Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented is: Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver? " 2. By refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania virtually regulated petitioner’s right to contract and “legislated,” thereby violating his immunity as a citizen from unreasonable government rules and regulations as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “[A]ny legislative deviation from a contract’s obligations, however minute, or apparently immaterial, violates the Constitution. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 84 (1823). All the commentators, and all the adjudicated cases upon Constitutional Law agree[d] in th[is] fundamental propositio[n].” Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 190, 195 (1851).” Sveen v. Melin, 584U.S._ (2018): (Dissent (Gorsuch)) (internal citations omitted). The question presented is: Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution by refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver? > i
2020-03-23
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2020-03-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-03-03
Reply of petitioner Lei Ke filed. (Distributed)
2020-02-18
Brief of respondent Drexel University in opposition filed.
2020-01-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 18, 2020.
2020-01-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 17, 2020 to February 18, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-12-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 17, 2020)
2019-11-07
Application (19A494) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until December 23, 2019.
2019-10-29
Application (19A494) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 18, 2019 to December 23, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.