whether a Plaintiff with physical and mental disabilities in an Americans with Disabilities Act action need to reveal all his/her medical and mental health records publicly

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1) whether a Plaintiff with physical and mental disabilities in an Americans with Disabilities Act action need to reveal all his/her medical and mental health records publicly even after Plaintiff has disclosed all the medical and mental health records to the Defendants confidentially; 2) whether the appointment of a counsel is a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Rehabilitation of 1973, Section 504, Title II and/or Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 3) whether Court of Appeals should have reversed trial court’s dismissal of the instant case because Judge Alonso did not inform the Pro Se Plaintiff “what is required to allege disability discrimination” pursuant to Tate v. SCR Medical Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 345 (7 Cir. 2015).; : 4) whether all orders entered by the trial court from October 3, 2018, through to the present date are void ab initio due to Judge Alonso’s fraud upon the court as described below when he ruled Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction which the Petitioner neither filed nor he submitted the proposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Judge Alonso and for denying the Petitioner’s request to file a Motion to disqualify him; 5) whether this court should grant Certiorari because the 7' Circuit and United States District Court for the Central District of California has a conflict on the question of whether the appointment of counsel is a reasonable accommodation pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504; 6) whether the appointment of an attorney is a . reasonable accommodation pursuant to Title HI of the Americans with Disabilities Act for Legal Aid Providers such as the Respondent DuPage Legal Assistance Foundation Inc., Prairie State Legal iii Services Inc., Legal Aid Chicago Inc., Equip for Equality Inc,, etc.; 7) whether the abuse inflicted by the Respondents upon the Petitioner as described in the operative complaint, as described in the Petitioner's Response to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss in the trial court, as described in the Petitioner’s Appellant Brief and as described in his Reply Brief in the 7 Circuit constitutes a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 8) whether this court should treat this case on par with Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) because this case deals with almost 50 million people with disabilities in the United States and because this case is of great National Importance.