Whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) gives verbal acknowledgement in his federal hearing to a known disability determination by another federal agency

Questions Presented for Review , Rule 14.1(a) and Rule 24 . 28 U.S.C. §1331, Federal Question Preface . All judges for the United States (U.S.) possess ‘legally binding declaratory oaths and code of . : conduct clauses to abide by in support of the U.S. Constitution. Marbury v. Madison (1803). 1. Whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) gives verbal acknowledgement in his federal hearing to a known disability determination by another federal agency? 2. Whether the ALJ conduct consists of “willingly” omitting “known” material facts from the petitioner's federal record [Office of Personnel Management (OPM’s) Disability Retirement” (July 31, 2012)] in his conclusion of law which were ; i entered as evidence and referenced as part of his federal hearing exhibits? Whether “consideration of such evidence is mandatory” in the federal disability : standard review process? . 3. Whether the SSA Commissioner provides ; clear evidence to the U.S. District Court that “a . . violation of Social Security Policy”; “devoid of reference to a known disability determination by another federal agency” (material omission) has been committed by the ALJ? 4. Whether the SSA’s adjudicator made statements falsifying objective medical facts (brain MRIs) of a severe and progressive (rare) brain disorder detected by treating chief neurosurgeon, neurologists, and federal medical physician; “No” “limitations” and “no Chiari malformation and associated headaches”? Are the objective medical facts mandatory and material evidence? ii 5. Whether federal judicial conduct of omitting material evidence and making false statements fail to develop the record fairly, impartially and diligently? Does this conduct fail to uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary? Does this conduct breach legally binding code of conduct : . for U.S. Judges, declaratory decrees and oaths under : the color of law if it deprives U.S. Constitutional rights? 6. Whether the ALJ omits material evidence and falsifies limitations that have been medically assessed by certified treating neurologists and physical therapist? Is this federal judicial conduct an act of abuse of judicial discretion under the color of law? 7. Whether the ALJ’s judicial conduct consist of an act of abuse of judicial discretion under the color of law by imposing “environmental limitations” iti on the petitioner which are not supported by all , substantial material facts or do not support erroneous conclusion of law statements; “No” “limitations” and “no Chiari malformation and : ; associated headaches”? oo 8. As a matter of law, whether the act of . remanding a federal case back to the violating federal agency for rehearing proceeding is ’ unconstitutional after material evidence support the petitioner's summary judgment and_ the Commissioner declines to file a legal defense or response to genuinely dispute substantial material evidence which support grossly judicial misconduct? 9. Whether judicial conduct of omitting known material evidence, making false statements, and abuse of judicial discretion dismissible as “moot” issues of concern under supremacy law and the U.S. Constitution? iv 10. Whether the lower federal courts’ material omission of the ALJ’s conduct of social security policy violations in their opinions, judgment and final order. breaches legally binding U.S. . Constitutional oaths, clauses and code of ethics under supremacy law? 11. Whether the lower federal courts material omission of the ALJ’s misconduct conflicts with normal federal appellate procedure and authoritative decisions on deprivation of substantive due process rights in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and supremacy laws? Does the deprivation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights to.a fair standard of review due process create an exceptional importance to the public? y Certificate of Interested Persons Per Supreme Court of the United States Rule 14.1(b) List of persons having an interest