In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 829-32, 830
n.39, 833-34, 834 n.46 (1975), this Court held that state
courts may not compel pro se litigants in criminal
cases to use an attorney (unless the pro se litigant's
conduct is of such a "serious," "obstructionist," "extreme," "aggravated," "noisy, disorderly, and disruptive"
nature that it is virtually or "wholly impossible to carry
on" with the court's proceeding, as per Illinois v. Allen,
397 U.S. 337, 338, 346 (1970)). In dicta, the Faretta
Court also appeared to say or infer that civil pro se
litigants in state court have an analogous federal constitutional right of self-representation. This petition
asks this Court to squarely reach and affirm what
this Court earlier indicated about the federal constitutional right of a civil pro se state court litigant in the
Faretta dicta.

QUESTION #1. Is a pro se civil litigant's right of
self-representation in state court protected as a funda mental federal constitutional right subject to the strict
scrutiny test under the United States First Amendment (Free Speech, Free Exercise, Petition Clauses) as
incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment?

QUESTION #2. Is a pro se civil litigant's right
of self-representation in state court protected as a fundamental federal constitutional right subject to the
strict scrutiny test under the United States Fourteenth
Amendment (Due Process and Privileges and Immunities Clauses)?

Is a pro se civil litigant's right of self-representation in state court protected as a fundamental federal constitutional right subject to the strict scrutiny test under the United States First Amendment (Free Speech, Free Exercise, Petition Clauses) as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment?