THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

http://georgehigh.com/Supreme%20Court/S.C.%20Bill%20Morrison%20%20Jan.%2022%2C%20%202001.pdf   Petition for Writ of Certiorari  On The Highs Civil Rights Action against Bill Morrison and Michael Abbott,   Jan. 22, 2001

http://georgehigh.com/Supreme%20Court/S.C.%20Bill%2000-9506%20denied%20%206-25-01.pdf   Supreme Court Denied the Highs Petition    June 25, 2001

http://georgehigh.com/Supreme%20Court/George%20%26%20Virginia%20%20%20%20March%2025%2C%202002.pdf  Petition for Writ of Certiorari- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals   March 25, 2002

http://georgehigh.com/Supreme%20Court/S.C.%20Denied%2001-9251%20%20April%2022%2C%202002.pdf   Supreme Court Dernied the Highs Petition    April 22, 2002

http://georgehigh.com/Supreme%20Court/supreme%20court%20cetiorari%20%203-21-05.pdf    Petition for Writ of Certiorari - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Lacked  Jurisdiction   Jan. 18, 2005

http://georgehigh.com/Supreme%20Court/Order%20Feb.%2028%2C%202005.pdf   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Denied, but Petitioner was allowed until March 21, 2005 to pay docking fee and re-submit petition    February 28, 2005

http://georgehigh.com/Supreme%20Court/S.C.%20Cased%20Closed%2004-8325%20%203-25-05.pdf   March 25, 2005      Just when "we" learn how to play the game, "y'all" change the rules.  Oh! they now say that we were allowed 21 days until March 15,  so the case is considered closed.  But in fact according to the above letter dated February 28, 2005, we were allowed until March 21, 2005.  No big deal  cause "we" always get screwed.                             

               [see]  Platsky  v. C.I.A. 953 F. 2d 26  (2^nd cir. 1991) Pro Se Plaintiffs are often  unfamiliar with  the formalities of  pleading  requirements.  Recognizing this, the Supreme Court has instructed the District Court to construe  Pro Se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of  a  Pro Se complaint, than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. see e.g. Hughes v. Rove 449 U.S. 5, 9-10,  101  S. Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed 2d 163 (1980) (per curiam): Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L. Ed .2d 652 (1972)  (per curiam) , see also Elliott v. Brunsom, 87 F. 2d 20, 21 (2d cir. 1989) ( per curiam)  In order to justify the dismissal of a Pro Se complaint it must be  “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entile him to relief ”.  Haines v. Kerner  504 U.S. at 521, 92 S.ct at 594   (quoting  Con1ey v. Gibson,  355  U.S.  41. 45-46,  78 S.Ct.99, 102, 2 L.Bd.2d 80 (1957). [1,2) In light of these principles, we think that the district court should not have dismissed Platsky’s complaint without affording him leave to replead.