Scenario 1: Litigant prescribed with medical treatment that requires modification of court rules, procedures and policies, including modification of statutory requirements Last updated on: Aug 26, 2025

Judges and courts (clerks, ADA personnel) prioritize the administrative goals of courts (case disposition time objectives, judicial and administrative caseload and management), invariance of deficient rules, procedures, customs, practices, and policies of the courts, intrinsic bias and discretionary assessment of likelihood of success (presumptions based on possibilities of expression by pro se litigants, intolerance of pro se litigants per Posner "a kind of trash not worth the time", likelihood of success on appeal/writ pro se, favoritism for attorneys in comparison to pro se litigants, e.g. "Yes, court bias exists — and judges must attack it", Judge Bernice Bouie Donald, ABA Feb. 11, 2022, and Molloy "The fraternity : lawyers and judges in collusion, 2004, Paragon House") above accommodation and meaningful access for disabled and pro se litigants who cannot participate in constitutional due process absent accommodation. When notified of the need for modification of invariant rules, procedures, customs, practices, and policies of the courts, particularly when they impact administrative goals, judges refuse accommodation permitting medical treatment or discretionarily modify the medical treatment, arbitrarily applying reasoning that undermines medicine and is inconsistent with science, constituting the unlicensed practice of medicine. The judicial misconduct is injurious and statistically risks disability.

A modification of medical treatment specified by an authentic treating physician or qualified psychotherapsit or neuropsychologist or other care-provider who has received advanced scientific training and licensure, must not be varied, interfered with, obstructed or eliminated by any judge, or by any court, or administrative forum or other forum presided over by any person(s) under color of authority, or involving any person(s) who acts under the color of authority of such a person or forum, for the likelihood of harm to the litigant, and the importance of their security and bodily and mental integrity. The taking of jurisdiction by a judge and court instills a sense of fear of disobedience to a judicial order, and an expectation that whatever the judge orders must be followed, otherwise punishment WILL ensue. A person of ordinary sensibility readily perceives that the court takes control of the bodily autonomy of the litigant through orders for appearance and participation and compliance with court orders, thus constituting a form of custody by a figure of authority, with deviation from obedience to the judge and court generally recognized as potentially resulting in punishment for contempt. It is readily understandable to a person of ordinary sensibility that compelling a litigant to deviate from the medical treatment specified by their licensed care providers for fear of punishment is likely to cause the harm.

The litigant requesting accommodation for medical treatment shall receive the medical treatment as specified by her authentic licensed care providers, without inteference and with an abundance of caution to ensure efficacy. No judge, no court, or administrative forum or other forum presided over by any person(s) under color of authority, and no person(s) who acts under the color of authority of such a person or forum, shall cause any modification of the form and substance of the prescribed treatment, or cause the litigant to deviate from the form and substance of the prescribed treatment, or cause any deprivation, reduction or change in the expected effect and benefit of the treatment. Any such conduct by the named actors (excluding the litigant) shall be presumed to be the unlincensed practice of medicine, recognized as a criminal offense in every state.

UDHR, UNCAT & Istanbul Protocol, CRPD, ICESCR, ICCPR, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Substantive Due Process, Washington v. Harper (1990), Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), Estelle v. Gamble (1976), Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), CEDAW, CRC, ICERD