When State Courts become abusive because of immunity….when you just can’t win…..

Federal Civil rights injunctions SHOULD BE available, and if you can present your case properly they MAY BE available…. this is a theory that I have been working on for almost 7 years now…. because the laws (statutory and common law) are there on the books, but somehow Younger v. Harris has been twisted beyond recognition, bent ALL out of shape and perverted.  It SHOULD be seen as the middle case between a trilogy of Dombrowski v. Pfister, Younger v. Harris, and Mitchum v. Foster, two of which upheld Federal Court injunctions against State Court proceedings and only one—Younger did not.  So why is Younger the one that all Defendants cite and few Plaintiffs know about in Civil Rights cases?  Could it be….that the Defendants for the most part run the law schools and print the law books and they want to increase and maximize the abusive power of the State Courts?

Dombrowski v. Pfister 1965

DOMBROWSKI v PFISTER 380_US_479

YOUNGER v HARRIS 401_U_S__37

Younger v. Harris, February 23, 1971

Mitchum v. Foster, a case from Bay County, Florida

Mitchum v Foster 407_US_225

Happy Reading Everybody!  Write me whether you think I’m wrong!  Because, after all, we all have the right to proceed pro se or in propia persona in defense of our rights, even though the Bar works hard to keep everyone, including lawyers, as ignorant as possible about the law:

Faretta_v_California_422_US_806_96_SCt_2525_1975

Faretta_v_California_1975