1. Has one federal judge set the uniform national standard 1 for ending discrimination
based on disability, and 'impeached ' the state courts ' rules and policies on ADA
accommodation by insisting on radically contradictory outcomes on the concurrent
accommodation of the same disabled pro se litigant? Since the ADA 's clear statement
places the federal court in preemptive position to uniformly interpret and enforce the
ADA (to protect the same person), may the hierarchy of California courts who have
. knowledge of the federal orders 2 expressly and concurrently violate 3 this federal
standard? What remedial action must be applied DURING state litigation to protect
the UNACCOMMODATED disabled pro se litigant, and HOW must ADA
accommodation be provided to him, in order to minimize the duration.and burden of
litigation, and to make the victim equal in opportunity to succeed in litigation and to
prevent further harm?

2. Does California jurisprudence systemically 4 discriminate based on disability by
eliminating rights, constitutional privileges and immunities, and access to legal
remedies for self-represented litigants with invisible disabilities?

3. Does the treatment of self-represented litigants with disability by judges and courts in
the course of California jurisprudence, violate a) the Constitution of the United States,
b) international treaties, conventions and declarations 5, c) traditional notions of fair
play and substantive justice, d) judicial ethics?

4. Do the California judiciary individually 6 evade and undermine the object and purpose 7
of international human rights treaties 8 through the courts ' services and operations,
thus eroding this nation 's international prestige 9 and the trust of the world
community 10 and thus undermining paragraph 1 and Article VI of the US Constitution
and our national morality 11?

Whether a federal judge can set a uniform national standard for ADA accommodation and preempt state court rules, and whether California courts systematically discriminate against disabled pro se litigants