Whether ignoring live controversies defies U.S. Supreme Court justiciability standards requiring cause applied to injury-in-fact?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner was strangled. Purple bruised strangulation marks appear on her neck in photographs police took. She only made physical contact with the strangling hands trying to get them off her neck to defend her life. Since November 19, 2015, everyone— including 10+ judges capable of easily fixing what happened— leaves these facts unrefuted. The strangling occurred in a municipality notorious in public reports “much , published across various media outlets and public forums by various reporters, of “lawsuit avoidance” to “stay ahead of the ACLU” by falsifying and ignoring material evidence in multiple reported cases. Yet, their mayor, city councilors and managers are observed in public reports allowing violations of protected rights to continue ; despite abundant notice in various forms.” Aplt.App.241,418 Petitioner averred verbatim systemic conditions— “full factual backdrop”— intertwining impermissible gender-based discrimination, denial of equal protection, and retaliation for asserting federally secured protected rights causing “culminative act” of municipality’s fabricated evidence being used in subsequent proceeding. Record documents screeners’ pattern of processing this non-prisoner as prisoner complaint, distorting verbatim facts averred, lacking comprehension of wellestablished legal principles, and repeatedly subjecting Petitioner to non-standard procedural hurdles. Record also shows repeated diligent attempts to mitigate screener’s documented ongoing harm to amendment opportunity being rebuffed. ; Tenth Circuit never disputed Constitutional injury-in-fact. “[A] victim of intentional fabrication of evidence by officials is denied due process when [] either convicted or acquitted” Cole v. Carson, 802 F.3d 752,768 (5th Cir.2015) “The Court fails to grasp how this is a relevant distinction. Fabricated evidence is fabricated evidence.” Avery v. City of Milwaukee, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1089, 1095 (E.D. Wis. 2014) Named defendants are legal custodians of public records system: a function without discretion to enter false statements. They manage and control custody of its contents. Some of them are licensed attorneys. Entering false statements into public records and leaving it there uncorrected rises to both state and federal criminal culpability. This is an easy fix. , Instead of easily fixing this Constitutional injury-in-fact with demonstrated legal ii L culpability by those directly responsible, Tenth Circuit’s analytical gymnastics distorted defendants’ direct responsibility, deepening circuit split irreconcilably blocking court access. Instead, completely sidestepping evidentiary nexus of the challenged conduct that disseminated false statements remain in public records. Circuit splits splinter out around applying sufficient pleading of supervisory liability. Pro se indigent petitioners are particularly illiberally impacted. Despite direct evidence averred verbatim, Tenth Circuit ignores ongoing live controversy, contradicts verbatim record in framing unsupportable conclusions, and condones dissemination of false statements in public records. Questions presented are: 1. Whether ignoring live controversies defies U.S. Supreme Court justiciability standards requiring cause applied to injury-in-fact? 2, Whether condoning dissemination of false statements in public records defies Constitutional interests at stake? . .