9th Circuit Prejudice Against Pro Se Plaintiffs Bolsters State Abuses

QUESTION PRESENTED: 9th Circuit Prejudice Against Pro Se Plaintiffs Bolsters State Abuses Joe Flarity, a retired marital community, petitions to protect their property from egregious administrative penalties from State practices that attack the “core rights’ of domiciles. The State presents a multi-fronted attack on property owners: 1) administrative courts are closed to the public; , 2) evidence from trespass is allowed; | 3) all citizen petitions for delay are denied; 4) the State demands infinite delays; 5) in Superior courts, no jury review is allowed with further sanctions applied to chill the people from checking official misconduct. In consequence of these practices, 100% of the administrative reviews favored Pierce County. The people need Federal Court help to “keep our republic.” | Pro se challengers typically appear as if flung | from an Ayn Rand novel, from the times when heroes could “kill a bear when they were only three.” They : , | ii see their “duty clear” and intend to “patch up the crack in the Liberty Bell.” Pro se plaintiffs believe their rights will be preserved by the 9th Circuit without any license necessary from super-law groups, } such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the | Pacific Legal Foundation. The people believe the | founders’ words gave single individuals the power to } restrain officials by logic, hard work and the force of law itself. Trusting pro se petitioners read the 9th | Circuit's clearly stated rules and have no clue the precedents they relied upon will be ignored, the rules riddled, and the law mocked. They are unaware the Haines Doctrine’ is no longer observed. Splitting from other circuits, the 9th Circuit considers all pro se challenges to state officials an indication of a character flaw, an element of an underlying vexatious nature. Plaintiffs are sent away with no real examination of their issues. They leave bitter, disenfranchised, and transformed into agents of contempt. The Panel might take this opportunity to explain differences between Davy Crockett and Don Quixote with explicit details provided so the people can identify to which they camp they belong. 1 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ili As an alternative to 9th Circuit correction, Flarity proposes an update to The Haines Doctrine evenly applied across all circuits to restore the people’s confidence by either bolstering or modifying U.S.C. § 1654. Regardless of class assignment to plaintiffs, the 9th Circuit should not be allowed to gaslight their people. 1.