That is unfortunately absolutely true. To make matters even worse, far too many of them try to use fringe lunatic arguments such as trying to claim that the banks can't loan credit, can't loan their own money, and yada, yada, yada ad infinitum ad nauseum. One 'researcher' I know quite well argues that since large banks are not registered with their local Secretary of State they have no standing to sue. Of course that is ludicrous because large banks cannot be incorporated. That is specifically spelled out in Title 12. They are associations and therefore allowed to carry the N.A. designation. Only Nationally Associated banks and credit card banks can use that designation.

Another one that I just got informed about yesterday is that in mortgage foreclosure cases use of a copy of the note instead of the original note itself constitutes counterfeiting and is a felony offense. Now there is a wild theory for you. The idea of Notary Presentment and A4V (Acceptance for Value) is another. The list of such theories would fill a book and of course both judges and attorneys and the IRS have to deal with all the noise and tripe. No wonder they make short shrift of so many pro se litigants.

I also get a bang out of those who proclaim that they are only before the court as a special appearance and therefore the court has no jurisdiction or power over them. Then there are those who use SUI JURIS instead of Pro Se in their pleadings.
I get a bang out of attorneys who pray the court to do something for them. Since when did a court of law become a church? Maybe they do that in their capacity as religious nuts. Problem is that the Lord wants religious fruit, not religious nuts. (LOL)
You do make your valid points but my thinking is that if they think they must file in local courts rather than federal then maybe they would be better off not filing in the first place. [quote] Federal court procedures; i.e., 26 disclosures,[/qoute]Are you speaking of Rule 26 disclosures here?
True again in most instances but if you have enough experience under your belt then you can have a full blown and properly prepared case all ready to go in an afternoon with no problem. For instance, the following cases:

(1.) CV-00123-RP-TJS
(2) CV 05-J-2360-S
(3) CV-06-C-1579-S
(4) CV-06-PWG-0568-S
(5) CV-04-P-0626-S
(6) CV-06-1577-S
Are all cases won by a man whom I will refer to as Mike who first contacted me in 2000 about a case where a former employer was trying to collect on Mexican income taxes Mike had agreed to pay while employed in Mexico by an American firm. That in itself is a fairly long story but ended up with Mike taking the debt collector to federal court. We conferred many times about this and all of his other cases. When he filed his first case he had no clue as to how to proceed. We have had many discussions about his various cases and others he has also won in local courts. He has never lost a case. I have audio recordings of many conversations about his cases to prove what I am saying.
Mark is another pro se litigant who is currently in court with Sallie Mae in an FCRA case Mark has won 3 cases in Federal court in two different states. Mike's cases span 3 states. I've been involved in long conversations with Mark as well and as a matter of fact spent a half hour or so yesterday talking with Mark about his Sallie Mae case. Mark and Mike both know each other and have also conversed between the two of them and all of us work together to make sure that no mistakes are made. Another Pro Se litigant that has had great success is Larry from Florida. I have no idea how many cases he has filed and won but Larry also gets involved in our group discussions quite often.

Another person from Florida who is a sometimes poster on this board calls himself Retnec and has listened in on many of our conversations, usually on Friday nights. So far the total number of case filed and won in federal courts by members of our group totals 172 cases with never a loss. Retnec is currently helping me set up my Filezilla server system so group members can upload and download files we are working on. We have been spending as much as 3 to 5 hours on the phone working out the bugs for the last week or more. Pro Se litigants trying to file cases in any court, let alone federal courts indeed have a tough road to travel but when one has a support group with many people who have been there and done that helping guide them through the pitfalls then it becomes an entirely different matter. The research done by other members of the group can be preserved and made available to new comers to the group. I'm bringing a lot of our research, links and helps to this forum by posting them on my Google Docs pages and my Google Sites pages. The list of links to valuable research resources is growing by leaps and bounds and even those pages are getting very lengthy as time goes on.
We also work closely with Dr. Frederick Graves of Jurisdictionary. Dr. Graves is a retired Florida attorney and his insights help greatly. Dr. Graves has also practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court on many occasions. Anyone can easily find Dr. Graves on the internet and call him up and ask him if he knows me. He has a private Monday night conference call for his Chapter leaders and I am always on his calls. So far there are 68 chapter leaders in his group scattered across the nation as well as in Canada and Puerto Rico. I was the first chapter leader he ever had by special invitation. Richard Cornforth is another great researcher and has contributed greatly to my education. I am one of his information providers as is Larry whom I mentioned earlier.

Yes, as you say, going it alone isn't advisable but when you have a massive support group behind the scenes helping and guiding then it isn't much of a problem.
While that may be true, Twombly's thrust was mainly in the fraud arena and dealt mostly with securities cases while FDCPA and FCRA type cases are basically civil rights cases. Twombly's thrust was against failure to plead with particularity and failure to show that there was more than a reasonable expectation of the plaintiff having a valid claim against the defendant that could be proven. Against conjecture in other words Conjecture that one or more of the defendants might be 'control persons' having delegated authority to act for the defendant corporation. Our types of cases always have a solid proof of misdeeds on the part of the defendant which are well documented and easily proven so Twombly shouldn't have much effect in federal courts where they very well might ih local courts where judges routinely rule just about any way they want because they know they have Pro Se litigants before them who have no idea what the law is or what the law says, who it applies to or under what circumstances.

Lawyers often pull the same stunts, quoting laws or decisions that have absolutely no bearing on the case at hand. They often spout off a bunch of crap knowing the judge is likely to believe almost anything they say and accept it for gospel truth. They get really frustrated and angry when a Pro Se who has done his homework proves to the court that the lawyer is nothing but a fool and a clown.

Admitted that such things don't happen all that often but they do happen so Pro Se litigants need to know how to research their cases and leave no stone unturned.

__________________