Whether the lower courts committed judicial fraud and intentionally covered up the defendants' federal crimes, including mail fraud and wire fraud, by granting the defendants' motion to consolidate the already amended/consolidated case with additional lawsuits despite the lack of commonality and the prejudice to the petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this pro se case Petitioner respectfully requests the US Supreme Court to intervene in this case, which is : the seventh petition to this Court. After prior six* petitions for writ of certiorari were not considered by this Court, the lower courts have became so . emboldened that now blatantly escalate judicial fraud and the intentional cover-up of defendants’ recurring federal crimes including their Mail Fraud and Wire ; Fraud with Petitioner’s certified mail to dismiss the case by fraud so that defendants with impunity could continue to escalate violations of laws, fraud, discrimination, egregious retaliations to harm Petitioner, to overburden, to deny discovery, hearing and jury trial by fraud. This case is about willful and persistent judicial fraud committed by lower courts and their intentional coverup of defendants’ violations of laws, obstruction of justice, fraud, including Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud and defendants’ fraudulent motion to consolidate the already consolidated case, after Petitioner discovered . : and disclosed to the court respondents’ federal crimes specifically, the Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. section 1341) and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. section 1343) and their deliberate use of tampered official US Postal Service records to deceive, to harm Petitioner, to dismiss the case by fraud and then after they failed to dismiss, they filed motion to consolidate the already : case. After Petitioner filed 10/31/18 motion to amend/consolidate the original case with six other relevant cases the defendants did not * See Dr. Stoyanovs’ cases 08-1238, 08-888, 08-95, 09-1015, 09-1415, 17-174 i file opposition to Petitioner’s motion nor any motion to consolidate with additional cases. The court proceedings moved on the consolidated case with 72 claims, 14 counts against defendants and 20 witnesses and Petitioner timely sent via US Postal Service certified mail and served with summons and complaint ; each defendant. To dismiss the case by fraud respondents intercepted and committed mail fraud and wire fraud with Petitioner’s certified mail with : restricted delivery and then, after being caught, used fraud and their fraudulent records to demand on 3/26/19 additional consolidation oof already : consolidated case with five additional separate lawsuits, filed years apart. After Petitioner using US ; Postal Service mail tracking records discovered the federal crimes of mail fraud and wire fraud with his : mail committed by agency counsel defendant C. Kessmeier with her assistant defendant Caron and others, Petitioner timely filed “Motion to Investigate Fraud and to Compel Defendants Representatives to Accept and Serve with Summons and Complaint 15 Defendants.” While direct evidence of mail fraud and : wire fraud with the original US Postal Service mail tracking records were submitted with the motion, defendants’ representatives persisted with fraudulent mail records, deliberately misrepresented facts and fabricated baseless accusations. Petitioner filed ‘motion for sanctions and disclosed defendants and ; defendants’ representatives fraud and_ baseless accusations. However, to harm Petitioner and to coverup Defendants federal crimes, defendants representatives Hur/Marzullo instead of proceeding’ ‘ with discovery persisted with fraud, fraudulent arguments and baseless accusations in their motions and demanded additional consolidation of the already ii [? case.. Petitioner vigorously opposed the consolidation and timely filed 4/5/19 oppositions to defendants’ unsupported 3/26/19 motion based on fraud and fraudulent records. Petitioner established that consolidation with five additional lawsuits is improper because of critical factual differences, different claims, different timing different violations of laws by different defendants.. Differences make it impossible to apply the state of the art defense. Consolidation is improper where it would expand the scope of its trial. A joint trial would expand the number