What is the full legal effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari?

QUESTION PRESENTED The full legal effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari is often debated, it is thought not to creates no binding legal precedent and does not reflect the Supreme Court’s agreement or disagreement with the lower court’s decision. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court specifically states: “Review on writ of certiorari is not a . matter of right, but a judicial discretion. A petition for writ of certiorari will be granted . only for compelling reasons.” This petition is the very essence of a compelling reason to grant Certiorari, in that, the U.S. Supreme Court, nor state or federal courts, cannot utilize ‘judicial discretion’ to confer jurisdiction upon a void criminal process that lacks subjectmatter and personal jurisdiction over the petitioner, without creating ‘binding legal precedent’ in the form judicial slavery: “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” ; In Thurman Brown v New York (U.S. Supreme Court Docket No.98-9916), the U.S. Supreme Court appropriated Congress’ powers, within the framework of extrajudicial | litigation (knowingly or unknowingly); in that, the Court conferred jurisdiction where none | existed, creating binding legal precedent. The Supreme Court marked the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen, therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States, is the final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States, so when the United States Supreme Court bestowed jurisdiction on a void criminal judgment, logic then follows that, not only can this judicial ‘ 2 | discretion create ‘binding legal precedent,’ it determines ‘the full legal effect of the U.S. 7 Supreme Court’s refusal’ to grant certiorari on this particular void criminal processes; since the Supreme Court cannot supplant jurisdiction where none exist and cannot make an annulled proceeding lawful, subsequent litigation and procedures are all based federal , conspiracy. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices, individually and collectively, overturned 13" Amendment precedent via the judiciary under Rule 10. The full effect of {t]his decision on proceedings that are absent subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, and the subsequent § 1983 defense of defendants’ action(s) in the civil litigation, including but not limited to Justices of the Supreme Court, that is now before this Court for a second time, on Certiorari, aides and abet New York State’s Unified Court System’ pattern and practice of re-prosecuting void criminal judgments. It may be possible that New York State Court committed fraud upon the United States Supreme Court, without the Court’s awareness, that is a possible defense, however, binding legal precedent in error is still law. The Court is fully briefed on the matter now. And it is [t]this . Court’s responsibility to set the record straight, under the law or as defendants. . State Court judiciary orchestrated fraudulent proceedings and processes on a void : judgment(s) with full weight of the law by repurposing several void criminal actions that were terminated and sealed by State Court Judges Victor M. Ort and Donald P. DeRiggi, pursuant to New York Criminal Procedural Law § 160.50, on October 7, 1996, in favor of the accused; chattel judicial slavery continued for 12 years 9 months and 17 days. Federal Courts, the Department of Justice (Supreme Court defendants were represented by DOJ), and all other relied on extrajudicial proceedings to seek and establish dismissal criteria. | 3 Petitioner has standing to pursue litigation including injunctive relief sought against Supreme Court defendant for the violation of petitioner’s Human Rights. The injury continues una