due-process-violation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . . I. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE . EIGHTH CIRCUIT WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND DENIED PETITIONER FEDERAL | DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE 1ST, 5TH, 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHEREIN | THAT COURT SANCTIONED THE DISTRICT COURTS ERRONEOUS FAILURE TO ENFORCE 28 USC 1447(c), TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT IN A CASE REMOVED FROM STATE COURT, TO ISSUE A CERTIFIED REMAND ORDER TO THE STATE’. COURT AND OFFICIALS UNDER REVIEW, SUCH FAILURE GROSSLY WAS INDIRECT ; CONTRADITION WITH FEDERAL COURTS ACROSS THE ENTIRE NATION, ANDDLASTLW, ' PAILURE TO ISSUE SUCH CERTIFICATION DEPRIVES THE STATE COURT OF TAKING . ANY ACTION ON PENDING STATE COURT CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS SO REMOVED? ; Il. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT WAS CLEARL# ERRONEOUS AND DENIED PETITIONER FEDERAL. '* DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHEN THAT COURT TURNED A BLIND EYE TO THE DISTRICT COURT VIOLATING EVERY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MANDATER::BOR! FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT USED HIS COMPUTER TO BECOME AN INVESTIGATOR, LEAVING BEHIND MATERIAL FACTS, AND WITH THAT EX PARTE INVESTIGATION, THAT SAME JUDGE BECOME .THE PROSECUTOR, AND THE JURY AND DISMISSED THE PETITION WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, OR ANY COMPLIANCE WITH SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULES; LASTLi, THAT JUDGE WAS A FORMER STATE PROSECUTOR, AND JUDGE DURING THE TIME , PARTS OF FEDERAL REMOVAL ACTION WAS BEING LITIGATING MAKING HIM 2°Yon ¢.¥ AND HIS ACTS AND RULING IN DIRECT VIOLATION oF US SUPREME COURT , . CASE LAW CONDEMNING SUCH CONFLICT OF INTEREST? — a . , ‘ ~ TI. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT IF APPEALS’ FOR THE . . . EIGHTH. CIRCUIT DENIED PETITIONER FEDERAL AND STATE DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THAT COURT GROSSLY AND UNFAIRLY FAILED. TO ENFORCES ITS OWN ~ PRECEDENTS CONDEMNING FEDERAL JUDGES BECOMING INVESTIGATORS IN ACTIONS PENDING IN FEDERAL .COURTS, AND BY UNFAIRLY FAILING TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN” . PRECEDENTS CALLED INTO SERIOUS QUESTION WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RECUSED ITSELF, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT OPENLY FAILED TO ENFORCE SUCH PRECEDENTS NEVER BEFORE BEING QUESTIONED? ; : -_ _ -_ Os