Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to investigate and correct an extrinsic fraud upon the lower courts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court held in Hollingsworth v Perry, 558 US 183 (2010), that its Rule 10(a) . provides that "this Court will consider whether the courts below have so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings ... as to call for an exercise of its supervisory power." This Court has "interest in ensuring compliance with proper rules of judicial administration is particularly acute when . those rules relate to the integrity of judicial process." This Court insists that courts comply with the law. Id. US at 196. In cases in which ignored proof demonstrates judicial officers engaged in fraud on the court and caused fraudulent judgments to be made, this Court has supervisory power, to investigate and overturn those judgments. See Chambers v NASCO, Inc., 501 US 32, 44 (1991). Also see S & E Contrs v U.S., 406 US 1, 40 (1972)(SCt has supervisory power over the lower courts "by proof of fraud or such gross error as to warrant the implication of fraud.")% 1.] Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to investigate and correct an extrinsic fraud upon the lower courts where irrefutable evidence proves ’ federal judicial officers conspired and fabricated a State court competency hearing transeript, illegally authenticated and used it, disobeyed statutory procedures in obtaining records from State court, concealed and misrepresented proof of the fraud, then deceived others that the transcript is an official record of the State court; to deny Petitioner of his entitlement to relief? 2.) Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to reverse the lower courts' rulings where those courts used a void State court competency hearing transcript, to deny petitioner entitlement to relief, that was requested for challenge during State appeal, which was denied because no record existed to transcribe, and has not been filed in State court to date? 3.] Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to force the lower courts to adhere to binding precedents that have held where there are disputed facts concerning fraud on the court, the district court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth? ~ , 4&.] Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary ta reverse the lower courts! rulings and vacate petitioner's conviction because the lower courts made rulings that he was allowed to waive his Court Order for evaluation of mental competence to stand trial with report due, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b),(c)'s mandatory language that the evaluation shall be conducted? 5.] Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to vacate the lower courts' rulings because they never acquired jurisdiction because Michigan did not have personal jurisdiction over petitioner when it violated the mandatory statutory procedures of 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b),(c), of a valid Order [to have him evaluated for competence to stand trial], as held by this Court's binding precedents? 6.] Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to reverse the lower courts! rulings where they ignored binding precedents on issue that Due Process requires competency hearings to be adequate, i.e., a determination of competency cannot be made without expert testimony by psychiatrist, and without introduction of psychiatric history; when they considered the fabricated competency hearing transcript? i t 7.) Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to reverse the lower courts! rulings where those courts ignored petitioner's claim and evidence that proves Michigan secretively, involuntarily, and illegally drugged him unconscious with tranquilizers, sedatives, and sleeping pills well beyond the FDA's recommended dosages, during his trial, and ignored this Court's ruling in Riggins v Nevada, 504 US 127, 134 (1992), that held that such acts are unconstitutional? / 8.] Whether Supervisory Power of this Court is necessary to reverse the lower courts! rulings where those courts never consider five