Whether the application of Rule 56(d) to quickly end proceedings and deny a petitioner's right to trial violates the First and Seventh Amendments

Questions Presented The question’s | am presenting to the court are, !f the application of rule 56(d) is unreasonably used to quickly end a proceedings and denies a petitioner his rights to a trial. Does that violate the first and the seventh amendment? And if Rule 56 in its entirety is used unreasonable to end cases, does that also violate the first and seventh amendment? If a plaintive is locked out of his own trial and the judge relinquishes his responsibility to administer justice to the defense lawyer in a pro Se hearing, is that a violation of the first and seventh amendment? Also if a government lawyer or members of their justice department team acted as defense attorneys for a government agency, and that attorney became a judge in a case where the plaintiff was also the plaintiff when the judge was a lawyer, or members of his team acted as defense attorneys for the government. Should he sit on the case? If he has an interest in discrediting the plaintiff? And if that judge eliminates a vital piece of evidences that proves the plaintiff’s case, to protect his own or associates reputation’s and is unreasonable in applying rule 56, is that a violation of the first and seventh amendment. If the court assumes evidence to be truthful or knows a defense attorney has submitted false information and knowingly accepts it. !s that a violation under the first and seventh amendments? If the appellate court reviewing the case, makes a statement in their opinion that reinforces a negative stereotype without the evidence to prove it, is that a violation of the civil rights act of 1968? If the appellate court makes a statements that have little to no factual foundation in the evidence, but go from the assertions of the defense lawyer, is that a violation of the first and seventh amendments? If we are a nation of laws. And this court decides what the law is. in the interest of Justice Rule 56 should be clarified. Because as Justas Brennen said in his dissenting option when Rule 56 was adopted. It is confusing anditis going , to be used every day, and | ad confusion makes it ripe for abuse. Abuse that will be crystal clear if all the evidence is reviewed. ~ Q Does the omission of evidence (the tape mentioned in my exhibit (X)} and other evidence | submitted constitute, denning me my right to due process. Does locking me out of the discovery process and ruling when it was still underway with relevant material of factual evidence in dispute violet my right to due proses? From the trial court “On Behalf of Defendant HILLMAN, District Judge” | don’t understand how a Judge can act be on behalf of a litigant in a trial he is presiding over “Appearing pro se CARMAN SAGINARIO, JR. KELLY ESTEVAM ...” . 1 don’t understand how two attorneys con appear Pro SA? Did their client pull out of the proceedings? “,.. to deny Plaintiff additional discovery and time to respond to Defendant’s summary judgment motion” “ ..The Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant, finding no need for additional discovery...” ; From USDC3 “Even if Dinnerstein could satisfy his prima facie burden with regard to any of his allegations, nothing in the record suggests that the College’s proffered explanation for terminating Dinnerstein-that he violated the Colleges Civility Policy on several occasions-was Pretext. See Fuentes v. perskie, 32F .3d Fuentes, “... 2) Allows the fact finding to infer that discrimination Couse of the adverse employment action.” lam only a lay person but the USDC3 did not read ...2) in Fuentes. Lalso was not given the opportunity to present evidence, and in any event the trial court judge and the appellate court interpretation of the case are in dispute regarding the strength of my case. if this court reviews my case it will see, | have a very strong case. The fact of this trial are the Judge approved a summary Judgement when the trial was still in discovery. See exhibit (X) in my case brief. | also was locked out of the discovery proc