Can Counsel for Respondent U.S. Government defend or assist RUVA for ultra vires acts outside scope of government authority, when RUVA has not filed any denial of corrupt acts alleged by this case?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED As used herein, “Respondent Ultra Vires Actor” (RUVA) means any Respondent, either individual or agency, not acting within authorized scope of official capacity of governmental authority but acting ultra vires, acting either alone or with unknown and unnamed other persons improperly causing violations of U.S. domestic law referenced within 2006 U.S. entry to 2003-31-OCT MERIDA UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION (UNCAC) and/or violate UNCAC. As used herein, Paris Climate Accord (PCA) means “Paris Climate Accord” and is also called “Paris Climate Agreement”, “Paris Agreement”, “Paris Accord”, or “Accord du Paris” in references cited in for Petitioner’s Complaint (ROA 1). Question One: Can Counsel for Respondent U.S. Government defend or assist RUVA for ultra vires acts outside scope of government authority, when RUVA has not filed any denial of corrupt acts alleged by this case? Petitioner’s Complaint (ROA 1) and many other papers complain that RUVA’s own published statements of plans to act, and actions, prove misuse of influence, fraud and bribery and thus are corrupt or violate UNCAC standards. Petitioner placed, on April 12, before the District Court outcome determinative questions of law regarding RUVA and their PCA statements. Petitioner requested decision or certification to the | | | ii | Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of said questions of law. Counsel for Respondent Government filed motions for extension, stay and dismissals. RUVA has failed, either pro se or by non-government | counsel, to file any denial of corrupt acts alleged by | this case. | Petitioner asks this Supreme Court to decide if } Counsel for Respondent U.S. Government can defend | or assist RUVA for ultra vires acts outside scope of | government authority, especially in this case, where | RUVA has not filed any denial of corrupt acts | alleged by this case and said counsel risks conflict or | breach of duty. | Question Two: Can RUVA fail or refuse to | enter denial of corrupt acts outside scope of government authority or fail to answer or file ; other responsive pleading, either pro se or by non-government counsel, and not be in | default? | Petitioner asks this Supreme Court to decide if , RUVA are in default. Why should RUVA be excused from basic default many months after failure to file any denials or any other responsive pleading before lapse of FRCP 12 shortened twenty-one (21) day period for reply by non-government persons and | after multiple motions by Petitioner for declaratory and default judgment? iii Question Three: Given 28 USC 636(b)(1)(A) has express delegation limit on District Court’s delegation to a Magistrate Judge: | “except for injunctive relief...” does 28 USC 636(b)(1)(A) limit scope of assignment of administrative authority to Magistrate Judge in a manner to prevent delays of injunctive relief, causing de facto denial thereof? Petitioner complained to CA5 that delays by Magistrate Judge’s extension and stay caused de facto denial of timely injunctive relief even though 636(b)(1)(B) allows creation by Magistrate Judge of proposed findings of fact and recommendations. Petitioner asks this Supreme Court to decide if CA5 made error of law by not granting Petitioner relief when District Court Judge made error of law, in case where injunctive relief is essential for protection. Petitioner complained to CA5 about delegation by District Court of broad case administration to Magistrate Judge in manner which allowed Magistrate Judge to withhold injunctive relief by extension and stay. Question Four: Does 636(b)(1)(B) allow District Court Judge to accept Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations and then deny Petitioner’s injunctive relief when neither District Court Judge nor Magistrate answered outcome : determinative questions of law presented by Petitioner that set boundary between | iv authorized acts versus ultra vires acts of RUVA? Questions of law presented by Petitioner for