Does the well-evidenced fact that a sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ! 1915(e)(2), and The Appeal's Court's subsequent upholding of that decision, is in : conflict with the well-evidenced facts of the case itself and multiple instances of | controlling case law designed to protect indigent Pro Se litigants from the type of abuse by The Courts mean that the Federal Courts have abused their discretion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | 1. “Does the well-evidenced fact that a sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ! 1915(e)(2), and The Appeal’s Court’s subsequent upholding of that decision, is in : conflict with the well-evidenced facts of the case itself and multiple instances of | controlling case law designed to protect indigent Pro Se litigants from the type of abuse by The Courts mean that the Federal Courts have abused their discretion?” | The facts of this case under review are undeniably credible and are evidenced by | numerous exhibits, and The Courts have issued multiple instances of case law that | protect Pro Se litigants from both procedural and substantive Judicial Abuse(s) and | the Federal Courts’ actions and decisions have run afoul of that controlling case law | in this case under review. 2. “Does the continual disenfranchisement of an individual, as irrefutably evidenced in that individual's court documentation and associated appeals, violate that individual’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights, or any other Constitutional Rights?” The Federal District Court of Maine has been abusing, among other procedural | mechanisms, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) in order to procedurally dismiss the indigent and | Pro Se Plaintiffs meritorious complaints against Government Employee defendants | sua sponte (usually by misquoting the Plaintiff and then invoking Denion v. : Hernandez) prior to service so that those guilty parties are never required to provide answer in response to the Plaintiff's verifiably accurate and well-evidenced complaints. These abuses have been continually upheld by The First Circuit. 3. “Does The Federal Courts’ continual and outright refusal to address Torture by U.S. Government Personnel, and their associated failure to assist the victim im any way whatsoever, infringe upon the victim’s Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, Civil | Rights, or Rights conferred to the victim under United States and/or International | Law?” The United States Government and Federal Court System has failed to conduct any : investigation, or aid the Petitioner in any way, regarding his true, accurate, and | verifiable claims that he has been Tortured by U.S. Government Personnel. This non| action by the Government is in conflict with The Petitioner’s basic Human Rights, his | Constitutional and Civil Rights, and both Federal and International Law. | The Petitioner notes that the Federal Courts have Jurisdiction over Torture (18 U.S.C. 118C) as it is a Federal Crime as well as an International Crime.