issues-being-raised

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. By simultaneously dismissing 8 of Kinney’s pending appeals, did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion to cover-up acts by federal Judge Gutierrez who violated Janus and NIFLA by using state court proceedings to circumvent bankruptcy law, “vexatious litigant” labels for a “listed” creditor, 100% state rulings, attorney’s fees and/or sanctions to punish an attorney (now a pro se litigant) because of his ; “professional speech”, so this Judge joined forces with others to compel silence on Kinney? Kinney’s speech was “professional speech” (for his client or himself) to Judges and/or others who did not adjudicate disputes, but acted as prosecutors under color of authority; and for repeat violations ; : of bankruptcy law in favor of Chapter 7 debtor Michele Clark who listed Kinney as a creditor and ; of other federal law (e.g. for refusals by courts to give “honest services” and correct inconsistencies in state and federal rulings; the court’s failure to rule or withdraw; and/or Hobbs Act violations)? 2. Was this dismissal an abuse of discretion by a panel acting as prosecutors under color of law? 3. Did this appeal (7 of 8) have “merit” because it challenged court rulings that violated federal law and a district court Judge’s refusal to rule? 4. Did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion by ignoring Sec. 1983 federal civil rights violations and repeated violations of bankruptcy law? i