Whether the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit erred in refusing to enter a default judgment against the respondents when the Maine Attorney General declined to participate

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Since Maine’s Attorney General: Aaron Frey, “declined to participate” for the entire 293-day duration of this case while it was before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit thereby not opposing the Petitioner while leaving the respondents without any legal representation. [Perhaps AG Frey declined to participate because the interests of justice required it, pursuant to ABA Model Rule 1.19(a)(1) re duty to withdraw from representing a dishonest client and Rule 3.4 regarding “Candor Toward the Tribunal” did the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit err when its clerk refused to implement the Petitioner’s Request for Entry of a Default and/or for default judgment after more than nine months had passed without any opposition whatsoever to the Petitioner from Maine’s Attorney General? [Were the clerk’s refusal and omission to enter a default contrary to the Federal mandate in Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?] 2. In view of the Respondent’s failure to participate, , did the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit impermissibly render the Petitioner a partial judgment (“mandate”) on 8-14-2023 which in no way whatsoever addressed the legal responsibility of the second re; spondent: CARLA J SMITH, [formerly inmate 317481 in the Florida prison system?] whose 10-12 in-court perjuries to the Cumberland County District Court in Portland, Maine on 7-22-2021 wrongfully and illogically acquired her a Protection From Harassment ; ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW -— Continued Order against the then, 66 yr-old, 50% disabled but now 100% disabled, diminutive Petitioner with walking difficulties whose previously pristine, 66 yr-old civil record had merited an interim TOP SECRET clearance with a SPECIAL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 7 so that he could help operate and repair a TOP SECRET Strategic Defense Satellite Communications terminal run by the NSA in proximity to the President of the United States? e According to WITNESS 1, Respondent Smith subsequently laughed about successfully using multiple perjuries in the district court of Portland, Maine while she was simultaneously evading an active warrant for her arrest in her home state of Florida. Did Scarborough’s authorities not know of Respondent Smith’s criminal background and psychotic propensities when they officially and maliciously endorsed her falsely accusative request for a Protection from Harassment Order? [Note that no less than 17 states have made false reporting a felony and that this very issue may well be under . consideration by the Maine State legislature again]. e According to WITNESS 2, Respondent Smith was, at that time at least, medically prescribed four different medications which are typically dispensed for severe psychotic illness. [which in retrospect, might explain why she had periodically snuck up from behind the frail and elderly Petitioner from the evergreen forested iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued wood-line on several occasions from where she had been stalking him, before suddenly appearing behind him in a menacingly close manner, while he was periodically flattening muddy ruts from unidentified vehicles in his clearly posted, deeded right of way] NOTE that on or about July 9th, 2015, the corpse of the Petitioner’s camper had been removed from the petitioner’s land, : after the petitioner had sternly cautioned him to avoid the Petitioner’s thrice-convicted felon of a neighbor, and that the camper was allegedly killed from a lethal dose of heroin injected to the neck.] 8. Did the Cumberland County District Court de; prive the petitioner of his 5th Amendment rights to Due Process on April 4th, 2002 when it administratively dismissed the Petitioner and his three supportive witnesses without permitting any of them to speak. Incredibly, to date, this controversy has NEVER been fully and fairly adjudicated on its merits. 4. Under Rules 18-20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rega