Whether the lower courts have abused their authority by refusing to comply with this court's mandates and findings of liability, thereby denying the plaintiff's constitutional rights

No question identified. : : Questions/lssues for Review Given this Court’s Mandate found in Wong Kim Ark v U.S., 169 U.S. 649, 654, 1898 that all Courts must consider the Common Law in its decisions and Payne v Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 855, 1991that no matter what the lower courts personal beliefs they have of this Courts decisions that they must comply with them and that the lower courts have failed to comply with this court’s decisions in 40 Issues and Claims made in this Lawsuit as to Void Proceedings due to Discretionary, Jurisdictional and/or Mandatory defects that holds all officials for liability if violated, the courts have abused their authority by refusing to comply with this courts findings of Liability for Legal and/or Equity Relief and all sections of the U.S. Constitution allegedly violated by the State. Does the official: a. Lose Discretion and/or Jurisdiction for violations of these mandates upon them make their decisions void and of no effect? b. Should the official have recused themselves from the matter rather than rule against the plaintiff? c. Is the injured party thus entitled to either Equity and/or Legal Relief for their failure to so comply with these mandates, when they were informed of the same? ; d. If the proceedings are being challenged based on void orders for Discretionary, Jurisdictional and/or Mandatory Defects, or as being a Trespasser in the law are judges immune from a collateral attack for Equity relief for said reasons? 1 e. Given the officials are bound to comply with the Common Law, making said acts Ministerial, hold the official liable for Equity and/or Legal Relief? f. Do the Lower Courts directly deny my 1, 5% and 9* Amendment rights, and my rights violated by the State under Art.s I and IV and the 1", 4, st, 9® and/or 14% Amendment rights by ignoring the lawsuit alleged the State’s had legal limits on them? g. Is a lawsuit that alleges the officials Lacked, Lost or Usurped their Discretion and/or Jurisdiction with the facts as to what caused said defects, or who have failed to comply with Mandates under the law and what the Mandates are and the law that supports said claims sufficient to state a claim for relief and ; does said allegations give the Lower Courts Jurisdiction over such a lawsuit? h. Is this Courts decision in Gomez v Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 639-640, 1980 such that one can seek Equity/Prospective Relief against Judges, Legislators or Executive Officials? i. Does an Official Who Intentionally denies one of his rights, allow recovery for Prospective/Equity and/or Legal Relief? j. Are Legislative, Judicial and Executive officials immune from Equity Relief when they war against the U.S. Constitution? k. Are Executive, Legislative and Judicial officials subject to the same process of all other state officials when said officials are alleged to have Juris -dictional, Discretionary or Mandatory defects against them? ii