Whether judges and court officers who contravened the law under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are immune from 'conflict of interest or lack of impartiality'

question presented is rather any and all judges and officers of the court who were sworn by the constitution to uphold the law, and who contravened the law under 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 are immune from “conflict of interest or lack of impartiality” when judges ruled out of jurisdiction. should any court indulged in prejudiced cases causing irreparable harm, or failed to apply the remedy as substantiated court dockets records holds the answers to Justify corrective measures to ensure both injustice and ineffective administration preservation of a fair trial in a civil trial case be maintain in remedying inadvertent and intentional misconduct by trial Attorneys and judges. Fletcher v. Tomlinson, #16-4399 (8th circuit. 2018) 18 U.S.C. section 242. ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued (2) The trial court and Appellate Courts ruled subsequently in protecting or providing avoidance of certiorari conundrum for rehearing with intension in depriving under, 18 U.S.C. Section, 242; improper demeanor by the judge not disqualifying him-self by engaging in ex parte conflict contrary to due process. The second question presented is rather the court Should considered default against a Respondent as expressed originally by the First judge Or should the court switched judges with a biased and prejudiced Judge to overruled the original judge’s decision and in fact ruled out of jurisdiction dismissing Petitioner’s case because of the duo longtime friendship. (3) The trial court and the Appellate Court ruled in favor of the judge, Judges or Courts of Clerk departed from the accepted usual course of Judicial duties of office by not setting precedence over all activities, in violation of hierarchy rules and code of conduct. Article VI, paragraph, 2 U.S.C. The third question presented is rather the second judge subject matter by ruling out of jurisdiction and failure to comply under Rules of Fla, rule of Judicial Admin. 2.160 and Fla Statue 38.10, As established by law for disqualifications of judges applies. (4) The trial and the appellate Court ruled unconstitutionally by siding not to follow the law acting as trespassers of the law, as stated in ruling that judges are immune from wrong doing. iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued ' The fourth question presented is rather Judges or Attorneys who violates the State’s Constitution, the Federal Constitution and Federal laws, pertaining to conflict of interest where the duo, [t]he now Presiding Judge and Counsel his longtime Friendship violated the rules of oath of office 28 U.S.C. 453(a) 28 U.S.C. 455 together with 18 U.S.C. section 371 conspiracy act offenses in committing criminal Overt acts, offense in violation to Sworn oaths to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States of America. Pinkerton v. united States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) “Late Joiners” be added to the JQC cases of Florida. Where recusal for disqualification on fraud and irreparable Harm existed. The trial and the appellate court ruled against Petitioner knowingly or knew or should have known that the Judge refused to recuse himself for “serious risk of actual bias” therefore, due process clause required the recusal of Judge Michael Robinson for lack of impartiality from hearing the case for not following the consistency for wrong doing, based on fundamental constitutional rights to due process of law. Where the Judge ruled out of Jurisdiction on consolidated appealed issues, by not Following the Fourth District Court of Appeals order dated the 5th of November 2018, was it unconstitutional, miscarriage of justice, bias and Judicial misconduct. Should judges refuse to stay or give hearing dates to Petitioner’s Motions, iv QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued additionally instructing his judicial assistant not to give hearing dates to Petitioner’s motions on merits. (5) The fifth question presented is rather Counsel was required by rules as instructed by the previous judge to respond to the Amended Complaint withi