whether-an-allegation-of-infra-judicial-acts-of-bias-is-required-for-standing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Neither an allegation of infra-judicial acts of bias, nor proof of acts of bias, is an ‘essential element’ of the appearance of impropriety, and it was error to dismiss petitioners’ complaint for lack of standing based on failure to allege acts of infra-judicial bias under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court. -2. Does the summary procedure under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1917, as applicd to civil parties appearing in forma pauperis, create a “paupers’ penalty” of lesser due process by denying citizens appearing in forma pauperis a timely opportunity to challenge or disqualify a judge for the appearance of impropriety under § 455, before a sua sponte disposition on the merits can occur? 3. Does a “religion exception” to the Judicial Canons, that originated in an American Bar Association Model Code in 1974 , and enacted by 35 states of the United States and District of Columbia since then, constitute an establishment of or entanglement in religion by creating an express or implied religion exception to disqualification of judges who are members of organizations that practice invidious religious discrimination? 4. Is the term ‘religion’ too vague and indeterminate as an exception to a judicial canon intended to police the appearance of impropriety, because the broad and inclusive definition of ‘religion’ under the First Amendment and subjective nature of belief systems renders attempts to adjudicate what is or is not religious discrimination conforming to religious tenets, beliefs, doctrine or commandments, an unlawful entanglement? 5. Can an individual who, as a religious tenet, believes in the overthrow of the United States as an entity constituting or controlled by the ‘anti-christ,’ and in overthrow of the United States by a theocratic autocracy by force, and therefore is disloyal to the Constitution, preside as a judge in a lawsuit over the objections of one or more | itigants? i