face and as applied to [Wolfe] and [to] all other persons appearing or trying to appear in the courts of California without benefit of counsel, and therefore those statutes are void and of'no effect.” He also seeks an order enjoining enforcement of the statute. The defendants argue that a number of statements in Wolfe’s complaint show that he seeks to bring de facto appeal. They interpret the complaint to challenge: (1) Justice Strankman’s prior refusal to reopen Wolfe’s state case on the constitutionality of the statute; (2) the Superior Court Judge Defendants’ prior refusal to recuse themselves; and (3) the prior judicial determin strating a history of enforcement against oneself and others. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v.
holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that the history of enforcement of a statute is relevant to standing and ripe ness inquiry holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication holding ripe for review letter written by administrative agency construing legislative history of statute