> Judges are supposed to use some digression. Yes, and they do, however sometimes their hands are tied. In this case by rule 36 of a series of peer approved ru

> Judges are supposed to use some digression. Yes, and they do, however sometimes their hands are tied. In this case by rule 36 of a series of peer approved rules which states what action the judge in this case has to take. When submitted to appeal the judges who passed the rules then said the ruling "had no basis in reality" about their own rules, hopefully they will fix them and/or future judges will use this as precedent to in cases like this. This part of the system is functioning correctly, it's the ridiculous litigation from pro-se plaintiffs that's at fault. Most jurisdictions have an equivalent to spam filter that passes down criminal charges on people who act like this.