Did the Fourth Circuit Court's consolidation of appeals and selective review exacerbate the case's complexity, undermining the principles of thorough judicial review and deviating from the federal judiciary's 'virtually unflagging' obligation to thoroughly adjudicate cases within its jurisdiction?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The instant case is not just a reflection of an individual's struggle for justice but also highlights broader concerns about due process, whistleblower protection, and the treatment of federal employees engaged in safeguarding data integrity, transparency, and accountability, within a national security framework. The petitioner’s detention by officers from the State National Guards of Arizona, Arkansas, and Nevada, without due process, underscores a potentially grave departure from established legal norms and principles that the judiciary is sworn to uphold. The Supreme Court emphasized its judicial duty, stating, “Our responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the a government” in Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). This principle was further’ ; reinforced in Texas v. California, where the Court declared its readiness to “reverse in the blink of an eye” to rectify any deviations from federal courts’ “virtually unflagging” obligation to exercise their jurisdiction, 141 S. Ct. 1469, 1469 (2021). These established principles prompt critical questions regarding the actions of the Fourth Circuit Court and the District Court: 1. Did the Fourth Circuit Court's consolidation of appeals and selective review , exacerbate the case's complexity, undermining the principles of thorough judicial . review and deviating from the federal judiciary's "virtually unflagging" obligation _ to thoroughly adjudicate cases within its jurisdiction? , 2. Did the District Court's dismissal of key claims and oversight of crucial evidence, particularly from a pro se plaintiff against a non-appearing defendant, combined with the dismissal of the plaintiff's case with prejudice on jurisdictional grounds, ; undermine the Fourth Circuit's ability to conduct a thorough adjudication?