In Re Jack R. Finnegan

The courts have no authority to arbitrarily impose a misapplication of a legal doctrine to an action in equity. This elliptical action leads to incorrect results in classification of actions. None of the extraordinary powers of a court of equity are required in order to give relief sought. In classifying an action as legal or equitable, the court should look to its substance, i.e. to the nature of the right involved and the demand for remedy sought. Rights are such as belonging to every citizen of the United States by the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the document filed with the District court, Request For An Injunction, Pursuant to 28 USC SS1367(aO, 1657(a), 1746, and FRCP Rule 65(d) and Applicable Provisions of Rule 52(a)(b)(c), was a demand for damages only equitable relief was stated. The Appellate Memorandum apparently was conceived upon bias and prejudice, as if to say that acting for oneself, somehow diminishes the United States or California Constitutional guarantees. Was Petitioner denied under the Equal Protection Clause, the 14th Amendment guarantee that the government must treat a person or class of persons the same as other persons or classes in like circumstances? The ground for equitable relief among others is intrinsic and extrinsic fraud by preventing a fair adversary proceeding, which cannot be enforced. See, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970): United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93.