Whether the invoked appellate court adjudicative jurisdiction should acknowledge the particularism of any trial court judge's non-judicial palpable acts, that engaged threshold omission of ministerial obligations imposed by law to decide matters assigned therefor

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the invoked appellate court adjudicative jurisdiction should acknowledged the particularism of any trial court judge’s non judicial palpable acts, that engaged threshold omission of ministerial obligations imposed by law to decide matters assigned therefor, and to the legal extent judicial policy confers fundamental principles are particularly constituted to restrict any wholesale review of the judicial juxtaposition facts cognizable realized attendant from the real jurisdictional parties interests compulsory to be heard in due course therefrom, justly in accord to apply and administer the settled law thereof, without any perceivable severe bias influential circumstances and or clear absence of potential ‘wholesale prejudicial implication of undue oppression exciting restrainment that may arise in a particular cause, should the reviewing court consider and give perfect addressability as whether or not the final trial court appealable decision validity, is pronounced with competence disposition in the rule of law consistency having a civil society common intelligible purpose effecting substantial public trust in . the adversarial legal system, that the administration of equality justice primary objective at all times in a manner must satisfy the normative true spirit standard maintenance for the appearance of impartiality that promotes public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary? i PARTIES TO THE COMMENCED CIVIL ACTION The Appellant / Petitioner, as a natural person, Frizzell Carrell Woodson, a pro se litigant in all matters theretofore, as to date, pursuance to the Article III Constitutional standing and Prudential requirements of a concrete adverseness between the named Defendant herein, arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act § 1346 (b) “FTCA‘) filing in the federal court jurisdictional venue. May the record reflect, pursuance to the FTCA section 1346 (b) six enumerated threshold elements are satisfied for venue jurisdiction and granted waiver of sovereign immunity is thereby as a matter of law, shall constitute for this permissible tort civil action commenced within the set congressional statute of limitation as prescribed in § 2401 (b). _ The proper Defendant, the United States of America, advent in legal sum under section 1346 (b) (1) of 28 United States Code, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) a waiver of sovereign immunity exists plausible for the government is liable for tortious acts committed by any employee of the Government negligence while acting within the scope of his official office appointment and or federal employment. The Litigation Counsel for the Defendant, The United States of America, shall be at all times, pursuant to 28 U.S.C., § 516 519, and conjoining § 547 be statutorily deemed in Full Legal Representation by the United States Department Justice. ii