No. 20-5855
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-authority civil-procedure court-procedure due-process judicial-oversight judicial-recusal jurisdiction jurisdictional-challenge legal-precedent new-evidence recusal standing
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-11-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court committed errors therein arising from oversight
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Question No. 1 Whether the Court committed errors therein arising from oversight Question No. 2 Whether new evidence serves as precedence , Question No. 3 Whether the deciding Judges acted with malice by not issuing an order of recusal Question No. 4 Whether a court, which acknowledges a clear “Lack of Jurisdiction” abuses its authority in not remanding to the Jurisdictional Court Question No. 5 : Whether the Court committed error in not accepting the Defendant’s original defense of “Lack of Jurisdiction” made under oath , INDEX TO APPENDICIES
Docket Entries
2020-11-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-08-31
Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 30, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent