Whether conflicting free speech: superior Ray v. Blair does not' address constitution question allowing to decide for themselves ; opposite: Bell v Trombley ail hearsay stare decisis to further errant ignorance of ministerial function test

No question identified. : fe % ONE QUESTION SUPPORTED This corrigibly capable $277,700+/year public servant Chief Justice of last resort ‘Rule 10: Writ of certiorari/mandamus is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion” essential service after $1,131,313 finite tax monies already spent serves a compelling government interest to reduce government corruption after 8-unsuccessful elections: into August 18, 2020 election per unsuccessful prior US Supreme Court: No. 18-1206 Writ-of-Certiorari & No. 19-481 Writ-ofMandamus. Pursuant Stare Decisis Precedent-Judge Made Case Studies cannot make Federal Rules of Common Law that block & stop jury trials as control issues not cohesive & predictable result except preserving lawyer hearsay power in free public law. Stare decisis is not technically, legally binding, not legally positive, not voted on democratically, not create law. Thus, Chief Judge must reflect this inferior Bell v Trambley direct comparison to superior Ray v. Blair with no as no lawyers are required to be judges-justices per U.S. Constitution. Ministerial oath of office judicious & fair require Ministerial Function Test to remedy judgitis-bias, belligerence & bad-behavior due to functional illiteracy, inadequate training, boast of juris doctor diploma with no doctor experience, inarticulation, lack of a computer skills with superior’s support Magistrate JC Lynch etc: ORDER: “judgment Dismissal Without Leave to Amend. ISSUES: Civil RICO etal Bad Behavior to suppress First Amendment Originated Manipulated, Falsified & Clerk ' of Public Records (CV-17-17-79-BU & CV-78-67-BU) RE: 3-Constitutional Challenges: 1-Statute, 1-FTR Gold Recording Form, Clerk 2-Evidence case REMEDY: narrow : decision only that case should not be thrown out now, leaving difficult legal questions for another day for 100-percent decision to decide for themselves with no self-interest, no discrimination. QUESTION: [A-part] Whether conflicting free speech: superior Ray v. Blair does not’ address constitution question allowing to decide for themselves ; opposite: Bell v Trombley ail hearsay stare decisis to further errant ignorance of ministerial function test after swearing to ministerial oath of office not to apply ministerial (awyer-not-clergy) exemption with no particularization by appeal court. [B-part] Whether the court below can continue to refuse non-lawyer Pro Se Plaintiff Petitioner RickLUSSY to confront & compete against officers of the court & respectfully the court in Ray v. Blair not to further suppress Due Process Of Law (read: 100-percent jury trial verdict of non-lawyers in due process of law-redress, with four cameras, two judges (Federal & Mont) two juror oaths, twelve jurors & two-alternates). [C-part] Whether to apply ministerial oath of office to this particularized 82page First Amended Complaint (221-page