Whether petitioner was wrongfully invoking self-executing Sections 1 and 4 of the 4th Amendment, becoming a named defendant in a civil-rights case, with errors in premature case dismissals upon judgment or decree for all defendants, in disregard of 28 U.S.C.455(a) mandated self-affording recusal

ESTION(S) PRESENTE!) . LL NtYew aitlully inveking SELF execsting Sections rand 4 ovthe Mam endmesit . | | becoming, o NAMED: Adkemdoat wn BVT -evIOI} ID VS.Diste A Curerot Comectica “ERROR in PREMATURE” Case’ DISMTSSALS Uped JUBGEMENTordeceMfor ALL ACendants, in DISCARD ck 3 05.C3455(0) MANDATED self-ebffording RECUSAL 277 a, Whelker US Dislrid CHUEF eh Connect indenional STAGED Himdy CRYPTIC 2 / Yulings ORDERE ore eppropriciely Eonshcved vain ATO DOTUSTICE Keqivce meat at 3,Snowd paitiones $ equered prioinaacy RELLEF beGRanTEd ude cose, Pendino, ewtiled* FINALLIN" 22? | 4, Wiener EQUITABLE TOLLING dodiine ct the “STATUTE SY LIMITAT EONS: ig applicable to Case 318-65 7CAWT) 2F? 5, LS NOT shod Y TALS continuing VIOLATION Hhesry oF REALTTY doctrine Jon ober APPLICABLE \yrisdidlional SAVING qualiSications be APPLEED! P22 6, Lthether U.S, Dishid CHIEF Ot Comedic MIS0SE, ABUSE in she CRNPTIC D.ConnL CanR. DISCARD ok “TMPARTTAL dial REASONABLE TNQUTRN | provisional STANDING ORDER Under” BOTH These ca RICO corse oF Ny anear aM See ag Ry a) rene aren e is ACT LOWS pacsuant 18 0,5,C5\belbb ENABLES the courts jurighidkonal ReourRement?”? © Tihelher Seow CERCOLT Court ERRORED on aby RULINGS |W DISWONOR, NT rMe" binding, contcactual COLORING OF LAW) ‘agreements eee ro ) F Wee : A i eX Le weet! B, Whether prior SECOND CTRCUTY painel members dicial “TMPROPREETY Constitute, a" VIOLATION’ at AS VS,C5455 (0), Cb),and°OR' RENDER” ANY oe ALC! Subsequent U.S. Bistid CHEF ANA CERCULT COURTS decisions’ vor’ f° 4. Whether ALCedmodinar (PE XEST ING carcummbances RE ABER cose. Consalidation and pelitioner appowlmert at appropriale Counsel with -RELEASE’ pending entitled FINREETY" 22 10. Whellvar EMERGENCY ‘a8 USCS alle supervisory CORRECTIVE ACTION Shouldloe addthiondlly ENFORCED i BOTH Haase’ CASES under OUR SUPREME Court exersize “power” 22?