Whether the lower courts violated a pro se litigant's due process rights by dismissing appeals based on procedural technicalities rather than addressing substantive claims of fraud upon the court

No question identified. : and APPENDEX B 04-19-09 REASONS TO GRANT THE 60 DAY EXTENSION The Petitioner is proceeding without counsel and due to illness, medications and pain, the Petitioner has been set back however, believes he can meet the new dead line to file his writ of certiorari. Granting the extension will not prejudice the defendants, denial would cause Petitioner irreparable harm. ARGUMENT 1.001 Petitioner’s constitutional right access to the court was violated by the lower court allowing the frivolous and fraudulent complaint to procced. The courts ignored the Plaintiffs Attorneys misrepresentations and allowed Spectrum Association Management LP fraudulent affidavit as support to the complaint. Pro se Pefendant complained to Appellate Court that the court were complicit in the Plaintiff's fraud upon the court. The Fourth Court’s Opinion 04-19-00311-cv relied on the misrepresentation that the certified mail was returned. The court record shows that the attorney made that fraudulent representation in its reply to Defendants Motion to Vacate. In fact the attorney wrote in the reply that it was not underived it was refused. However when court asked for proof the attorney admitted that it had not been returned. Yet the foundation of the Fourth Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion was that the certified mail was returned as undelivered advancing the fraudulent representation which was repeated by the Plaintiffs attorney in every lower court and the Fourth Court of Appeals. Further noting in the Court’s Opinion addresses the fraudulent affidavit of support or the misrepresentations. The Fourth Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the lower court did not dismiss the Defendants counter claim. At every turn in every court the Defendant was denied due process and failure to follow well settled case law when dealing with pro se defendants and pro se litigants. 1.002 The second appeal is deals with the counter claim the Plaintiffs attorneys again mislead the lower court to believe that the counter claim had already been addressed, that a summary judgment was entered against the Petitioner, the certified mail was returned refused, the court refused to accept the Plaintiffs own documents on record to show that the complaint was frivolous and fraudulent because Petitioner did not attest to the documents and refused to allow Petitioner to attest to them calling the court’s record just a bunch of papers. The sitting judge was a visiting Judge and there was confusion on his order that the Defendant was not aware of leading to the second Appeal over the same complaint 04-19-0009 was filed. Defendant would show that the Fourth Court of Appeals continued to ignore obligations imposed on attorneys when violating rules of ethics by refusing to address to misrepresentations and the fraudulent affidavit of support and failing to use the court’s discretion to allow the appeals to move forward because the courts disfavor pro se pro se litigants. The court failed to adhere to well settled Supreme Court case law that the courts should adhere to “Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that of end, It’s importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of just judgment” Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) Further Pro se litigants are granted latitude and leniency and resolution of disputes should be on the merits, rather than on technical errors, the Fourth Court in this case chose procedure over the merits of the case violating the Petitioner due process rights,! MANIFEST INJUSTICE AND COURT ERROR 2.001 The Fourth Court’s basis for refusing to apply its discretion to allow the appeal to move forward was only by ignoring the underlying merits of allegations of fraud upon the courts ' McNeil v United States,