Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit criminally obstruct justice and/or abuse and/or exceed its legal authority

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (USCA3 hereafter) criminally obstruct justice and/or abuse and/or exceed its legal authority when the Court had willfully and calculatedly violated constitutional right to due ) process and justice by knowingly making without any justification, for instance, the . . following false finding of fact that was obviously wrong to even a layperson: Petitioner's ~ : Appeal #21-1171 against U.S. Trustee and R. Kenneth Barnard is identical in substance and on the merit to another entirely different Appeal #21-1172 before the Court to consolidate them and dismiss Petitioners most meritorious appeal for absolutely no ground at all, based on affirmative defenses, if any, that were only available in the latter appeal, to which Petitioner's was wrongfully consolidated? 2. Did the USCA3 err as a matter of law when the Court dismissed Petitioner's appeal being grounded on the finding that Petitioner's 60(b) Motion in the USBC-DNJ was untimely in that it was filed “more than two and a half years after the District (sic) Court’s November 2016 order” had been issued, while in this case Petitioner's said motion was based on Respondents’ absolutely. egregious criminal activities to obstruct justice and convert Petitioner’s $575,000.00 assets, in : concert with the U.S. Trustee, respondent herein, and two U.S. Bankruptcy Judges, which . criminal and fraudulent activities could only be affirmed and became undisputed on court record after Respondents’ May 16 2019 Filing of his TFR, about one month prior to . Petitioner's filing of my 60(b) Motion? 3. Did the USCA3 err as a matter of law when the Court dismissed Petitioner's appeal based on the Barton doctrine, while as a matter of law Petitioner did not need any prior . court leave to sue Trustee-Respondent Barnard in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, which has the original subject-matter jurisdiction over Petitioner's causes of action against Respondents herein? 2