Whether due-process-of-law, 5-usc-3331, 14th-amendment, civil-rights, civil-procedure, standing

No question identified. : QUESTIONS 1) Whether or not it being due-process of law and equity for this appeal to issue forth in this court pursuant rule 11 of this court pursuant the due-process of both the 5th and . 14th amendments, on grounds of the jural interest that being 5 U S.C. section 3331 being a law that abridging my entitlement of while . U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan's judgement of civil-action # 20-MC-01 _enforcing the jural interest that being 5 U.C.S. section 3331 at congruencey of Article 1section 8-clause 9's applicability? : 2) Whether or not the lack of the issuance of at regards of the United States guaranteeing protection against the deprivation of double. in the U.S. District Court without having to appeal such civil. action to the Supreme Court of the U.S. pursuant rule 71 of this court, being grounds for the awarding of compensatory damages as relief against the mental anguish sustained > against my good-faith of civil-action's application in the U.S. District Court?Court? (see 5 _ U.S.C. section 3331's stating) : 3) Whether or not the applicabilty of the assertion of 28 U.S.C. section 1343a3 and 1343a4 being the subject-matter jurisdiction of the of 28 U.S.C. ; ‘section 1331's application, allow | who being Eric Taylor to practice under the authority of the law office of United States District Court For The District Of Columbia Judge Emmet G Sullivan in the practicability of the issuance of remedy against the tort of personal injury .. Of mental anguish caused by the negligence of the constituting tribunal contrary the allegiance of the authenticity of rule 45 of the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, if | accomplish receiving a diploma of Legal Office Assistant? (see Article Il-section 2-clause 2's and Article Il-section 3's and 3 U.S.C. section 302's stating) 4) Whether or not the authority of the law office of United States District Court For The ~ District Of Columbia Judge Emmet G Sullivan deprived | who being Eric Taylor (s.s.n.# XXx-xx-4342) of thereby such judge's judgement to dismiss with prejudice as accordance of the jural interest of 5 U.S.C. section 3331's employability of preventing any claim for relief | asserted by civil-action 20-MC-01 . against such deprivation; if i can prove that the trial of Virginian Indictment# CRO5-2591 being the evidence of Federal Judge Emmet G Sullivan's depriving | who being Eric * Taylor (8.8.n.# xxx-xx-4342) of (see 5 U.S.C. section 3331's stating) 5)Whether or not the authority of the law office of Supreme Court of the United States of North America Chief-JusticeJohn G Roberts Jr would of depriving | who being Eric Taylor (s.s.n.# xxx-xx-4342) of if it fails to grant _ this petition for a writ of certiorari into the Supreme Court of the United States of North America pursuant rule 11 of the rules of this court; while | can prove that the Supreme; sole purpose for denying such review " pursuant rule 11 of this court would of being for aiding 5 U.S.C. section 3331's ‘employability of establishing the ability to assert demurmur against an appellant's attempt of ceriorari pursuant rule 10 of the rules of this court? (see Article II-section 2-clause 2's and Article [l-section 3's and 3 U.S.C. section 302's stating) aan 6) Whether or not the same evidence-test states that “ the evidence used to validate an “. alternate prosecution other than the initial prosecution after been used to commence an voi 4 initial prosecution, being prohibited of being of violation of F protections, when and there because, the initial prosecution doesn't merge to being the : err subsequent conviction of alternation? ae 7) Whether or not the fact that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan's asserting ca that an order was issued separately the order sought of review by this writ of certiorari *» <%. . being discriminative against the contractual specifications of civil-action 20-MC-01's a¢. ° titling and therefore being grounds to sustain