Increase Appeal Time From 30 Days to One Year for Pro se Litigants Who Can't Afford Legal
0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
Increase Appeal Time From 30 Days to One Year for Pro se Litigants Who Can't Afford Legal representation in Federal courts
STOP FEDERAL COURT'S PREJUDICE AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS (CIVIL)
- Did you know the US Congress whom most are lawyers had created the Federal Rules of Civil Procedural (FRCP) at a great disadvantage, discriminates against pro se litigants?
- Someday you may find yourself, an acquaintance, a friend or dear family member in a Federal Civil Court, where cases can be especially complex, not having the funds to afford an attorney. Where then you must defend yourself as pro se, all alone in a figurative sense extremely handicapped in legal affairs. This is where opposing attorneys can easily out maneuver and in a figurative sense tie you up through their extensive knowledge of FRCP requirements upon you.
- This is where I found myself and even worst it was found out the judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich Middle district Tampa Bay, in my case had been described previous by her own religious leader's blog as
- religiously extremely pious and proud,
- visited most shines around the world,
- attends religious services daily.
- That's just the tip of it, her religious activities she is a director of a guild of similar religious judges and lawyers.
- Also she spearheaded in Tampa Florida a certain yearly religious special service, that goes back in time beginning and has association with the inquisition against bible readers.
- Well documented the persecution in:
- Foxe's Book of Martyrs
- Where in the case the primary target of the suit was towards my religious (bible reader's perspective) and political website, which happened to of pointed out over a hundred times in statements against a particular religion, that just so happened unbeknown to me to be the Judge's religion.
- Where even I have on my website an ebook its main theme over 30 years of research work. Since 12 years old been contemplating and researching since 18 years old, which had also just so happened unbeknown to me to be in stark contrast, against religiously and politically an old statement of the judge. That the judge claimed her statement in a 1989 news article, contributed to her becoming a judge. The Judge's statement had even caused Florida University students to protest the capital of Florida, against her statement before she became a judge.
- The Judge kept hidden from me her many religious and political biases, didn't even offer to once acknowledge them and at least offer to recuse herself from the case.
- Who this same Judge in her ruling had already denied, two affidavits and a motion for change of venue, when I earned below the poverty level, and being forced pro se in a figurative sense was severely handicapped in legal affairs, needed at least ease of access to the court to have any chance of a fair trial. The judge kept the case 1200 miles from where I lived.
- When the consequences of such prejudicial action against the poor and a pro se litigant manifested, that I couldn't possibility afford to travel to Florida three times in only few weeks, and also stay for each trip multiple days in motels. I decided to skip the pre trial hearing greatly worried I would become stranded far from home without any money, and couldn't even attend my trial. The Judge sent out an order to show cause. I sent in my answer on the day that it was requested by over night mail, basically explaining lack of funds.
- This is when the Judge blatantly stated falsely that I didn't respond to her court order to show cause, to cover up her prejudicial ruling that failed to give change of venue to a poor pro se litigant and its consequences. Her court recorded my paper was received by mail Friday, she issued her ruling on Monday found me guilty in Summary Judgment and her court filed my paper on the docket on Tuesday. Which even shows the docket number of her ruling Doc 91 (entered 07/02/2012) on Monday and my paper was docketed as (entered) Doc 92 on Tuesday (7/03/2012). In the left hand of the docket sheet shows my paper was received 6/29/2012.
- The judge used her false statement as her basis to find me guilty in summary judgment, that took away seven days later my jury trial, to keep from the public view her failure to perceive my poor state, needed change of venue.
- Where in a sense I was robbed by a Federal extremely religiously pious and proud Judge, found guilty when I was innocent. Amounts to a Florida Federal Judge's religious and even political persecution of another religious citizen. Violating the Constitution and First Amendment rights of not only me but in a sense all citizens.
- Nevertheless the time for an appeal was before me, already greatly harmed, broke from the long legal fight and the incredible other harm done to me by the multimillionaire plaintiff, again overwhelmed by the process of FRCP, the same extremely pious, proud religious judge ignores the intent and mischaracterizes my pro se's first attempt of an appeal court document 64 pages. In effect would make any future appeal untimely very convenient for the judge.
- Even so I tried my best the following year to appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and even the submitted a Petition of Writ of Certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court. Neither higher courts were concern about the very short window of time for an appeal for pro se litigants, who are very limited in legal affairs, some not even finishing high school. Even while recently the U.S. Supreme court increased the time limit for prisoners on death row up to one year to appeal.
- After years of the unjust legal action of harm against me, everything in my life is stolen from me, while researching for my U.S Supreme Court Cert, I found out further the extreme religious biases of the judge and again gather up enough courage and strength to motion the judge. That she should recuse herself and the other lower magistrate judge on the case to vacate her rulings. The judge then pulls a switcharoo by switching the motion's basis from a 60(b) 6 that has no time limit to a 60 (b) 3 has a one year time limit to deny it as untimely, to cover up, protect herself.
- I informed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals fo the judge's switcharoo in a Petition of Rehearing, and they again denied my petition. In a sense simply ignores a fellow corrupt judge's religious and political persecution of another religious citizen.
- A federal Judge using her federal court for a religion on religion persecution.
- Pro se litigants have made notable contributions to the basic structure of American law. A pro se petition filed by Clarence Gideon resulted in the landmark holding in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys. (Wikipedia)
- There was MUCH INCENTIVE in the Supreme court Judges for the unanimous decision would employ many more lawyers on the government pay role, increase the lawyers turf figuratively speaking, would receive praise from other lawyers, colleagues, whom the judges are 99 percent ex lawyers.
- However the State paid legal representation is only for criminal litigants.
- Fact many Americans who are a poor civil litigants are treated worst then criminals, they have no representation.
- There is no incentive for judges or even congressmen whom many are x lawyers to propose and advance sufficient relief in at least additional time for pro se civil litigants in the appeal process. A last ditch effort at times to reverse a great injustice.
- The legal profession, judges and congress should be partly ashamed that they allowed this great inequity to occur for so long, to hedge themselves against competition.
- Similarly as it was found to be a form of discrimination when a handicap persons weren't allowed timely access to buildings they were afforded a suitable ramp, there also needs be pre-position suitable ramp of time for pro se litigants to navigate the great difficulty of an appeal. Who pro se litigants in a figuratively speaking sense are handicapped in legal affairs.
- Handicapped citizens (literal) when were afforded an adequate ramp to enter all government buildings, was not seen as prejudicing healthy citizens, based on the same principle it isn't prejudicing lawyers and their clients must be afforded an adequate ramp of time to pro se ligants also are handicapped (figuratively speaking) some severely (figuratively speaking). This is not much to ask.
- The literal ramp uses an UNBIASED NATURAL STANDARD contained in the disability act of a minimum 1-12 ratio. That is for every 1 inch height there is 12 inches of ramp.
- There are 30 days to make an appeal, when applied the unbiased natural observed standard 1-12 ratio of a literal ramp to a figuratively ramp of time 30 days, would equate to 360 days, one year of time for pro se litigants to perfect an appeal.
- Even a year's time for an appeal can be an exceedingly difficult process for pro se litigants who are not trained and seasoned for years as a lawyer, but at least there would be a long over due recognition of the discrimination and some proper, just equitable relief is given.
- A last hope of an appeal when all else has failed pro se litigants, especially if they been steamrolled by the complex legal process of FRCP that can easily overwhelm them.
- Thank you so much for your time, please sign the petition and share.
Today: John is counting on you
John Nowak needs your help with “Congress: Religious, Political and Poverty Persecution by a Tampa Florida Federal Judge”. Join John and 205 supporters today.