Whether a civil access-to-justice crisis exists

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner “Pro Se” requests a Writ of Certiorari for compelling reasons. “The United States Department of Justice reestablished the Office for Access to Justice (ATJ) as a standalone agency in October 2021 to address the access-to-justice crisis in the criminal and civil justice system”. “ATJ is guided by three principles: Promoting Accessibility by eliminating barriers that prevent people from understanding and exercising their rights. Ensuring Fairness by delivering fair and just outcomes for all parties, including those facing financial and other disadvantages. Increasing Efficiency by delivering fair and just outcomes effectively, without waste or duplication”. | 1. Whether a civil access-to-justice crisis exists and , if so, are the questions presented of such imperative public importance as to justify immediate determination by the Supreme Court of the United States. “In October of 2009 the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights ! and Civil Liberties, held a hearing entitled "Access | to Justice Denied: An Oversight Hearing on | Ashcroft v. Iqbal" which was followed by two legislative bills: the "Open Access to Courts Act" 7 which codified the “no set of facts " standard as articulated in Conley and the "Notice Pleading | Restoration Act" providing that a Federal Court | shall not dismiss a complaint under 12 (b)(6), except by standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, (1957). | 2. Whether the “use” of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), (the Petitioner respects the Court’s decision relative to this specific case), in every civil action far departs and conflicts with the accepted and usual United States Supreme Court decisions, (D as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. “The system of federal rules began with the Rules , Enabling Act of 1934, 28 U.S. Code § 2072 which authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules ; of procedure, which have the force and effect of law, 28 U.S. Code § 2072, however states that; (b) such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect”. | 3. Whether the “use” of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. } 1937 (2009), in every civil action is in violation of the Rules Enabling Act of 1934, 28 U.S. Code § | 2072. Whether this important question of federal law should be settled by this Court. Whether the use of the decision conflicts with historically, relevant decisions of this Honorable Court. The U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause assures that all levels of American government will operate within the law and provide fair procedures. The Fifth Amendment mandates that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." 4. Whether the ongoing use of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), is in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment mandate. The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution extends the right to a jury trial in all federal civil cases. 5. Whether the “use” of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), circumvents the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution by requiring that prior to discovery courts must somehow assess the ay) plausibility of a claim and that factual evidence of wrongdoing is never presented to a judge or jury. Pro se cases are governed by standards other than Twombly and Iqbal and pleadings are to be liberally construed. Rule 15 (a)(2) provides that the Court shali freely give leave when justice requires. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only “give the defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it re