Whether the 11th Circuit has interfered with the black appellant's rights under 42 USC §1981 and 42 USC §1982

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION ONE: Whether the 11th Circuit has interfered with the black appellant's rights under 42 USC §1981 by denying the injunctive relief required to protect his property at the bank; and denying the 42 USC $1982 right to use those funds to pay court fees. Such rulings being in conflict with the holding of Jones v. Mayer, 392 US 409 (1968) in regards to a black citizen's property rights. QUESTION TWO: Whether the 11th Circuit erred in applying 28 USC §1915 in the face of evidence indicating substantial assets at the ii * et om bank which precludes any declaration of poverty and would, in turn, result in manatory dismissal under §1915(e)(2)(A). Such application conflicts with the 7th Circuit precedent dismissing §1983 suit as sanction for signing false §1915 affidavit. QUESTION THREE: Whether the 1ith Circuit's unsubstantiated orders denying injunctive relief necessary to allow the conveyance of property at the bank to pay court docketing & filing fees, at the . presumptive behest of a bank president who has deprived a black citizen of his right to actually use inherited funds at the bank, have denied fundamental rights essential to civil freedom and, thereby, have reapplied the "badges & incidents of slavery" in violation of the prohibitions of the 13th Amendment. Such actions by a federal court are in conflict with the holdings of Jones v. Mayer (1968) and Hurd v. Hodge (1948). QUESTION FOUR: Whether participation of the 11th Circuit Judges in a conspiracy to deprive a black citizen, & the class he represents, of the equal protection of the law and the right to inherit, hold & convey personal property based upon a racial discriminatory animus in violation of 42 USC $1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, the 1st, 5th, 6th, & 13th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and 18 USC §241, 242, precludes judicial immunity in the face of requests for recusal, declaratory, & injunctive relief, | in light of the holdings in O'Shea (1974), Griffin (1971), Greenwood (1966), U.S. v. Johnson (1968), U.S. v. Price (1966), Pierson (1967), | Bradley v. Fisher (1872), Ex parte Virginia (1880), and Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424 (10C, 1985). . iii