my fun to
only when they are the instigators. Besides, how can I go into their
courts asking for a decision when I've already shown them to be a fraud
and a sham? I cannot do that because of my own personal integrity. I
have one court left, instead of your two, and you didn't mention the one
I'm thinking of.
> If I need to
> file a Title 42 Civil Right suit
That's another thing I don't need, CIVIL RIGHTS. Real rights are good
enough, and why would I use a law designed to protect slaves?
> or any suit I must seek leave of
> court, even if I pay the filing fee.
I've heard paying the filing fee proves your status to be inferior. And
what you pay it with must speak volumes too.
> Rather than fight this
> requirement I chose another maneuver. There are two courts in the land
> that cannot bar you from entering.
It must be three then.
> The State Supreme Court and the
> United States Supreme Court.
And then there's the "one supreme court" that existed and worked from
before the country had it's current constitution and worked and existed
for as long as it took for congress to come up with the one you named
> If you are barred from a low State
> District court simply lodge the Petition with the State Supreme Court.
> I did such and the Supreme Court sent it to the State District Court
> with orders to process it. Did the same with a United States District
> Court and received the same results. My state constitution says:
> "All courts shall be open, and every person shall
> have an adequate remedy by due process of law
> and justice, administered without denial, partiality,
> or unreasonable delay, for injury to him his person,
> property, reputation, or other rights."
But see? Even today people seem to need to go to court to learn the
obvious, which was right there in front of them if they'd take time to
read it. and this is your top echelon in your "community" who need it
too. Nobody can understand the meaning of "all" or "every" anymore.
It's a very important concept in the laws that I use to protect MY
> I'm sure the feds have such a clause and your state constitution will
> have same.
And it makes you wonder why it ever becomes an issue, doesn't it? It
does to me. If something is so well known and real, how do you explain
the people believing lies that "everyone knows to be true" that are
totally unable to be proven in law? It confounds me all the time, how
people can avoid the truth that's right in front of their faces and
believe lies that are plainly already disproved. But here we see it's a
very live and current phenomenon. Tell me about "frivolous" again...
> Once your suit is sent back to the low barring court you
> can bet your boots you will get a fair shake. The judge therein will
> know your ability and determination. This is a due process and equal
> protection issue as well as access to the court.
I'm through in those courts. I cannot bring myself to overlook enough
> You must enter their
> courts if you want to collect for violating your rights. There is no
I not so sure about that point. I think it depends upon what you want
to "collect". If the alternatives are among the set of things I avoid,
I won't be wanting to collect them. I'll have to get my "satisfaction"
or "compensation" in another way, which apparently I've done for over 25
years without becoming a plaintiff anywhere.
> Seems, to me, obvious, that if anyone can obtain a copy of
> "Dealing with the Maverick" [via your state's Information
> Practices Act,Public Records Act or equivalent, or by
> subpoena duces tecum ], it will constitute *prima facie*
> evidence of the Arizona Supreme Court' subverting and
> perverting the administration of justice'[check your
> state's Rules of Court and Standards for Judicial
And didn't the Supremes do the same in the Bush Election Scandal?
Yeah, I'm going to trust them soon!