Petition for Rehearing — Christopher Hadsell, Petitioner v. Catherine Isham

No. 25-881

In the Supreme Court of the Gnited States

ofMPA GR DN

IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES HADSELL,

Deceased,

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,

Petitioner,

—Vy—

CATHERINE ISHAM,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Sd

Service on States’ and Territories’ Attorneys General

o

Christopher Hadsell

Petitioner In Propria Persona

9000 Crow Canyon Rd., S-399,

Danville, CA 94506

e (925) 482-6502 e CJHadsellLaw@gmail.com

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIEG................. Iv

II. Petition for Rehearing...................:c000 1

A. GROUNDS FOR REHEARING....0.......ceseceeeeeees il

1. Introductionisgéssscccssanasaveuuaccesuentes 1

2. Intervening Circumstance........eccesesse00 i

3. Failure to Provide Access to the

a. U.S. Const. Grants Enumerated

Powers to the Government ............. 2

b. U.S. Const. Recognizes The

People’s Rights ..............cccceeeeeeeeeeeees 3

c. The People’s Rights Are

Fundamental to U.S.

CIVANIZ ALTON connssssmcccenennssumenmeaanunss 3

d. SCOTUS’ Jurisdiction...............00006. 4

e. Incremental Steps to SCOTUS’

Review Jurisdiction Today.............. 5

A) Riding Circuit .................00008 5

B) Unconstitutionally

Reducing SCOTUS’

Required Review .................5. 5

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

i

1) Fundamental Rights

Cannot Be Abridged....... 5

C) Constitutional Crisis Issue

1: SCOTUS Arrogated

Congress’ Regulatory

Power to Set The Federal

Courts’ Review Jurisdiction

For State-Court Judgments. 7

1) Rooker Creates at Least

Three Constitutional

Violations ......cccceceeceeeeeees 9

D) Constitutional Crisis Issue

2: Case Selections Act of

E) Constitutional Crisis Issue

3: Writ of Certioari Process

Is Unconstitutional As-

Applied.......ccccsccscssseonseeeees 13

f. Response to Concerns Raised........ 16

A) Too Expensive... ......cccseeeees 16

1) That’s an Unacceptable

EXCUSE wesessesesseescersceasene 16

B) Low-Cost Fix: Start Cases

in District Court..............06 16

A. CONCLUSION sisscssssssccsiacvvvcawrscesoosvesss 17

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

iil

B. CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER ............ 18

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

lv

I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Barron vy. City of Baltimore (1833)

32 U.S. 24.3 wassaurss sanpaasvoscarorssanvaraccmmsennsersanenecemeensnne 17

Bill Johnson's Rests. v. NLRB (1983)

AGL U.S. 731 oo cceccccecccsscceeseesececceeneeenesaasecaeeeensneeeeees 5

De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)

299 U.S, 358 oecccccccceccssecceeeeseceeeeeneeneeensereaessne regs 5,8

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

GO U.S. 393 ..ccccccceesssscceessssecceceesseneeseeseseasesseseneeeeerey 17

Indiana ex rel. Howell v. Cir. Ct. (2026)

146 S.Ct. 585 ...ccccccccccccsseceessseeeeeeeenecseeeersneerersennees 1,2

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America (1994)

511 U.S. 875 ........0:000--cosemnasasavorenececenenseneneneeness 10, 11

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

163 U.S. 587 ooo ccccccccccesecneceeecneeeeeeereneeeeesegeseeaeeeee 17

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923)

DGS U.S. 41.3 ecccacsnasavenscameacaiaumaadsscsscesee-0- 11, 12, 13

Slaughter-House Cases (1872)

B83 U.S. 36 .ncoccwsrenensnnssonnnennsesnnsvanensasnivabasssueeutercsress 17

Rules

U.S. Sup. Ct. R., rule 10(C).....:ccceeeeeeseseeeeeteeeeeeenees 16

U.S. Sup. Ct. B., rule 44......cceceeeeeeeeseneeeseceeneesenseenens 1

Statutes

1 Stat. 23 ...........:..:.--ceessnsenasiasenceieinakGavsopernreminenncrcsnuns 2

28 U.S.C. SL 257 ceecesssesssesessecseeseesteenecsesseesseeneeses 7, 8, 12

28 U.S.C. §1848(a)(8) .... ee eeseeceseeeteenteeeteereeeereeseeens 10

Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73.......ceceeeesstseeeeneeens 7

Judiciary Act of 1925, 43 Stat. 936........c:ccseereereees 12

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

Vv

Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, 102 Stat.

6 2 vsccosssccsscnsscuvcincwcsevesaicciiccidsndiaiaeepecsiaiiisedivelens 12

U.S. Const. amend. Looe... eee eeeeecesecceceeeeeeeees 3, 5, 12

U.S. Const. amend. XII .......ccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeseseeesereees 14

U.S. Const. amend. XIV swesssssaxessinexsassuvssvasseensuecvesses 14

U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 18 oo... eecececeeeeeeseeeeeeenees 3

U.S. Const. art. TT, §2, cl. 1 cece ccccececeeseeesesesseeeees 4

U.S. Const. art. ITI, §2, cl. 2.00... 4, 7, 8,9, 11

Other Authorities

A. Simpleman, Jr., Sentimental Metaphors (1986)

34 UCLA L. Rev. 537, 576 isiisscscciessesacassssnsnexcssssassess 6

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, ET AL., THE FEDERALIST (The

Easton Press ed. 1979) (10/27/1787—4/2/1788) 7, 10

Amy Coney Barrett, LISTENING TO THE LAW............... 3

PAULINE MAIER, RATIFICATION, THE PEOPLE DEBATE

THE CONSTITUTION, 1787-1788 .......cccccseesececceesceeeess 3

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

vi

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

1

IJ. PETITION FOR REHEARING

A. GROUNDS FOR REHEARING

1. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to U.S. Sup. Ct. R.!, rule 44, Petitioner,

(“Hadsell”), respectfully petitions for rehearing of this

Court’s 3/30/26 Order denying Hadsell’s Writ of

Certiorari, (“Writ”).

SCOTUS Rule 44 provides two grounds for Petitions

for Rehearing, “intervening circumstances of a

substantial... effect or... other substantial grounds not

previously presented.” Both apply here.

2. INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCE

On 1/20/26, SCOTUS denied Mr. Howell’s (“Howell”)

motion for leave to file in forma pauperis on the

ground that his writ of certiorari is frivolous or

malicious?. SCOTUS dismissed his writ of certiorari.

Indiana ex rel. Howell v. Cir. Ct. (2026) 146 S.Ct. 585.

SCOTUS also ruled:

As petitioner has repeatedly abused this

Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to

accept any further petitions in noncriminal

matters from petitioner...

1 Subsequent references to the U.S. Sup. Ct. R. will be designated

“SCOTUS Rule”.

2 His writ is arguably neither, Howell., 586

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

2

Justice Jackson (“Jackson”), in her dissent, raises two

issues applicable here: i) a lifetime ban on all future

filings, “no matter what”, id., 586, and il) access to

courts exceeds any court administrative burden, id.

589

These exact same issues apply to the States’

Vexatious Litigant Laws raised in the Writ.

Jackson discusses these issues in factual terms. This

Petition discusses them in constitutional violations.

3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE

COURTS

a. U.S. Const. Grants Enumerated Powers

to the Government

Every power that government exercises is granted by

the grace of The People—as enumerated in the U. S

Const.

Because the U.S. Const. is the only legal authority

providing government with legitimate power, every

newly elected/re-elected/appointed Congressional

member, Executive Officer, and Judicial Officer must

swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Const. before s/he is

allowed to exercise any power. This is so important

that the Oaths of Office (1. Stat. 28) is the first statute

Congress passed.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

3

b. U.S. Const. Recognizes The People’s

Rights

All rights belong to the People. The People granted

limited rights to government so that government can

serve The People. Thus, it’s absurd to suggest that the

U.S. Const. grants any rights to The People; that

would be the most embarrassing regifting of all time.

Notwithstanding, after centuries of Great Britain’s

backsliding on the Magna Carta (finally halted with

the bulwark provided by the 1689 English Bill of

Rights), ratification of the U.S. Const. was headed in

one of three directions, in order of likelihood>:

e Defeat;

e Asecond constitutional convention; or

e Adoption, conditioned on immediately filling the

gaping concerns about:

o The Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. Const.

art. I, §8. cl. 18; and

o No 1689 English Bill of Rights equivalent.

c. The People’s Rights Are Fundamental to

U.S. Civilization

Among the People’s infinite rights (that’s why the U.S.

Const. cannot recognize them all) are four rights

recognized in the 1st Amend.: i) freedom of speech,

ii) freedom of the press, iii) peaceable assembly, and

3 See PAULINE MAIER, RATIFICATION, THE PEOPLE DEBATE THE

CONSTITUTION, 1787-1788; an expert on ratification as cited by

Justice Barrett in her book, LISTENING TO THE LAW.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

4

iv) redress of grievances, (“Four Fundamental

Rights”).

The only judicial right is redress of grievances. That

includes “the right of access to the courts”, Bill

Johnson's Rests. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731, 741.

SCOTUS knows redress of grievances’ importance,

“As this Court said in United States v. Cruikshank...:

‘The very idea of a government, republican in form,

. . ' Ta. alee ane af 4 nitaraANna

implies a right on the part of its citizens... to petition

for a | .”, De ey.

Oregon (1937) 299 U.S. 353, 364.

d. SCOTUS’ Jurisdiction

The U.S. Const. defines SCOTUS’ powers, (U.S. Const.

art. III, §2. cl. 1, and cl. 2). Cl. 2 states (emphasis

added):

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other

public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which

a State shall be Party"“I, the supreme Court shall

have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases

before mentioned [Cl. 1], the supreme Court

shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to

Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under

such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

4 A state is a party in litigation: i) between states, ii) between the

U.S. and a state, and iii) when the state is a formal party; not, as

here, as a nominal party for an ex rel. party.

Case No,: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

5

e. Incremental Steps to SCOTUS’ Review

Jurisdiction Today

A) Riding Circuit

For SCOTUS’ first 101 years, the justices’ primary

duty involved “riding circuit”. Because there were no

circuit-court judges, circuit courts comprised two

SCOTUS justices (1 after 1793) and a district-court

judge. It held trials and appellate review of district

courts. In 1869, Congress provided circuit-court

judges, reducing demands on SCOTUS justices. In

1891, Congress established the circuit court of

appeals. However, “circuit riding” didn’t end until

1911 when Congress moved the remaining “old”

circuit-court duties to the district courts.

Concurrently, SCOTUS was required to review all

appeals from the circuit courts, and all state-court

judgments, for its first 200 years.

B) Unconstitutionally Reducing

SCOTUS’ Required Review

1) Fundamental Rights Cannot Be

Abridged

The Four Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged.

The 1st Amend. states, “Congress shall make no law...

abridging the [Four Fundamental Rights].”

5 In SCOTUS’ first year, 1790, SCOTUS decided zero cases, In

1791, two cases were decided, using less than one page, 2 U.S.

Reporter 401.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

6

De Jonge, 364 states (emphasis added):

The First Amendment... expressly guarantees

that right [address of grievances] against

abridgment by Congress. But explicit mention

there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the

right is one that cannot be denied without

‘olating ti) fond Cevannt a

+ fusti hich. he | Pall civil and

nolitical institutions, principles which the

Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general

terms of its due process clause. [Citations.]

Despite an absolute prohibition against abridging the

Four Fundamental Rights, any abuse that results

from exercising the rights can, and should be,

prohibited. De Jonge, 364 continues:

These rights may be abused... The people

through their legislatures may protect

themselves against that abuse. But the

legislative intervention can find constitutional

justification only by dealing with the abuse. The

rights themselves must not be curtailed.

a) Legal Mind

Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter have all

referenced Thomas Reed Powell’s description of a legal

mind (emphasis added), “If you think you can think

about a thing that is hitched to other things without

thinking about the things that it is hitched to, then

you have a Jegal _mind.”, A. Simpleman, Jr.,

Sentimental Metaphors (1986) 34 UCLA L. Rev. 537,

576.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

7

Here, the issue is to separate the abuse of the rights

(“a thing’) from the Four Fundamental Rights (the

thing that the “abuses” are “hitched to”).

C) Constitutional Crisis Issue 1: SCOTUS

Arrogated Congress’ Regulatory Power to Set The Federal

Courts’ Review Jurisdiction For State-Court Judgments

The U.S. Const. art. [I], §2. cl. 2 mandates SCOTUS

to provide judicial review of lower-court decisions.

However, it vests Congress with the power to create

“exceptions” and “regulations”.

And Alexander Hamilton (avoiding defeat, or another

convention) exhorted the states to adopt the U.S.

Const. since doing so results in [ALEXANDER

HAMILTON, ET AL., THE FEDERALIST (The Easton Press

ed. 1979) (10/27/1787—4/2/1788) (“The Federalist”),

178), (emphasis added)]:

[W]ith the attempts of the government to

establish a tyranny... Power being almost always

the rival of power, the [fedJeral government will

at_all times stand ready to check the

usurpations of the State governments, and

these will have the same disposition towards the

[fedjeral government.... If the [People’s] rights

are invaded by either, they can make use of the

other as the instrument of redress.

Today, SCOTUS’ . state-court-judgments review

jurisdiction is provided by 28 U.S.C. §1257 (“§1257”).

Section 1257 originated with the Judiciary Act of

1789, 1 Stat. 73, 81 [§13(a)], and 85 (§25)—the 20th

statute Congress passed.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

8

Throughout its 237-year history, §1257 never

provided SCOTUS with “exclusive” federal

jurisdiction of state-court judgments; nor that

judgments from the highest state court cannot

concurrently be reviewed by lower federal courts.

Moreover, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

America (1994) 511 U.S. 375, 377 instructs (emphasis

added):

Federal courts... possess only that power

authorized by Constitution and __ statute,

[Citations], which is not to be expan

judicial decree, [Citation].

Notwithstanding, SCOTUS decided (in violation of

US. Const. art. III, §2, cl. 2, and Kokkonen) in Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) 263 U.S. 413, 416°:

Under the legislation of Congress, no court

of the United States other than this court could

entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the

judgment for errors.... Judicial Code, § 237... To

do so would be an exercise of appellate

jurisdiction. The jurisdiction possessed by the

District Courts is strictly origina]. Judicial

Code §24.

These claims are outrageous. It’s like using a “No

Swimming” sign as a diving board.

6 Mr. & Mrs. Rooker took an Indiana-Supreme-Court judgment

to district court. Thus, Rooker is a district-court appeal for

SCOTUS.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

9

1) Rooker Creates at Least Three

Constitutional Violations

a) It Expands SCOTUS’

Jurisdiction

Exclusive jurisdiction means that a court is

designated as the only court to hear a matter. Whereas

concurrent jurisdiction means that more than one

court can hear a matter.

Congress knows how to create exclusive jurisdiction;

e.g., the 1911 Jud. Code §207, states: “The jurisdiction

of the Commerce Court over cases of the foregoing

classes shall be exclusive...”’.

Congress has never conferred exclusive jurisdiction

over any state-court judgment upon SCOTUS.

Therefore, Rooker violates U.S. Const. art. ITI, §2, cl.

7M

b) It Contracts All Lower

Federal Courts’ Jurisdiction

By conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon itself,

SCOTUS simultaneously removes jurisdiction from

all lower federal courts; violating U.S. Const. art. II]

§2, cl. 2, As an author of the U.S. Const., Alexader

7 Indeed, when Jud. Code §24, Eighteenth J, provides jurisdiction

to district courts for, “All suits against consuls or vice consuls.”,

the statutory notes are careful to point out that (emphasis

added), “The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases affecting

ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls under Article

III, § 2, of the Constitution is eriginal but not exclusive, and hence

does not invalidate this clause.”

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

10

Hamilton states, “I perceive at present no impediment

to the establishment of an appeal from the State

courts to the subordinate national tribunals; and

many advantages attending the power of doing it may

be imagined.”, The Federalist, 555.

c) It Creates Unconstitutional

Original Jurisdiction for SCOTUS

courts have strictly original jurisdiction. However, it’s

a donut interpretation because it ignores the hole in

the middle of its interpretation. Jud. Code §24,

Fourteenth (28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3)), provides district

court jurisdiction for (emphasis added):

[A]ll suits... to redress the deprivation,

under color of any law, statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom;... secured by the

Constitution of the United States, or of any right

secured by any law of the United States

providing for equal rights of citizens of the

United States, or of all persons within the

jurisdiction of the United States.

A court judgment is “common law”. A legislative law is

a “statute”. To avoid superfluidity, “law, statute” are

interpreted as “common law, statute”. Thus, contrary

to Rooker, district courts have jurisdiction over statecourt judgments—but, in limited circumstances.

No federal court has jurisdiction for a purely state-law

issue. But, when state law deprives one of a right,

“secured by’ the U.S. Const., or by federal-equalrights law, a district court has jurisdiction.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

11

Now the issue is to separate the effects of a state-court

judgment (“the things”) from the state-court judgment

(the thing that “the effects” are “hitched to”).

The reason a district court has jurisdiction is because

the federal claim is: the effects of the state-court

judgment violate federal law; not that the claimant is

seeking state-court judgment review for error.

Today, only the judgments from the highest court of

the state are allowed to seek redress from the federal

courts, and only SCOTUS can adjudicate it.

This means that SCOTUS is the federal-court entry

point for a state-court judgment that violates federal

law. This creates at least two problems:

The average cost of submitting a writ of certiorari

(“Cert”) to SCOTUS is $100-250,000. This is cost

prohibitive for almost all claims.

More importantly, these claims involve the first

attempt to make a federal claim. Thus, it is an

original jurisdiction claim. But, that is

unconstitutional for at least two reasons.

First, SCOTUS’ original jurisdiction is limited to,

“Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers

and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be

Party...”, U.S. Const. art. IJ, §2, cl. 2. Thus, a

controversy involving the effects of a state-court

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

12

judgment upon the formal parties doesn’t qualify for

original jurisdiction.®

Second, as the only opportunity to redress of

grievances in federal court, SCOTUS has no discretion

to deny access to the court because that would violate

the 1st Amend.’s requirement to provide redress of

grievances via access to the courts.

D) Constitutional Crisis Issue 2: Case

Selections Act of 1988

Although the Judiciary Act of 1925 (43 Stat. 936) gave

SCOTUS some discretionary review, all district-courtdecisions review continued until 1988 because of the

“by appeal” language in §1257 subsections 1. and 2,

The Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 (102

Stat. 662) eliminated the “by appeal” language; thus

taking the final incremental step to convert The

People’s right to access the courts into a request

honored only by the grace of SCOTUS.

Although any abridgement of access to the courts is

unconstitutional facially, because there remained the

fig-leaf defense that one route to the courts remained

open, then the prior abridgements magically weren't

abridgements.

8 Had SCOTUS not unconstitutionally eliminated federaldistrict-court jurisdiction: i) they would have original

jurisdiction, and ii) any SCOTUS review would be review of a

lower federal court.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

13

The fig leaf’s removal exposes the steps for what they

are, facially unconstitutional SCOTUS cases and

Congressional laws.

E) Constitutional Crisis Issue 3: Writ of

Certioari Process Is Unconstitutional As-Applied

Slowly raising the water temperature for over 200

years so that the frog doesn’t notice it’s being boiled,

SCOTUS, for all practical purposes, has limited access

to its sandbox to only two players: the Solicitor

General, and former SCOTUS justices’ law clerks.

SCOTUS’ annual cases ranges from 0 (1790) to 370

(1967). The chart (next page) shows great variation—

significant rises from the 1869 Act’s added capacity

and the Warren Court’s vigor in the 1950s and 1960s;

significant drops with SCOTUS’ added discretion from

the 1891, 1925, and 1988 Acts.

It cannot be legitimately disputed that SCOTUS track

record regarding The People’s rights (viz., civil rights)

has been abysmal (before the Civil War, fanning the

flames of war, Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833) 32

U.S. 243°, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 3931;

9 Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states.

10 Whether a slave or free, people of African descent aren’t U.S.

Citizens; therefore, they have no access to the courts. Written by

Chief Justice Taney, the government’s lawyer in Barron.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

14

0z0Z OL0Z O00Z OG6T O86T OZ6T OSGT OSEL OvET OEGE AZET OTST OCOGT OGRT OB8I O48T O98T OS8T OP8T OE8T OZ8T OTST OQO8T O6ZT

Jea, Jepuajea Aq suoisi9ad SN.LOOS

0

os

OOoT

ost

002

oOs¢

Ose

oor

April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

Case No.: 25-00881

15

after the Civil War, and the 13th and 14th Amends.,

the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) 83 U.S. 36", Plessy

v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 53712). In fairness to the

Warren Court (1953-1969), Civil Rights (in SCOTUS’

Munchausen-Syndrome-by-Proxy manner) restored

many Civil Rights the Court took away; thus, it’s no

coincidence that those years hold the record, by far, for

SCOTUS’ greatest number of decisions (with just 5 of

its 16 years, 1963-4, 1967-9, totaling 1,756 cases, or

hundreds more cases than the entire Roberts Court

since 2005.

As the Writ (p. 43) reveals, the 60 SCOTUS 2023-term

Cert cases involved:

e 55 (91.7%), current/former SG employees; 51 of

those involved former SCOTUS law clerks.

e Four (6.7%), former SCOTUS law clerks (two

involved current State Attorneys General).

e One (1.7%), a State Attorney General’s Office.

As to the elite status of former SCOTUS law clerks:

1) for well over 20 years, all but one of the last eight

SGs was a SCOTUS law clerk; i1) six current justices

were SCOTUS law clerks; iii) 56 cases involved at

least one former SCOTUS law clerk; and iv) a total of

151 former SCOTUS justices’ law clerks were

involved.

11 The 14th Amend. applies only to the federal government.

12 State laws mandating racial segregation in public

accommodations and services (“Separate but Equal”) don’t

violate equal-protection rights.

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

16

While having a SCOTUS elite involved doesn't

guarantee the Cert is granted, not a single Cert was

granted without one.

Therefore, by completely shutting out all but the most

elite players, SCOTUS’ writ process was

unconstitutional as-applied.

f. Response to Concerns Raised

Obvious responses to the issues raised are: i) too

expensive to address, and ii) SCOTUS can't handle the

case load.

The replies are equally obvious:

A) Too Expensive...

1) That’s an Unacceptable Excuse

The U.S. Const. is the Supreme Law of the Land...

unless upholding it would be inconveniently expensive

is ridiculous—especially since there are two

immediate changes that cost little to nothing:

B) Low-Cost Fix: Start Cases in District

Court

In 2023, federal district courts had about 340,000 civil

filings.

SCOTUS Cert filings average about 75% federal

circuit courts, 25% state courts. For the 2023 term,

that’s about 1,100 state-court cases. That’s 0.4% of

federal-district-court civil filings. Having that small

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

17

number of cases heard first in federal district court

would solve violations of two constitutional provisions:

i) SCOTUS’ original jurisdictional, and ii) access to

courts—at little, to no additional cost.

4. CONCLUSION

This case is certworthy because it involves important,

nationwide, constitutional issues: the fundamental

right to access the courts.

The issues involved are large scale. For federal courts

regarding state-court judgments: nationwide. For VL

Law: about 25% of the States, and about 150 million

citizens.

The issues are ongoing and recurring. The facts are

undisputed that fundamental constitutional rights

are being routinely violated every day, including by

this Court—violations that SCOTUS Rule 10(c) states

this Court should resolve.

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

eel hrisfopher adel

Christopher Hadsell, Petitioner

April 24, 2026

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

18

B. CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER

Hadsell certifies that this Petition for Rehearing is

presented in good faith and not for delay.

[Rest of this page left blank.]

Case No.: 25-00881 April 24, 2026

Petition for Rehearing

Case No. 25-881

Sn the Supreme Court of the Anited States

o-Pi a 20

IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES HADSELL,

Deceased,

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,

Petitioner,

—-V—

CATHERINE ISHAM,

Respondent.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the petition for rehearing

contains 2,790 words, excluding the parts of the petition that are exempted by

Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 24, 2026

wil” A sca ophe Hadgell

Christopher fa Betitioner

Case No. 25-881

SS EE eee eee

In the Supreme Court of the Anited States

of Pia De

IN RE ESTATE OF CHARLES HADSELL,

Deceased,

CHRISTOPHER HADSELL,

Petitioner,

—Vv—

CATHERINE ISHAM,

Respondent.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Candace Miranda, do swear or declare that on this date, April 24, 2026, as

required by Supreme Court Rule 29, I have served the PETITIONER FOR

REHEARING on each party to the above proceeding or that party’s counsel,

and on every other person required to be served, by:

Depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United

States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class

postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for

delivery within 3 calendar days

The names, addresses, and phone numbers of those served are as follows:

Ms. Catherine Isham (fka Porter, Howard, Hadsell)

1056 Vista Point Cir.

San Ramon, CA 94582

Telephone: (925) 596-5071

Ms. Kris Mayes

c/o Arizona Office of the Attorney General

2005 N. Central Ave.

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2926

Phone: (602) 542-5025

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-36]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]