Where public Court employees of the lower Courts violate the Disability Rights and Federal Rehabilitation Act laws 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq. announced in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) , under what circumstances does may those public employees corruptly influence judicial officers by using a person's disabilities to justify how a Court does not have to comply with the laws that prohibit discrimination and thereby purge the taint from the Disability Rights and Federal Rehabilitation Act laws 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq. ?

Questions Presented Where public Court employees of the lower Courts violate the Disability Rights and Federal Rehabilitation Act laws 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq. announced in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) , under what circumstances does may those public employees corruptly influence judicial officers by using a person’s disabilities to justify how a Court does not have to comply with the laws that prohibit discrimination and thereby purge the taint from the Disability Rights and Federal Rehabilitation Act laws 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq. ? Where public Court employees of the lower Courts violate and show no deference to the Disability Rights and Federal Rehabilitation Act laws 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq. announced in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) ad a disabled persons rights to be heard on Appeal in a case involving Disability rights and Accessibility by showing forms of fraud and attachment of the Federally protected income at law and to a legal process thereby purge the taint from the rights of federally protected income under 42 U.S.C. 407(a) ? Where a lower Court has shown an Order stating a disabled person must pay or else the Court would dismiss the case for non-payment violate the rights to proceed on appeal without payment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) announced in” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992) ; ” Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit IT Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993)(quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)) without impinging upon Due Process by ‘denying q case for not complying with an Order to pay after an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 ULS.C. § 1915(a) ? Where the Respondent is an actual covered under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act as announced in Acts of Congress found in the laws of the United States and under FCC regulations and where those services of the Respondent are covered services for disabled individuals violated the Respondent using a characteristic of a disability showing actual discrimination allow further segregation in inaccessibility thereby purge the taint from the Disability laws and rights of the Petitioner’s and Federal Rehabilitation Act Laws and rights belonging to the disabled individuals thereby purge the taint from the Disability Rights and Federal Rehabilitation Act? } -i Il.