II. ABUSE: DENIAL OF COUNSEL

Given the complexity of federal litigation, only well-to-do litigants can afford the expense of counseled representation, except where such representation is on a contingent fee basis. However, the federal judges erect illegal barriers (see below) to make it nearly impossible even for counseled litigants to prevail, particularly in suits for money damages. As a result, most ordinary citizens cannot find attorneys willing to represent them in federal court.

III. ABUSE OF DOCTRINES AND FEDERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
Abuse of "Res Judicata" and "Collateral Estoppel."

Once a claim has been adjudicated in a fair judicial proceeding, or could have been fairly and fully adjudicated in a previous fair judicial proceeding, it may not be re-litigated again. Similarly, if an issue has been decided in a fair proceeding, it is to be considered decided in subsequent trials. The federal courts grossly ignore the "fairly and fully" clauses, using respectively the doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel to dismiss claims and proclaiming decided issues that had been litigated in proceedings for which evidence exists of serious irregularities, fraud and corruption.

Abuse of Domestic Relations Exception.
The adjudication of domestic cases is within the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. However, this exception does not concern the deliberate and malicious violations of citizens' constitutional rights by state courts in domestic cases. Federal judges usually dismiss suits for vindication of citizens' rights in connection with such abuses, dishonestly pretending that the suits constitute domestic litigation.

Abuse of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
(Based in federalism /comity). This doctrine prohibits what amounts to appellate review by federal courts of state court adjudications.  Its application is reasonable and appropriate where a litigant merely seeks to engage a federal court in a review that is ordinarily performed by the state appellate courts.  However, its application is both unreasonable and illegal where, for example, a litigant seeks to establish through a claim that does not involve readjudication of his/ her state claims that their federal rights have been violated by a participant, or participants in the underlying state proceeding.  An example of the latter is when a state judge deliberately denies a fair process to a litigant and the determination of the scope and/ or extent and/ or full nature of the constitutional violation(s) requires a separate judicial proceeding.  The federal courts may not use the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to decline a suit of this nature.  Although the determination by a federal court that a plaintiff was denied due process in state court would void the underlying state court rulings, such does not establish that the outcome of the state proceeding was wrong – that must be decided in a just state court proceeding.   The federal courts knowingly misapply this doctrine to throw out most suits attacking corrupt legal processes.  This gives a green light to countless malicious and corrupt state adjudicators to rob children of good parents, take away life savings from senior citizens, silence whistleblowers, etc.

Abuse of The Younger Abstention Doctrine.
(Based on federalism /comity) The federal courts must not interfere in ongoing and prospective state litigation where the litigants enjoy constitutionally sound process. Yet with regularity, the federal courts shamelessly ignore the issue of constitutionality of the process in state litigation, invoking Younger Abstention regardless of the law and alleged facts.

Abuse of The 11th Amendment & Sovereign Immunity.
The federal courts often dishonestly hold that the 11th Amendment shields the states from all federal suits by their citizens, except, where the states have waived such immunity.  But, the 11th Amendment prohibits such suits only to citizens of other states and countries.  The Supreme Court gave the judiciary a "less ignorant," yet still illegal means for dismissing the citizen suits against their states by extending to the states the British common law of sovereign immunity, which immunity violates the Petition Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the "remedy for every wrong" provisions of many state constitutions.

Abuse of Immunity Doctrines.
Official immunity from suits for violation of citizens' rights violates the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has created a host of official immunities.  One of the most pernicious of these is absolute judicial immunity, which shields judges from suits for damages even for corrupt and malicious conduct.  Even these patently unconstitutional doctrines do not prohibit suits against judges and other officials for injunctive and declaratory relief. Yet the federal courts often dishonestly pretend they do, in order to dismiss the suits.

Abuse of Federal Rule 12.
This Rule requires that the initial complaint adequately plead the facts necessary for relief (i.e., to state a claim).  Failure to abide by it may appropriately result in dismissal of the suit under the above rule or Rule 56 (see below). However, this rule is one of those most often abused by judges, but no part is abused more than 12(b)(6), "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."  Most judges "fail" to recognize the valid claims in ordinary citizens' complaints.

Abuse of Federal Rule 56.
When there is no dispute as to the material facts, and certain findings must follow as a matter of law, the court may make the findings and dispose of an action by summary judgment. In most suits, at least one Motion for Summary Judgment is filed, usually by the Defendant, and where the "nonmoving" parties are ordinary people, the courts grant summary judgments regardless of the facts and the law.

IV. ABUSES: NO HEARINGS, NO PUBLICATION, JUDGES DO NOT READ PLEADINGS.
The federal judges dismiss most suits without a hearing, without looking into the faces of their victims, without affording them an opportunity to orally argue their positions.  Recent media reports expose the fact that most federal pleadings are read by law clerks, rather that Article III judges. In the majority of federal appeals, appellate decisions are unpublished.  In most cases the federal appellate courts rubberstamp lower court judgments,  regardless of how wrong and unfair are the rulings. One paragraph, standard per curiam decisions, is all these appellants receive for their hard work on the appeals.

V. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE US
Visit the local federal district court and review 10-20 files of ordinary people. Speak with the litigants and/ or their attorneys. Make up your own mind.