Inmate-trust-fund-management

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ("The Court") ERR WHEN IT ; TOTALLY REFUSED TO ADDRESS SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT FOUND IN UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) AND ASSOCIATED CASES, ALTHOUGH SUCH CASES WERE : THOROUGHLY ARGUED IN THE BRIEF CONCERNING INMATE TRUST FUNDS? II. DID THE COURT ERR WHEN IT REFUSED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRIOR RULING ON INMATE TRUST FUND (WASHINGTON V. RENO, 35 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1994)) DUTIES OWED TO INMATES AND INSTEAD AVAILED ITSELF OF A CIRCUIT SPLIT AND CHERRY-PICKED FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASE? 1 III. DID THE COURT ERR WHEN IT TOTALLY REFUSED TO ADDRESS THIS COURT'S PRECEDENT IN BOWEN V. MASSACHUSETTS, 487 U.S. 879, 893 (1988) RELATED TO ACTIONS ASKING FOR DECLARATIVE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF? . Iv. DID THE COURT ERR WHEN IT MISINTERPRETED BOUNDS V. SMITH, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), AND FALSELY ASSERTED THAT DAVIDSON HAD NOT RAISED THE ISSUE IN HIS SUIT, . AND TOTALLY REFUSED TO ADDRESS LEWIS Vv. CASEY, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)? 1 . Questions I and IV have never been addressed by this Court as it relates to the federal inmate trust fund and the federal inmate administrative remedy process required under law. i : (b)