Whether the right to petition the government for redress of grievances is violated by the claim preclusion Res Judicata, Bar Order

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the right to petition the government ; for redress of grievances in 42 U.S.C. § 1983, US. Const. Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the . concepts set out by this Court in Lawler and Carstarphen, is violated by the procedure we challenge, that ; is, the claim preclusion Res Judicata, Bar Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the opinion is not a fact of Law, 42 US.C. 1983, 10-CV-4125, U.S. Const. Fourth Amendment, battery assault, on November 27, 2008, decided on the case facts by a stipulation of settlement, and : dismissal with prejudice at the US.D.C. for the S.D.N-Y. on November 8, 2012, do not preclude the sub. sequent continued course of conduct in December 7, 2012, 18-CV-2948, and contradicts American Jurisprudence 2d Judgments § 460; time of accrual of cause of action as test for claim preclusion. If the cause of action in the second action arises after the rendition of the judgment in the first action, it is a different cause of action not barred by the prior judgment. Lawler v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322,75 S Ct. 865, : 99 L. Ed. 1122 (1955); Carstarphen v. Milsner, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (2009). : “ 2. Whether the right to a trial by a jury mandated by Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and US. Const. art. II § 2, cl. 3, and the concepts set : out by this Court in Apprendi, and Alleyne, was vio_ lated when the United States Court of Appeals for the | Second Circuit, affirm the District Court opinion of claim preclusion res judicata Bar Order under 28 US.C. §1651, an Appellate Court sitting as a fact finder BE Et AM . ; ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued cannot affirm, a not factual position of Law, that was ‘ not presented to a Jury, and where the $ 1983 Civil Rights Claim, for the seizure on false allegation of Stalking 8rd, deprivation of Liberty for 47 days, the two years and six months malicious prosecution until 2015, when the allegation was dismissed without a trial by a Jury, and the City of Mount Vernon Court in a trial without a jury find a verdict of guilty for a pretext allegation Harassment 2nd, whereas the Court Clerk tamper with the public record by false written statements on the Certificate of Disposition; plead guilty to Harassment 2nd, in full satisfaction, the device of deceit, whether made intentional or by mistake in the State of N.Y. is a Title K-Offences involving fraud, Article 175 ~ Penal L. 175.25 (2012), 175.20 (2018) . . .implies the intent to contravene and infringe the right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and the right to a trial by a Jury, while purporting to be authority, to conceal the infringements wrongdoing? Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000); Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013). 8. Pursuant to 42 US.C. $1983, Civil Rights . , claims Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments Due Process of law, and the concepts set out by this Court in Monell, and Owen, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, de novo review decision to affirm the : District Court res judicata Bar Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, that, is not a fact of Law was rendered in error against the § 1983, prima facie Const. Law tort, for : : iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued unreasonable seizure, the denial of Procedural Due Process of Law right to a trial by a jury malicious pros: ecution, and the negligent abuse of process by the City of Mount Vernon Court false written statements on the Certificate of Disposition, entered into the records during business transactions, are undisputed facts of infringement of Const. Civil Rights claim for loss of Liberty, that in part, on review could be held unconsti; tutional, moreover on petition for rehearing en banc, : the Appellate Term of the S. Ct. of the State of New York, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts, Decision Order on February 21, 2019, People v. Da Costa, Jose, App. Term doc. # 2015-1433 W CR (2019), reversed the trial without a jury verdict, a