when-the-district-judge-has-a-direct-personal-substantial-pecuniary-interest-in-the-outcome

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. WHEN THE DISTRICT JUDGE HAS "A DIRECT, PERSONAL, SUBSTANTIAL, PECUNIARY INTEREST’ IN THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING IS PETITIONER'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS VIOLATED WHICH INCORPORATES COMMON-LAW REQUIRING RECUSAL OR DOES A STRUCTURAL ERROR OCCUR OR BOTH ? 2. WHETHER DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, REFUSING TO USE MR. NOEL'S (ECF NO. 196, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS § 2255 MOTION), TO ADJUDICATE THE MERITS OF (ECF NO. 187, MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C § 2255), MAKING THE § 2255 PROCESS INEFFECTIVE AN INADEQUATE TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF MY DETENTION, IN ; VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE AEDPA OF 1996 ? 3. HAS DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGION, COLLUDED WITH THEIR ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANTS SCHEME, BY PURPOSELY DISCRIMINATING, AGAINST RACE, AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS, THE PURPOSELY INJUSTICE DONE, BEING PARTIAL AND BIAS TO DEPRIVE MR. NOEL, THE PETITIONER'S, A "NEGRO CITIZEN", A “CLASS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES’ ? , i