1
DID THE MISSISSIPPI SUPRME COURT BREAK STATE LAW
WHEN IT WOULD NOT APPLY THE MANDATORY
LANGUAGE IN THE USE OF THE WORD OF SHALL IN
MISSISSIPPI CODE OF ANN & 11-1-17 IN VIOLATION OF
28 U.S.C.A. & 1654, IN VIOLATION OF PRO SE PETITIONER
FIRST, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMEND OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITITUTION.

2
THE CHANCERY COURT DENIED THE APPELLANT/
PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN
CIVIL ACTION AND TO BE TREATED THE SAME
OTHER APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF WHO HAVE COME
BEFORE THE CHANCERY COURT OM DEFAULT
JUDGMENT IN VIOLATION OF 28 & U.S.C.A. & 1654.
AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SIX AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.

3
THE CHANCERY COURT ERRED CITING BAKER & McENZIE
LLP V. EVENS. 123 So. 3d 387 IS NOT ONE DIGEST KEY
IN THAT CASE THAT ADDRESS A RULE 12(f) MOTION AND
IT STATES COMPLAINTS FILED IN OTHER STATES UNDER
DIFFERENT LEGAL CLAIMS NOT COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.

4
THE CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ERRED IN
NOT GRANTING PLAINTIFF MOTION TO STRIKE
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENDSES UNDER
MRCP. 12(f).

5
THE CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ERRED IN NOT
GRANTING PLAINTIFF SECOND MOTION TO
STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER MRCP 12(f).

Did the Mississippi Supreme Court break state law when it would not apply the mandatory language in the use of the word 'shall' in Mississippi Code of Ann § 11-1-17 in violation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1654, in violation of pro se petitioner's First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights