Whether an immigration judge is a protected person under 18 U.S.C.S. § 115(a)(1)(B)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 1) IMMIGRATION JUDGE IS NOT A PROTECTED PERSON UNDER THE STATUE "oF 18 U.S.C.S. § 115 (a)(1)(B) 2) THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE IS AS WE HAVE SAID , AN. OFFICER CREATED co 7 SOLELY BY STATUE , NOT THE CONSTITUTION , AND IS AN OFFICIAL . : QUITE DISTINT FROM THOSE JUDGES ORDINARILY DEEMED THE FEDERAL : ; JUDICIARY. ° 3) THE ‘STATUTE ONLY PROTECTED MEMBERS OF THE OFFICIAL FAMILY AND” NOT THE OFFICIAL THEMSELF . . 4) THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE DO NOT WORK FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY BUT WORK FOR £E.0O.I1.R. WHICH TS NOT A PART OF THE PROTECT PERSON UNDER THE STATUE 115 / 1114 18 U.S.C.S. ‘ 5) IF THE COURT DEEMED IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS A PROTECTIONS PERSON a * UNDER THE STATUTE THEN MCLEAN WOULD CONTENT THE -STATUTE IS VOID FOR . VAGUENESS UDER THE CONSTITUTION AND WOULD AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION LAW . 6) BRADY VIOLATION WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO GIVE MCLEAN TRANSCRIPT JENKS. . 7) THE JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL DEFINITION : , OF A IMMIGRATION JUDGE IN RELATION TO AN JUDICIAL OFFICER. 8) THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO LET MCLEAN REPRESENT HIMSELF WHEN EVIDENCE WAS : CLEAR TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE TO MCLEAN IN ALL STAGE OF THE ; PROCEDURESS. . : , : 9) THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FAILED TO APPLY THE LAWS TO ALL MCLEAN LEGAL : ARGUMENTS WHICH PREJUDICE DUE TO THE FACT THAT MCLEAN WOULD NOW BE RELEASE BECAUSE THE COURT USED CHARGES THAT MCLEAN WAS NEVER CONVICTED OF . . . PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT : INCIDENT REPORT DEALING WITH THIS CASE AND WITNESSES .PLEASE . NOTE MCLEAN HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ALLEGE THREAT WAS MADE IN THE COURT ROOM ON THAT DATE DUE TO FACT HE WAS NOT CHARGE WITH NO INSTITUTION CONDUCT IN RELATION TO ANY TYPE OF THREAT . NEVERTHELESS MCLEAN WAS INDICTED AND CHARGE WITH THREAT TO ASSAULT I.J. 18 U.S.C. 115 (a) 1 ; . 10) IN THE COURT FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE BY BEING A TRIER OF THE THAT IF FAIL SHORT OF UPHOLDING FAIRNESS , INTEGRITY OR PUBLIC REPUTATION OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING , WHEN IN FACT HIS CONVICTION EXCEEDED THE STAT" UTORY MAXIMUM , OF 3 YEARS , PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 U.S.C. 115 HAVING BEEN CHARGED WITH THREAT TO ASSAULT OF SUBSECTION (4)... A THREAT MADE IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PUNISHEDNBY A FINE OF NOTMORE THAN $5,000.00 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF NOT MORE THAN 5 YEARS "OR BOTH EXCEPT THAT IMPRISONMENT FOR THREATENED ASSAULT SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE YEARS. ; 11) THE AUDIO WAS PLAYED IN OPENED COURTROOM , BUT NOT PRESCRIBED OF AS TO WHERE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 16-MINUTES AUDIO PROCEEDING WERE NOT MADE . AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF TRANSCRIPTS. 12) PETITIONER ENHANCEMENT OF SIX LEVELS FOR THE SAME INITIAL OFFENSE CONDUCT : THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE STATUTORY ELEMENTS OF THE ; SCRIBED STATUTE UNTILIZED IN THE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGE.