What follows are the deceptive instructions of the Forma En Pauperis Petition and the required associated decisions of lower courts which are to be submitted to the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court
Examine a screenshot of the .PDF rules for in forma pauperis submission for a petition for Writ of Certiorari. Note that the word judgement is used.
Below is the an administrative office reference to time condition on filed with the Supreme court for Writ of Certiorari. Note that the word judgement is used.
Again we find that the word judgement is used.
And again the word judgement is used.
Reasonably would any person utilize the date of the final, or last judgement in time sequence the appeals court had produced? In this case January 16, 2008 as seen in the scan of the judgement below. Do you see the word "mandate" on this document?
Oops, perhaps there is a bit of inconsistency here in the provided In Forma Pauperis petition. We see the word "order" below, not judgement as is described in the instructions and US law.
Those tricky judges of the ninth circuit fit in very nicely with the supreme courts "inconsistency" with its own instrcutions and federal law by sending out an order a week before, the second to last, or final judgement.
Then, the clerk only accepts the word "ORDER" for purposes of filing. Do any of the documents above use the words "mandate". The forma en pauperis form was supposedly created for people who are not attorneys. Is it reasonable to expect them to know what is NOT written on the product of a court?
The envelope containing the returned petition appeared to contain trash as would be found in a vacuum cleaner bag.
Back to the Purpose of Law