RE: 94-2001

This case begins in the lower courts strictly in the language of the common citizen, A SIMPLE CASE. As requested by the Court it was "redressed" in a legal format, BASED UPON: A civil Rights action!

Evidence and personal testimony was given, and established through the Record, which was filed with the pleadings, and the memorandum in support. (cause of grievance), and further identified by (the common citizens outcry for Justice), a simple explanation included in the writ of right, Jan 28,1994.

The evidence was submitted within a CLEAR and CONCISE investigative procedure, whereupon the extent of abuse, and thereby damage could be easily ascertained; again as implied and supported by the record, received jan 6,1994 (applied to the test)!

The plaintiff illustrates his Right through Constitutional doctrine (authority)

YET THE COURT SAYS; "the plaintiffs response does not satisfy the courts requirements, specifically Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a). Rule 8 (a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgement for the relief the pleader seeks. Feb 08,1994.

The plaintiff replies Feb 18,1994, with a Constitutional Basis, per pleading, Being SHORT, and PLAIN, and SPECIFIC.

The Court replies: "Frivolous"

RE: 94-2001

This case explained in yet another way reads:

We the people, DO have an established RIGHT, to Fair and "EQUITABLE" solutions, in law. The Reality, and evidence CLEARLY indicate JUSTICE IS DENIED. This case is then,

A PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Authority of the Court is thereby questioned, BY the Authority of the People, as a majority!

THE PLEADINGS AGAIN RESTATED:

1. No one can be convicted of a crime he/she was NOT charged with.

2. No one can be both prosecutor and judge.

3. A judge is NOT IMMUNE during bad behavior in a courtroom.

4. Every citizen deserves access to court , "within their own words".

5. The Authority MUST substantiate, OR it is TYRANNY.

6. Constitutional Questions ARE a function of the Courts responsibility.

7. The court MUST comply with BASIC fundamental procedure.

8. The people deserve protection from corrupt officials.

9. The people have a right to expect the lower court to RESPECT the higher court authority.

10. The people have a right to uniform judgements, the same penalty, being as reasonable and just, per situation, as the law allows, NOT TYRANNY, which is "making an example of someone"!

11. The people have a right to understand the courts directive, without compromise.

12. The Court acts illegally, IF orders are given directing compliance to one set of rules, then dismissing by yet another.

13. Procedural formalities are BIASED against the poor, (cannot be understood by), and therefore Illegal.

14. The simple defense, "tell it like it was", MUST be sufficient.

15. The court acts illegally, in view of:

a. DO judges protect each other?

the job IS to protect the law.

b. DOES the court oppose the liberty established in the words, "IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"!

c. The people have a right to understanding.

d. Judicial immunity is NOT Constitutionally Based.

16. Procedural denial of the public right to, "ACCESS, to the Courts", is Illegal.

17. The people demand, "the foundation of Justice is EQUALITY", in every instance.

18. The people are ready to elect their president, THEMSELVES, one person, one vote.

Be it NOTED and understood: Judge Harold A. Baker, did cause pleading 16, of this case, to be initiated, filing jan 28,1994, and as such may have been influenced by the subsequent filing Feb 18,1994 and its demand...."discipline or dismiss".

The wording of issues as represented by case 94-2001 are harsher than perhaps necessary. The Reality of "so called justice" is EQUALLY HARSH and MORE SO upon the people it falls upon.

The purpose and demand of this case shall hereby be limited to: FAIR, EQUITABLE, CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. and

The proper authority and RESPECT as is deserved by the people, limited by the constitution, and established by their VOTE.