in forma pauperis

[ntellect]

Good day freedom fighters. I am attempting to have a case moved from Superior Court to Federal District Court due to the Superior Court not having subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the Defendant. I have filed a Complaint/Counterclaim against my mortgage company based upon fraud in the mortgage contract which makes the violations in the case federal violations. The attorneys have filed answers stating wrong venue and no subject matter jurisdiction plus a Motion to Dismiss because I did not have them served by the Sherrif by way of Summons.

I'm attempting to have this case moved or "re-moved" from Superior Court to Federal District Court without having to pay an additional $250 filing fees in Federal Court. I was informed that I may be able to use a "in forma pauperis" form but I have been unable to find out any information regarding the subject matter or how to properly use it. I'm assuming this works like a Paupers Affidavit.

Is there any information on the site regarding this matter?

peace and blessings
Ntellect

[PANICPASS]

The federal court in your district should have a form called:

Request for Waiver of Court Fees
(in forma pauperis)

Some courts have these forms on their website. If the federal court in your area does not, then you'll have to write and request the form. Be sure to include a self-addressed stamped envelope with your request.

...be very careful of the language on this form.

Just make sure that it' doesn't insert a hidden claim that you are a U.S. Citizen. If so, the case will be deemed moot and dismissed for failure to state a claim inwhich relief can be granted.

Good luck!

[weishaupt1776]

Also, it is a statutory animal & is asking permission.
Stand up and declare your right to "free access to the courts" (use that as a search term)
However, if you insist on going IFP, consider this:
MELVIN P. DEUTSCH, Appellant*V.*UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• We hold that a court may dismiss an in forma pauperis claim as frivolous if, after considering the contending equities, the court determines that the claim is: (1) of little or no weight, value, or importance; (2) not worthy of serious attention; or (3) trivial.

COWHIG v TOGO WEST

• t is well established that courts have the power to issue injunctions "barring a party ... from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits." Gordon v. United States Dep't of Justice , 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (per curiam). While such measures are "the exception to the general rule of free access to the courts," Pavilonis v. King , 626 F.2d 1075, 1079 (1st Cir. 1980), the district court was justified here in concluding that injunctive relief was warranted.

Mackay v. Philadelphia, Court of Common Pleas Orphans' Court

• II. Discussion
  The in forma pauperis statute, "is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342-43 (1948)). Specifically, Congress enacted the in forma pauperis statute to ensure that administrative court costs and filing fees, both of which ordinarily must be paid when filing a lawsuit, would not prevent indigent persons from pursuing meaningful litigation. Denton, 504 U.S. at 31; Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78-79 (3d Cir.1985). Nevertheless, Congress was similarly concerned that persons could abuse this cost-free access to the federal courts. Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Thus, Congress included § 1915(d), which empowers the courts to dismiss abusive filings that could result from the absence of a cost barrier. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 31.
  Under § 1915(d), "[t]he court ... may dismiss the case ... if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(d) (West 1994). A claim may be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(d) if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir.1990). Section 1915(d) also authorizes the dismissal of a complaint as factually frivolous if a court determines that the contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. Dismissal is appropriate if, after considering the contending equities, the court determines that the claim is: (1) of little or no weight, value, or importance; (2) not worthy of serious attention; or (3) trivial. Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1082 (3d Cir.1995).
  The instant suit is frivolous as contemplated under § 1915(d). Judges are absolutely immune from suit for their official acts within their jurisdiction. [FN2] Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351 (1872). An act is judicial when it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his or her judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). The instant action arises out of the official proceedings in before the Orphans' Court. The absolute judicial immunity therefore applies, and dismissal under § 1915(d) is proper because the suit is legally frivolous. [FN3] See Pennebaker v. Chamber, 437 F.2d 66, 67 (3d Cir.1971) (affirming dismissal of action against Justice of the Peace as legally frivolous under § 1915(d) because defendant immune from suit). The case is therefore dismissed pursuant to the Court's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
  
  
  FN2. In proper circumstances, judicial immunity does not bar actions seeking prospective injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984). However, to the extent that Plaintiff's Complaint might state a claim for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983, the Pulliam rule does not apply here, because Plaintiff does not challenge a pattern or practice. See Smith v. Wood, 649 F.Supp. 901, 907-08 (E.D.Pa.1986) (distinguishing Pulliam where plaintiff did not allege defendant was engaging in a practice of abridging constitutional rights). Even if the Pulliam were to apply, a claim under § 1983 would still be barred, because the court is not a person within the meaning of § 1983. See Clark v. Court of Common Pleas of the County of Chester, Civil Action No. 91-6246, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1834, at *7 (E.D.Pa.

[PANICPASS]

I considered using the IFP form only because I did not want to be viewed by the court as if I was an attorney. The only reason I paid is because I want the court to take me seriously. I don't want the court to have any poverty- thought judgments about me beforehand.

IMO, you have to be truly broke to send in that form. Anyone who is capable of suing a bank, or any government agency, probably has some money, but just doesn't want to pay.

[weishaupt1776]

I'm so broke right now, I can't even PAY attention

[weishaupt1776]

CRANDALL v. STATE OF NEVADA, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)

• He has the right of free access to its seaports, through witch all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justices in the several states