Brought before the Court is the issues of whether the United States District Court, District of Nevada (hereinafter USDC) by way of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Courts ' (hereinafter "Ninth Circuit or USCA ") ruling, unlawfully denied Petitioner Parties of his/their equal access to Justice, for which the USDC argues that "in the Ninth Circuit, "a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer "? Whereas the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted rules of law and it causes errs of law in the Courts ' own judgment concerning 28 U.S. Code § 1654 , which the Ninth Circuit contradicts the United States Supreme Court Opinions & Dissents 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884), and including the Constitution of the State of Nevada by denying Petitioners who previously invoked the Fifth Amendment right , Rule 17 (c), his/their common law rights, and his/their equal access rights to Federal Courts ' proceedings, under what circumstances does the Court "excludes" Petitioner (Parents) from receiving the Courts ' appointment of legal counsel for Petitioners ' children who are without legal representation for their defense when Petitioners are involuntarily involved in/with Federal Court cases?

The choice to appear pro se' in federal court was not a true choice for minors and nor their Parents. In fact, the USCA knew and understood that litigants in federal court have the right to function as his or her own counsel and that the Judiciary Act 28 U.S.C. § 1654 says nothing about children 1 (emphasis added). The Petitioners had no control over his/case being moved federal court, which is no fault of the Petitioners. Whereas the joint removals gave the opposing Respondents Parties an unfair advantage over the minor litigants in this case due to the fact that Parents do not have the right to act on their minors ' behalf in Federal Courts.

Whereas the Court imposed the "Mandatory Legal Counsel Mandate ", ignores its implications for protected Parental authority. The sole policy at stake concerns the Petitioners. In brief, "Mandatory Legal Counsel Mandate ", violates children 's rights under multiple provisions of the Constitution and federal statutes, due to its' exclusion of needy children from federal courts, and that it discourages parents from filing meritorious claims on behalf of their minors. (See Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll, of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882 (3d Cir. 1991); see Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990).

Under what circumstances does a federal court exclude parents from receiving court-appointed legal counsel for their children in pro se litigation when they have made good faith efforts to obtain representation?