James W. Gilliam, II v. Discover Bank, et al.

QUESTION FOR REVIEW This petition raises the Constitutional issue of whether or not a citizen of the United States is entitled to his or her own day in court — or be denied justice [due process] because he or she — like over a hundred million Americans1 — cannot afford a lawyer? The right to an individual's 'Day in Court’ which encompasses every person within the jurisdiction of the United States is so deeply ingrained in our traditions of American jurisprudence, that Chief Justice Rehnquist, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Martin v Wilkes, No. 87-1614, argued January 18, 1989 - decided June 12, 1989 (Slip Opinion), quoted 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 4449, p417 (1981) (18 Wright): "This rule is part of our ’deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court."’ ’Due Process’ under law is a term that Justice Frankfurter defined — in Bochin v. California, when he wrote: [t]hese standards of justice are not authoritatively formulated anywhere as though they were specifics. Due process of law is a summarized Constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which ... are so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental or are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In addition and perhaps - more importantly - he said: The Constitution is intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories.