Tuvell is not “really” (voluntarily) a pro se litigant. Initially, Tuvell was satisfactorily represented by competent legal counsel (total expenditure > $34

Tuvell is not “really” (voluntarily) a pro se litigant. Initially, Tuvell was satisfactorily represented by competent legal counsel (total expenditure > $340,000 out-of-pocket). But following appellate panel’s affirmation of the district court’s dismissal at summary judgment, Tuvell’s counsel “declined” to file PetReh (for no other reason than counsel’s “Fear of Speaking Truth to Power” [potential retaliation upon counsel by judges, inimical to counsel’s practice/career] — disclaimer: Tuvell’s “surmise,” please do not “blame” counsel); at that point Tuvell was “(self-)forced” to file PetReh pro se. † {† Tuvell’s motion to extend time for filing PetReh was denied (bordering on judicial abuse of discretion; compare ℘30ƒ44 † ι infra). Making up for that lost time, during the two weeks following filing of PetReh, Tuvell filed six amended versions of PetReh, all in the nature of “trivial error/typo/tweak corrections” (no substantive changes). The appellate panel accepted only the third of these versions (labeled/entitled “Amended (Ter)”), rejecting the fourth–sixth versions (again bordering on abuse of discretion). Unsurprisingly, that third version still contains some trivial mistakes (e.g., at PetReh 7, “2–8” should read “3–8”; herein corrected at ℘ ℘26ƒ39 infra).} Lawyers generally like to pursue cases, since it makes them money. If your lawyer declines to pursue a case further, saying that winning is hopeless, they're probably right. Further on... A Note On “Tone” — This Petition: (i) speaks pure/raw Truth, candidly (not “shrilly”); (ii) evinces outraged indignation (without “hysteria”), typographically and linguistically. This is appropriate/necessary: a “temperate elocution” risks escaping the notice of this Court — gravely disserving America. For, this case stretches indefinitely beyond “mere error-correction”: a more surreal/nightmarish travesty/abortion of justice is beyond imagination. (Literally.) The momentousness of the lower courts’ waywardness in this case cannot be overstated, given its portent for other cases ( xiƒ ℘ 7 supra, ℘15ƒ21, infra). A petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supremes is not a great place to try out your new typographical notation. This whole thing appears to be a frivolous petition filed by a person somewhat at odds to consensus reality. It'd be interesting if Kevin Underhill took a look at it.