Whether separate attorneys' representing a defendant corporation and attorneys' representing a non-party key witness, mutual claim of a protective legal privilege, in a pro se civil action, filed in federal court, based on the legal premise that a pro se's previous exercise of his right to self-representation is evidence both of personal bad character and that all of his prior court cases, including petitions for writ of certiorari, were meritless and for improper purpose, is prohibited by 28 U. S. Code §1654, and is in such clear and convincing contempt of the federal judiciary's duty of impartiality, including this Supreme Court of the United States, that the court of first instance, on its own initiative, should sanction the offending attorneys with disqualification, as all subsequent proceedings would be inherently prejudicially tainted, and failure to so sanction, constitutes punishment contrary to Bordenkirker v Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978), and denial of the Constitution of the United States Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether separate attorneys’ representing a defendant corporation and attorneys’ representing a , non-party key witness, mutual claim of a protective legal privilege, in a pro se civil action, filed in federal court, based on the legal premise that a pro se’s previous exercise of his right to self-representation is evidence both of personal bad character and that all of his prior court cases, including petitions for writ of : certiorari, were meritless and for improper purpose, is prohibited by 28 U. S. Code §1654, and is in such clear and convincing contempt of the federal judiciary’s duty of impartiality, including this : Supreme Court of the United States, that the court of first instance, on its own initiative, should sanction the offending attorneys with disqualification, as all subsequent proceedings would ' be inherently prejudicially tainted, and failure to so sanction, constitutes punishment contrary to Bordenkirker v Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978), and ; denial of the Constitution of the United States Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal a protection of the law. i