Article Impeachment Case 11-5254

PRO SE STANDARD OF REVIEW
Judges and court must givePro Ses wide latitude and can not dismiss an
action ifthere is any valid cause that they can see, even if you are
not pointing out the right law and presenting it well
The following is from our Reply Brief to the Second Circuit Court
ofAppeals. Feel free to use it and pass it along to others.
Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, President
PRO SE STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the Plaintiff is pro se, the Court has a higher standard when
faced with a motion to dismiss, White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 makes
this point clear and states: A court faced with a motion to dismiss a
pro se complaint must read the complaint's allegations expansively,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596,30 L. Ed.
2d 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether
they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079,
1081, 31 L. Ed.2d 263 (1972).
Pro se litigants' court submissions are to be construed liberally and
held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If
thecourt can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite
failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories,
poor syntax and sentenceconstruction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with
rule requirements.Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70
L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285,
50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78
S.Ct.99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92
S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State Police,
88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39,
42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same
standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys);Then v. I.N.S., 58
F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999).
The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their
pleadings and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court
should use common sense to determine what relief the party desires.
S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also,
United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) (Court has
special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadingsliberally);
Poling v. K.Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J.
2000).
Defendant has the right to submit pro se briefs on appeal, even though
they may be in artfully drawn but the court can reasonablyread and
understand them. See, Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5thCir. 1998).
Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against
consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result.
U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996).
Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to
determine if the allegations providefor relief on any possible
theory." Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334
(8th Cir. 1975)(quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.
1974)). Thus,if this court were to entertain any motion to dismiss
this court would have to apply the standards of White v. Bloom.
Furthermore, if there is any possible theory that would entitle the
Plaintiff to relief, even one that the Plaintiff hasn't thought of,
the court cannot dismiss this case.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: 2095315162@mms.att.net
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 17:22:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Article Impeachment Case 11-5254
To: guyperea@gmail.com

Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States

--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
goldlandabstracts <http://www.thoughts.com/goldlandabstracts> The United
States International Policies
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1340855784
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://ptusss.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/guyperea
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>

Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) Confidentality Notice: The e-mail
transmission may contain confidential ot legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery, and then delete the message from your
system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau of as
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Notice of
Removal of Office of Defendant Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://plus.google.com/100487463984952448443