whether-a-judge-has-jurisdiction-to-make-criminal-threats

No question identified. : Mw SECTION I. . QUESTIONS 1. Whether a judge, sitting on the bench; admitting; not : having. jurisdiction over an issue, but makes a crimin' al threat to sue defendant of liable; while appearing to control his properties; if def/pet. ‘ever-' again raised the issue of judge's; 2 times; meeting ex parte ; off the record with the deliberating jury; in the jury room, on subject matter of entire jury panel bias, a ix dire: eS . . . arising at voir dire;"might require a retrial; and if hé@storical facts of record before the court's; are , , proof, or evidence; the ex parte's actually occurred as Thums had plead; all through; [one in the Morning, per jury note #5 (FH dkt 21 pg 64 of 142; app 5), and one in the afternoon at 1:15 pm (FH dkt 18-20 pgs 4149 of 57)] actually establish bias jury, reversable error, judicial abuse of discretion or IAC because: _ a) not considered to be harmless procedural matter? : b) no delivery of a requisite cautionary instruction so to protect defendant from further prejudice? c) jury may have interpreted that judge had found it necessary to protect jury from defendant? d) Thums was denied his right to be present, and to have counsel; at a critical stage, confront? _ @) error by trial counsel; waiving Thums' presence; not informing Thums, upon learning of ‘bias jury' not moving for 'mis-trial,' at least a hearing? . f) as Thums plead pro se all along; Johnson v. Zebst 304 U.S. 458; FH dkt 21 Ex.'B' loss of jurisdiction failing to complete the court,& couldn't impose JOC? g)evines abuse of process, office, or; reckless I 1s I} 4 disregard for defendant's right's; denying defendant Thums opportunity to explain and molify jury's concerns; evince objective judicial bias? h) Remmer v. U.S., 347 U.S. 227, 227 U.S.S.Ct. 509 requires a new trial if even one juror expresses such prejudice towards defendant, or a hearing? i) might amount to; jury tampering, and or coercion? denial (app 10) must be overcome by the actual court records; to which Thums placed before all reviewing court's; also pleading; when Thums was personally able to show such to A.C. House; House sank in chair; exasperatinly wheezed; "Son of a 3" apparently . for allowing judge Lister' to dupe him into believing it never happened; as Thums inferred; as the record speaks for itself? : k) because the 7th Cir. as all other's; side-stepped the facts Thums plead; Scudder and St. Eve; sidestepped the sidestepping? Cf. Q. 80 at end . 2. Whether Thums following WI S. Ct. St. ex. rel. Fuentes v. Court of App. WI, 225 Wis. 2d 446, 593 N.W. wd 48, **(1999)%* cited in WI Stat. and Annota. §782.03 History; and also in; WI Constitution Art. I §8 Habeas . Corpus, and Bail; Stating: "A defendant's prejudicial deprivation of appellate counsel, be it the fault of the atty, or the app.Ct. is properly remedied by a petition for a ‘Writ of Habeas Corpus' in the: [[Supreme Court?]]" or, might excuse the exhaustion requirement forfeiture so to allow federal review; considering Thums' Petition was to the WI S.Ct. denied ex parte apparently for being in wrong forum; because Thums didn't follow: "State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 509, 484 N.W. 2d 540 *% **(1992)%%* law overridden by WI S.Ct. in Fuentes (1999)? but still requiring IAAC claim filed in WY Ct. APP? 3. Whether the conflicting law apparently unrecognized by WI and Federal Court's alike should be cause in F.H. It . | Court of William Conley to afford Thums relief under: Bartone v. U.S., 375 U.S. 52, 54 (1963); "Where state snarls and obstacles preclude an effective state remedie against unconstitutional convictions; Federal Court's have 'no other choice' but to grant relief;" ‘or: : a) whether where Thums plead to The 7th Cir. Ct. App. for Stay and Order for ‘Certification of Guestions of State Law; but was denied might have been denial of Thums' due process if the questions were determinate to that outcome; or . either abdication of duty or by abstention doctrine? Did Conley abuse discretio