Was petitioner a Federal Employee denied United States Citizen's Constitutional 1st Amendment Rights when denied by the judge the right to be speak, submit evidence, provide witnesses and litigate (be heard speak and petition) before a jury of peers in the district court with the payment of $400.00?

No question identified. : PRESENT(ED) ON MATTER of Court Officer (s) misconduct with forth though can use the Judicial Power appointed to them to overrule Executive Order 12067’s, EEOC MD-110, 29 C.F.R. Part 1691, 29 C.F.R. Part 1640, 29 C.F.R. Part 1641 and the United States Constitution put barriers to protect Court officers and Federal Agents from being liable to Federal Employees or Former Federal Employees. , Punish and Sanction Federal Employee for filing EEO complaint in a Federal District Court. Court Officers can suppress evidence regardless of merit, court officers can violate jurisdiction unchallenged, can violate pro se’s right as common practice, federal judge corroborate with DOJ openly violating the Federal Civil ' Procedure (26b) with the sole purpose of impairing pro se ability to litigate their case unchallenged, violation of judges code of conduct on fairness and impartiality unchallenged, and disregard supporting factual results of investigations. The role of a pro se plaintiff can be written by lower court judges, who can bend or erase civil procedure, to prevent pro se plaintiffs from exercising constitutional right. OR Question 1: Was petitioner a FE denied United States Citizen’s Constitutional 1** Amendment Rights when denied by the judge the right to be speak, submit evidence, provide witnesses and litigate (be heard speak and petition) before a jury of peers in the district court with the payment of $400.00? Question 2: Was petitioner a Federal Employee denied United States Citizen’s Constitutional 1 Amendment Rights when denied by the judge(s) the right to be speak and litigate (be heard speak and petition) in the 9*» Court of Appeal Circuit judge with the payment of $505.00? Question 3: Was petitioner a Federal Employee denied United States Citizen’s Constitutional 5th Amendment Rights of due process when district judge presides over the pro se’s case not implementing the FRCP rules and the administrative processing of civil case by dismissing it without processing per established FRCP rules, Washington State’s local rules and judge’s precedence rules? Question 4: Was petitioner a Federal Employee discriminated when she was forced and mandated to use the discriminatory patterns and coerce practices of a systematic procedure system enforced by the United States Congressional Directive the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 110 (aka MD-110)? Question 5: Was petitioner a Federal Employee denied United States Citizen’s Constitutional 14> Amendment Right when court officers deny rights in the court’s proceedings under the United States Constitution per 18 USC § 241 & 18 USC § 242 Question 6: Was petitioner a Federal Employee denied United States Citizen’s Constitutional 14 Amendment Right when denied by the judge(s) due process when the district judge did not implement the FRCP rules and denied the administrative processing of civil case by dismissing it without processing? Question 7: Was petitioner a Federal Employee denied United States Citizen’s Constitutional 14» Amendment Rights when a Federal District Court Judge violate Canon 2.10 to use pending case (s) and embedded it with defamatory negative comments in another un-related Federal Employee’s pending case to cause harm and have a negative material effect on the case(s) by publishing data in other federal employee’s Stipulated Protective Order case on the Wide World Web consolidating : independent (unrelated) cases and making the parties joined because of failure to perform duties of the bench? PRESENT(ED) ON MATTER of 9% Circuit Judges can rule impartially on tainted decision of District Court Judge to violate federal laws and the constitution to protect lower court officers’ misconducts. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree-The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court, but that it shall not be used at all. Of course, this does not mean