Has the refusal to properly adjudicate this case by the Eleventh Circuit presented prejudice and bias against the petitioner pro se?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW o ON JANUARY 10, 2018 THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR EN BANC REHEARING STATING THAT; THE JUSTICES DID NOT TAKE A VOTE. THE QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ARE FOUR-FOLD: FIRST, HAS THE REFUSAL TO PROPERLY ADJUDICATE THIS CASE, WITH A FINDING OF FACTS AND A CONCLUSION OF LAW, BY. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, ON (4) DIFFERENT APPEAL(S), CONCERNING THIS (2011) BANKRUPTCY, PRESENTED A ; PREJUDICE AND BIAS AGAINST PETITIONER PRO SE’? SECOND, iF THERE WAS A BIAS, WOULD THEY THEN BE DISQUALIFIED IN GRANTING OR DENYING EN BANC CONSIDERATION, OF THIS CASE? THIRD, IF SO, WOULD THESE ACTIONS HAVE VIOLATED PETITIONER PRO SE’ 1° 5™ AND 14™ AMENDMENT RIGHTS? FOURTH, WOULD THIS REQUIRE A CHANGE IN RULE 46(C). i. ON OCTOBER 3, 2017 THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RULED TO DENY PETITIONER PRO SE’ (DEC. 2013) FILED LAWSUIT OF CASE NO. 1615117, ON GROUNDS OF THE (2011) CONFIRMED _. BANKRUPTCY HAVING RES JUDICATA EFFECT AND PETITIONER’S CASE DID NOT MEETING THE LEVEL OF 28§1331 ADJUDICATION, DESPITE THERE BEING. NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN AN AMENDED WITH ADDITIONAL FINDINGS, RULE 52(B) OF THE FILED LAWSUIT BY PETITIONER PRO SE, THAT ; CONTAINED A DISCOVERY OF A FALSE CLAIM THAT WAS INSERTED BY STATE OFFICIALS FROM THE ALABAMA ; @ @ , . it DEPT. OF REVENUE FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN THAT (2011) BANKRUPTCY, OF ; PROVING THAT HE DID NOT OWE THIS DEBT, ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THESE NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE WAS NOT MADE KNOWN IN ANY OF THE APPEALS FROM THE (2011) BANKRUPTCY THAT STARTED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND ESCALATED TO THIS U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHEREBY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HAS MADE NO MENTION OF THESE NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN THEIR RULING. THE QUESTIION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ARE THREE-FOLD; FIRST, DID THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT GREATLY ERR IN NOT ADJUDICATING THESE FACTS, WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION? SECOND, DID THESE NEW FACTS 7 AND EVIDENCE SPOIL THE RES JUDICATA EFFECT OF THE (2011) BANKRUPTCY AND ALL APPEALS THERE AFTER, PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE DECEMBER 31,2013 FILED LAWSUIT? AND THIRD, DID THESE ACTIONS VIOLATE PETITIONER PRO SE’ 1°, 5 AND 14™ AMENDMENT RIGHTS. . MIL. ON FEBRUARY 21, 2018, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RULED IN CASE NO. 1616943 THAT THE ADVERSARY PROCEEDING THAT PETITONER PRO SE’ FILED IN HIS (2014) BANKRUPTCY a AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS OF THE ALABAMA DEPT. OF ; REVENUE, FOR VIOLATIONS OF HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS (14™ AMENDMENT) (NON-CORE ISSUE), FOR A PATTERN OF FILING A FALSE CLAIM, IN NOW TWO SEPARATE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING(S), WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BY THE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE AND THE Po DISMISSAL, BY THE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE WAS PROPERLY ‘ : tT AFFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. THE QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ARE THREE-FOLD: FIRST, DID . _ THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT GREATLY ERR IN ITS DECISION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO ALLOW A BANKRUPTCY JUDGE TO DISMISS A NONCORE CASE? SECOND, DID THE COMPLAINT FILED, BY PETITIONER PRO SE’ AGAINST STATE OFFICIAL(S) FOR FILING A FALSE CLAIM IN TWO SEPARATE BANKRUPTCY(S), MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR , FILING A TORT CLAIM, AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS CONTINUAL PATTERN OF IMPROPER CONDUCT, IN. FEDERAL COURT? AND THIRD, DID’ THESE ACTIONS VIOLATE PETITIONER PRO SE’ 1°, 5™ AND 147 AMENDMENT RIGHTS? IV. ON AUGUST 17, 2016, THE HON. KAREN O’ BOWDRE, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE STATED IN HER MEMORANDUM OPINION THAT PETITIONER DID NOT APPEAL THE DENIAL OF CONFORMATION IN THE (2014-2015) | BANKRUPTCY. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT PETITIONER ALLEGED DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN SEPARATE COURT, FOR WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW, THE QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ARE FOUR-FOLD, FIRST, DID THE HON. KAREN O’ BOWDRE GREATLY ERR, IN STATING THAT THE DENIAL OF THE CONFIRMATION WAS NOT APPEALED WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE THAT AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL WAS \ MADE AND PAID FOR, IN FULL TO THE FEDERAL