Whether an individual who does not have an Appointment Affidavit and has not taken the Oath of Office can become a civil servant/Assistant United States Attorney

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) EVERY Supreme Court Justice currently seated, MUST have an Appointment Affidavit AND to have taken the/an Oath of Office to . defend/uphold the Constitution. If you DO NOT HAVE BOTH OF THESE Constitutionally required documents, you CANNOT become a civil servant/Supreme Court Justice, Therefore, can an individual who DOES , NOT HAVE an Appointment Affidavit AND HAS NOT taken the/an Oath of office, become a civil servant/assistant United States attorney ~ (AUSA) for the government? And if not, are ANY of the actions/job "duties previously performed, WITHOUT THESE DOCUMENTS and/or in that capacity, valid? 2) Did the lower court(s) abuse its/their discretion and/or violate the plain, concise, express language that Congress placed in Fed.R. | Evid. (FRE) Rule 201, when the court(s) failed/refused to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts/documents, when petitioner: “ A) requested the court(s) to take judicial notice; B) supplied the court(s) with the necessary information facts/documents, and then the USDC's recharacterization of hisFRE 201 into a second/successive : §2255? 3) Did the United States Court of Appéals (USCA) abuse its discretion when it refused to accept Petitioner's motion to file out-of-time . Fed.R.App.P (FRAP) Rule 40 [21-10088], and motion for an extention | z of time to file a FRAP 40 [20-11242], when the USCA denied his Application for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on November 24, 2021, but petitioner did not receive the denials until December : 29, 2021, and was unable to send in his FRAP 40: 21-10088 and motion for extention of time, until January 10, 2022 due to: i) this prison's "modified lockdown" due to COVID-19 and ii) his “unit teams" absolute refusal to make copies of these court documents? And , when the 45th day was also January 10, 2022 pursuant to FRAP . Rule 26(a)(1)(C)? 4) Did the lower court(s) abuse its/their discretion when it/they failed/refused to adjudicate the merits of Petitioner's 59(e), when : he presented: A) facts showing the USDC failed to follow/abide by/ adhere to the plain, concise, express language in FRE 201; B) facts ii straight out of the record, that show his claim AGAINST AUSA-Ms ; Aisha Saleem, has never been adjudicated on its merits that a “restatement” of the claim is NOT any type of adjudication for . double jeopardy purposes; C)° facts showing that Ms Saleem has =: remained completely silent and has NEVER BEEN ORDERED/ COMPELLED to defend herself, by ANY court? ‘ |! | | | . iii