Whether the lower courts acted ultra vires and the judgments below are void

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Fifth Circuit vastly departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and sanctioned the same by the lower court. Both the lower courts were asked and obligated yet refused to deter| mine its jurisdiction and both acted beyond their authority. This raises an alarming question on whether there is institutional discrimination against pro se litigants or, on the other hand, whether there is considerable partiality towards a party that has egregiously | committed fraud. eyo hk 1. Whether the lower courts acted ultra vires and the judgments below are void. 2. Whether petitioner was deprived of her statutory right to appeal and whether her substantial rights to due process and equal protection were violated. 3. Whether the lower courts’ orders constitute an expansion of judicial power beyond Article ITI, in violation of the separation of power doctrine. 4. Whether the lower courts’ judgments are contrary to statute and precedents set by this Court and held in accordance by all other circuits. 5. Whether this case squarely presents the exigencies to provide litigants stronger due process protections when courts act sua sponte; a highly debated question touched but not yet resolved by’ this Court. This case is a consolidation of two actions. When consolidation occurred, the first action had reached a stage | \ | Be | | | ii | QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued where core issues have been fully litigated and both parties sought resolution under the summary judgment standard. The procedure used to determine the ; matters provided an opportunity for review and gave notice of strict waiver, upon the failure to object to a magistrate’s report. After none of the parties filed ob| jections, the district court entered order fully adopting the report. Issue preclusion is applicable to this judg| ment; it passed a decision on issues that were litigated and necessary to the judgment. The second action involves the same plaintiff and the defendants are in privity to the defendants in the first. Thus, issue preclusion for matters decided is applica| ble in equal force and the principle of finality and re| pose must be honored. | In this case, the judgment was expressly relied upon | and none of the parties challenged its validity or finality. The district court was only required to consider the pleadings and apply the decided and undisputed | facts to the law. However, in this extraordinary situa. tion, the district court decided to take sua sponte action to raise controversy, to reopen and modify matters | previously determined and entered sua sponte summary judgment, nullifying the prior judgment without providing any basis for its jurisdiction to do so. The final judgment was simultaneously entered without notice or an opportunity to respond. On reconsideration, the district court was asked to provide basis for its authority and it declined. i I ee QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued On appeal, the Fifth Circuit was asked and required to resolve whether the district court lacked authority to | exercise judicial power in absence of controversy and over matters barred by issue preclusion and whether Cao’s substantial rights were violated. The Fifth Cir| cuit refused to consider and exacerbated the issues when it entered judgment without providing any basis for its jurisdiction. Its opinion reiterated brief after plaintiff pointedly showed that their responses were plain misrepresentations of the | record. As a result, it ruled on irrelevant issues not properly before it and affirmed upon different grounds that were manifestly unsupported by the record. The Fifth Circuit was reurged to consider relevant issues and to provide basis for its jurisdiction; it refused. , | iv