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

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) WITH A GOVENOR’S MANDATE TO STAY HOME SHOULD THE 578 | PRO TEMPORE WHOM RECENTLY TOOK OFFICE SCHEDULE A | HEARINGWAS 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 574? ; 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 DEPARTMENT OF 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? i 7) WITH AN EXPERT(S) HANDLING SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THEN PLAINTIFF FOR OVER 12 YEARS WAS THE PRO TEMPORE i 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? 2 9) WHY IS THE E-MAIL FROM ADA EXPERT ESQ. SUZ THOMAS IN THE COURT SUMMARY, PETITION TO REVIEW STATING COURTS ARE HORRIBLEHOPE 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 OF PRO SE ENACTED BY THIS PRO TEMPORE (SEE HAINES VS. KERNER 404 US. 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) WHY WASN'T THIS ORDER DISMISSING LITIGATION SET ASIDE (SEE RULE 60B) WHEN FILED EXHIBITS (SEE EXHIBIT E) WITH THE SUPREME COURT DEMONSTRATE LIABILITY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENDANT? 13) WHY WASN'T THIS ORDER DISMISSING LITIGATION DISMISSED IN Rule 55 (C) WHEN THE DISCOVERY RECEIVED WAS FILED WITH NOT ONLY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL & THE PRO TEMPORE WITH THE STATEMENT: ; “ANYTHING ELSE” -? 12) WHEN THIS SYSTEM SEEMS TO BE FRAUGHT WITH POTENTIAL CRONYNISM, BIAS AND PREJUDICIAL FAVORITISM IN ITS RULINGS INVOLVING PRO SE LITIGANTS WHOM HAD TO REMOVE ADDICTED INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL WHOM THE APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL NOT ONLY DID NOT GET A HEARING BUT HAS DISTORTED THE COURT RECORDS (SEE CASE SUMMARY’ A-18-76908-C) THAT EVEN TO AN EXPERT APPEAR THAT THE THEN PLAINTIFF “WAS DUMPED”TARNISHING THE WORLD WIDE INTERNET AND CHANCE TO RETAIN COUNSEL —CORRECTED WITH A REMAND BACK FOR TRIAL ON MERITS? 3