Did the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware usurp this Court's judicial power in violation of FRCP rules?

Questions presented: 1. Did the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware usurp this Court’s judicial power in violation of FRCP Rule 8, Rule 4(a)(b), Rule 15(a)(1)(B), Rule 12(b)(6), Rule 12(f)(1)(2), Rule and in its rulings in opposition to dozens of this Court’s decisions on similar matters? 2. Did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit usurp this Court’s judicial power in violation of FRAP Rule 21(1)(b), in its affirmation of the District Court’s violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in its rulings in opposition to dozens of this Court’s, its own and other Circuit Court decisions on similar matters? : 3. Do Rumanek’s pleadings and authentic documentary evidence attached to those pleadings prove the RICO conspiracy of a sitting District of Delaware U.S. Magistrate Judge, Delaware state court judges, 11 plaintiff and defense counsel, certain employees of those federal and state courts, Delaware State Police officer(s) and the State of Delaware Attorney General to obstruct justice in the federal and . state courts? (See No. 1-17-cv-00123 Rumanek’s Tenth Amended Complaint) 4. Did/does a Delaware state judge’s secret alteration of verbatim court proceeding transcripts as provided for, and used as evidenced herein, under Delaware Codes § 4101 and 4101 and 561(d), violate Rumanek’s due process civil 2 rights, and the rights of others who have or may find themselves similarly situated? Does such transcript tampering call into question the validity of the appellate process in the Delaware State Courts, and for those appealed in the Federal Courts, the validity of the appellate process in the Court of the Appeals for the Third Circuit and this Court? (See Tenth Amended Complaint at pg. 100) S. Did the EEOC violate Rumanek’s rights to equal protection of the Title VII and ADA anti-retaliation statutes by not filing a complaint against her former employer ISM for retaliating against her for being a witness in her colleagues’ EEO complaints, and subsequent to that for filing her own complaint? 6. Do the Courts effectively discriminate against pro se in forma pauperis parties? Do the Courts effectively discriminate against parties with cognitive disability? Does such discrimination provide equal protection of the laws? Is such discrimination unconstitutional? Does such discrimination constitute cruel and unusual punishment? 7. Do the circuit courts and this Court adequately sua sponte oversee the lower courts with regard to due process civil rights and/or equal protection rights violations? Does the lack and/or inadequacy of such allow, and make more likely, the abuse of those rights by the very people sworn to uphold those Constitutional rights and the U.S. Code, as evidenced herein? 3 Parties Sandra Rumanek, pro se petitioner Respondents Independent School Management Inc., (ISM) Sherry R. Falion (U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware) David G. Culley Timothy M. Holly Mary I. Akhimien Matthew F. Boyer Nicholas W. Woodfield Bernard G. Conaway R. Scott Oswald Sandra F. Clark Joseph J. Rhoades Louis J. Rizzo, Jr. : Kevin Healy Charles E. Butler (State of Delaware Superior Court Judge) Richard R. Cooch (State of Delaware Superior Court Judge) Delaware State Police Officer Spillan, IBM 770 and various unknown DE State Police Delaware Attorney General Matthew Denn Susan Judge Patrick O’Hare Annette Furman Lisa Amatucci Robert Cruikshank (Intake Supervisor, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware) John Cerino (Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware) State of Delaware United States of America 4