1) WITH A GOVENOR 'S MANDATE TO STAY HOME SHOULD THE 5™
PRO TEMPORE WHOM RECENTLY TOOK OFFICE SCHEDULE A
HEARING- WAS THIS APPROPRIATE?

2) SHOULD SAID HEARING OCCUR WITH ONLY 3 DAY NOTICE AFTER
BEING CANCELLED BY PRO TEMPORE 3 TIMES, MOVED TO & THEN
BACK FROM THE DISTRICT COURT WITH NO TIME TO REQUEST
SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATIONS?

3) SHOULD THE PRO TEMPORE HAVE REVIEWED THE FILE & SEE
THAT THE THEN PLAINITFF REQUIRED ADA SECTION 504
ACCOMMODATION THAT RULE OUT TELEPHONIC HEARING IF
CAPTIONING IS NOT AVAILABLE THRU THE OFFICE OF DIVERSITY?

4) WHY IS THE ORDER SETTING HEARING SIGNED ON THE ON THE
9th OF NOVEMBER, 2020 AND ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON THE 5th?

5) WHY THE RUSH TO SCHEDULE THIS DEFENDANT SUMMARY
JUDGMENT WHEN THE PREVIOUS 3 PRO TEMPORE WHOM
RESIGNED ONE OVER CONCERNS OF APPEARANCE OF
IMPARTIALITY DID NOT?

6) WHERE ANY OF THE COURTS LIKE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
THE DEPARTMENTS JUSTICE (HEREIN AFTER DOJ) AWARE OF
CONSENT BY DOJ TO OPEN A COMPLAINT OUT OF THE 100 'S OF ADA
VIOLATIONS COMPLAINT & COMMIT A REPRESENTATIVE TO
TRAVEL TO LAS VEGAS FEDERAL COURT?

7) WITH AN EXPERT® HANDLING SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR THEN PLAINTIFF FOR OVER 12 YEARS WAS THE PRO TEMPORE
WILLFUL IN DISCARDING THE APPROVED REQUESTS REQUIRING
CAPTIONING @ ALL HEARINGS THAT REQUIRED BEING THERE IN
PERSON?

8) WHY WASN 'T THE ALL IMPORTANT TRANSCRIPT & ORAL
HEARING EXAMINATION OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 2021 BEFORE JUDGE
DAVID M. JONES ORDER & REVIEWED FOR PERJURY UNDER OATH
OF DEPARTMENT 29?

9) WHY IS THE E-MAIL FROM ADA EXPERT ESQ. SUZ THOMAS IN THE
COURT SUMMARY, PETITION TO REVIEW STATING COURTS ARE
HORRIBLE- HOPE YOU (PLAINTIFF) CAN FIX THEM IMPORTANT TO
EQUITY FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS?

10) WHY ISN'T THE ORDER TO DISMISS BY THE PRO TEMPORE
CATAGORIZED AS A DEFAULT ORDER?

11) WHY WASN 'T WHEN PLEADINGS FILING AFTER FILING PUT IN
PLACE FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE-ALLEGATIONS OF PRO SE ENACTED
BY THIS PRO TEMPORE (SEE HAINES VS. KERNER 404 U.S.
519.92S.CT.594) (SEE ERICKSON V. PARDUS 551U.S. 89, 94(2007)
QUOTING ESTELLE V. GAMBLE 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)-SEEKING LESS
STRINGENT STANDARDS?

12

Should the pro tempore have scheduled a hearing with only 3 day notice after being cancelled 3 times?