Whether the May 21, 2021 dismissal in the instant case must be declared void

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the May 21, 2021 dismissal in the instant case must be declared void, as Appeals Court Judges Howard, Thompson, and Kayatta not only aided Judge Woodlock in the underlying case in his intentional endeavor to perpetuate systemic criminal corruption in the Massachusetts courts, 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1503, and 1505, but had to make sure they were the ones sitting in the immediate case so they could , cover up their obstruction of justice in the underlying case, all in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455, and due process of law? , 2. Justice Stephen Breyer in his September, 2006, Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980-A Report to the Chief Justice, stated: : The federal judiciary, like all institutions, will sometimes suffer instances of misconduct... [A] system that relies for investigation soley upon judges themselves risks a kind of undue ‘guild favoritism’ through inappropriate sympathy with the judge’s point of view or deemphasis of the misconduct problem. Page 1. Although Justice Breyer admits that some federal : judges are guilty of misconduct, courts are still consistently rendering decisions of absolute judicial immunity, even when judges have criminally obstructed justice. DuLaurence has claimed that Judge Woodlock and i. Judges Howard, Thompson, and Kayatta criminally obstructed justice, whether there is any manner in which a ; litigant can redress these Constitutional grievances? 3. Whether the United States Supreme Court is the only Court that can address and put an end to obstruction of justice “multi-judge corruption rings” (page 14)? 4. Whether Judge Woodlock is entitled to claim absolute judicial immunity for aiding and abetting the Massachusetts courts’ “multi-judge corruption ring”, a process used by the Massachusetts courts to prevent Due : Process for those who report a judge for misconduct? : 5. Whether Justice Potter Stewart’s dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court decision Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 367 (1978), must be revisited by addressing the facts in , this case, as set out in Stump, supra, at 360? 6. Whether Judge Woodlock has forfeited his right to claim absolute judicial immunity by intentionally committing criminal acts which obstructed DuLaurence from his Constitutional and Civil Rights as set out in 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 371, 1503, and 1505, and “fraud upon the court”, as they are not “judicial function(s)” in the first place? : 7. Whether Judge Woodlock and Judges Howard, Thompson, and Kayatta were disqualified by law pursuant to Caperton v. A. ii. , . T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), as DuLaurence was not afforded due process of law? 8. Whether, when there is disqualification of a judge by law or bias pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 or due process of law, that judge is absolutely without jurisdiction in the case, and any judgment rendered by that judge, or judges, is void and without effect because it impacts 3 litigant’s right to Due Process; the failures to disqualify in this , case and in the underlying case directly conflict with all decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the issue? ; | 9, Whether DuLaurence can maintain his United States Supreme Court derived private right of action for monetary damages against Judge Woodlock pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971)? 10. Whether DuLaurence is entitled to damages pursuant to Bivens and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which addresses rights retained by the people not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights? 11. Whether DuLaurence is entitled to damages pursuant to Article I, Sec. 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, “The “Title of Nobility Clause”? 12. Whether DuLaurence is entitled to damages pursuant to Bivens and Article III of the U. S. Constitution? iii.