Charles L. Stringer v. Storesonline, Inc., et al.

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).