Do Justices owe a mandatory, non-discretionary, equitable, conscience-based moral duty to entertain petitions relating to deliberately planned, carefully executed schemes by attorneys to defraud?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question I. . Do Justices owe a mandatory, non-discretionary, equitable, conscience-based moral duty to themselves, to all Federal Bar attorneys and to individual unrepresented victims to entertain petitions relating broad-based “deliberately planned, carefully executed schemes” by attorneys to defraud? Question IT. Do courts of appeal nationwide, including the Ninth Circuit, exhibit a pattern and practice of refusing to adjudicate EVERY issue presented by the Class of disrespected, unrepresented litigants filing appeals arising from the underlying institutionalized IRS record falsification program, and from the open support thereof by involved U.S. district judges? Question ITI. Did the involved District and Circuit Judges “abuse their discretion” by refusing to adjudicate the validity of the falsified Form 4340 Certificate proffered by the Government and to determine whether a signed summary record of assessment exists? 1 Question IV. Does such refusal/abuse of discretion constitute fraud on the Court by the Court? 1DoJ attorney Jonathan Hauck expressly conceded that IRS’ Sun Microsystems computer generated ALL documents used to justify the forfeiture of my home. See Issue 3a below for details. 1 . |