Does Mr. Schneider have a right to both the appearance and actuality of neutrality; and does mandamus lie when that fundamental right is going to be mooted out and is summarily denied by the appellate court that has repeatedly (and deliberately) harmed him?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does Mr. Schneider have a right to both the appearance and actuality of neutrality; and does mandamus lie when that fundamental right is going to be mooted out and is summarily denied by the appellate court that has repeatedly (and deliberately) harmed him? 2. Is it a structural error, in practical terms, to force a litigant to self-censor his First Amendment court speech (with sm. No. 10 envelopes and about 30-40 pages total (6x9 all title pages and non-argument pages) due to the very rural limitations of his home’s location, “rural route mailbox” and inter alia inability to even get “Stamps” “envelopes” or to do everyday common mailings . at a post office (8.5 miles away) without the help of neighbors or friends (due to continuing daily proximate damages/punishment from his published editorial speech of March 21, 2014 and retaliatory loss of his driver's license/only photo ID). 3. Can any “public” courthouse lockout, censor, and deny personal access to anyone wanting to file critical paperwork, and use all of the “public courthouse” facilities in person—by arbitrary/invidious discrimination and then e.g. repeatedly enforcing substantive entry approval “unwritten rules” against the public (e.g. petitioner: Mr. Schneider): (1) based on his known protected speech challenging "local rules, unequal and discriminatory double standards etc.; and/or (2) the fact that he/someone superficially may appear to a court to be of a lower economic class (e.g. Homeless/forced to sleep on the streets); or (3) do not possess/do not wish to be forced to show (e.g. a newspaper reporter) a valid Photo ID as demanded?