Does a judge have an unqualified right to nullify a complaint based on length alone?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This petition seeks to address fundamental questions of law about judicial impartiality, due process, and the legal standards of compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (“Rule 8”). The complaint filed in the District Court shows a decade long pattern of corporate fraud, ; abuse, and government indifference with clear, convincing, and objective audio/video evidence. The District Court purportedly “found” a Rule 8 violation , because of judicially disfavored length alone — a firmly and consistently rejected legal ground by , numerous Courts of Appeal. The District Court made | its “finding” (i) without meaningful review of the complaint’s substance, (ii) without considering the legitimate legal standards of Rule 8 briefed or the totality of the circumstances, (iii) without identifying | fatal unintelligibility, and (iv) without even inquiring as to whether Respondents received fair notice of the grounds upon which relief is sought. The District Court repeatedly ignored clear and thorough citations to the record showing imputation of fair notice and legitimate authority on the issue, consistently and silently favoring Respondents’ skeletal, undeveloped, and objectively , defective, sometimes plainly absurd, “arguments.” Accordingly, Petitioner requests this Court resolve the following questions of law in his favor: | | 1) Does a judge of the United States have an unqualified, absolute right to nullify a complaint under Rule 8 based on length alone? 2) Did the District Court deny due process of law using superficial review, unwarranted prejudgments, and judicial misconduct arising from judicial bias, resulting in void orders? . 1 PARTIES | | | ' 1. STEVEN CHRISTOPHER KNAPP “Petitioner,” “Plaintiff’); 2. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN, et al. (“City of Nashville”); 3. METRO DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING AGENCY, et al. “MDHA”); 4. CITY REAL ESTATE ADVISORS INC., et al. (“CREA”); 5. RYMAN LOFTS AT ROLLING MILL HILL, L.P, et al. “Ryman Lofts,” the “Partnership”); 6. FREEMAN WEBB CO., REALTORS, et al. (“FREEMAN-WEBB’ and “FW”); ; 7. LAW OFFICE OF HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC., e¢ al. (“Law Office of Wes Hall’); 8. MDHA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et.al (MDHA Board of Commissioners”); 9. WESLEY M. HALL, IH, in his individual capacity (“Hall”); 10. NATHAN C. LYBARGER, in his individual capacity (“Lybarger”); : 11. WILLIAM H. FREEMAN, in his individual capacity (“Freeman”); 12. WILLIE KIRBY DAVIS, JR., in his individual capacity (“Davis”); , 13. JUDITH EVELYN BEASLEY, in her individual capacity (“Beasley”); 14. RODNEY BEVERSTEIN, in his individual capacity (“Beverstein”); ii 15. AMANDA PRINCE, in her individual capacity (“Prince”); 16. JOMY HERNANDEZ, in his individual capacity (“Hernandez”); 17. JAMES K. HARBISON, in his individual capacity (“Harbison”); 18. WILLIAM L. BIGGS, JR., in his individual capacity (“Biggs”); 19. WILLIAM HENRY CHOPPIN, in his . individual capacity (“Choppin”); 20. EMILY THADEN, in her individual capacity (“Thaden,” “Commissioner Thaden’); 21. CLIFTON DAVID BRILEY, in his individual capacity (“Briley,” “Mayor Briley”); 22. ADRIAN BOND HARRIS, in her individual capacity (“Harris”); 23. ANONYMOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGER; 24, JEFFREY WHITING, in his official capacity (“CREA”) iii } RELATED CASES | 1. Knapp v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, TN, et al., Case No. 3:19-CV-00542, U.S. District Court . for the Middle District of Tennessee. Judgment entered January 7‘, 2021. | 2. Knapp v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, TN, et al., Appeal No’s. 21-5106 / 21-5219, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered February 10%, 2022. Rehearing denied April 14t, 2022. Iv