Whether the Fourth Amendment bars state court proceedings tainted by alleged judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct when a judge and prosecutor have potential conflicts of interest

No question identified. : PREAMBLE This application is presented before Justice Jackson as the next junior justice pursuant to Rule 22.3, due to an irreparable conflict of interest with Circuit Justice Barrett from a past petition filed by the Petitioner with Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. The said petition sought a referral to Senate Judiciary Committee for impeachment of the then circuit judge Barrett at Seventh circuit. Additonally, there is an En banc petition due to be filed in D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by the Petitioner’s husband where Justice Barrett is an adversary. (22-5211) RELIEF SOUGHT 1. Petitioner Roger Shekar respectfully submit this Application requesting to stay the mandate in lower court until a filing and ruling on the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this case for good cause shown as detailed in the forthcoming paragraphs. 2. On January 24, 2024, the state court of last resort , the Illinois Supreme court denied ‘discretionary consideration’ of Petition for Leave to Appeal. (“PLA”) Exhibit A 3. Pursuant to Rule 13 of the United States Supreme court , the denial of ‘discretionary review’ of PLA is appealable to the United States Supreme court . “A petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court that is subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when it is filed with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying “discretionary review.” 4. There is NO distinction or discrimination in Rule 13 to appeal to the United States Supreme court of such discretionally denial by the lower court should be after an opinion. or by a one liner denial, and the Rule 13 language is clear irrespective of the manner of denial “denying “discretionary review”. . Petitioner WILL BE APPEALING the denial of Petition For Leave to the United States Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 13 by filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. . On February 15, 2024 Petitioner filed a motion under United States Supreme court Rule 23 (3) which requires the relief for a stay to be first sought in the court below, (in this case the Supreme court of Illinois whose judgement is being appealed) , before seeking the relief before the United States Supreme court. On February 23, 2024 , Illinois Supreme court denied the motion to stay mandate attached as Exhibit B. . By denying the PLA, the Illinois Supreme court rendered the Constitutional rights and Protection guaranteed to Petitioner/citizen under Fourth Amendment Rights invalid; violated the United States Constitution to the extent of committed treason; endorsed violations against the United States Constitution; endorsed violent abuses, criminal behavior by a rogue prosecutor with felonious tendencies respondent Robert Berlin who colluded with a felon in black robe respondent Kenneth Popejoy to frame the Petitioner, made-up, fabricated a criminal charge as a sheer, raw vendetta and personal retaliation for Petitioner took certain legal recourse against the respondent rogue Berlin and escaped and fugitive convict Popejoy. Attached as Exhibit C is fugitive felon Popejoy ‘rap sheet’ who committed multiple Felony crimes in one single evening including attempted killing of a teenage pedestrian girl while fleeing the crime scene-Exhibit C. . A ‘mickey mouse commission’Illinois Courts Commission suspension order let felon Popejoy escape criminal indictments and criminal charges ‘thanks’ to Popejoy wife Berlin, with a slap on the wrist on Popejoy whereas any other citizen who committed such crimes would be spending years in prison, 10. The denial of the PLA will also be appealed to the United States Supreme court as unconstitutional , nullity and void due to the impropriety and unqualified participation by a judge Cunningham who has a very severe conflict of interest; had prior knowledge of the conflict of interest, bias, prejudice against this Petitioner.’ 11. The denial of the PLA is also due to Petitioner inability to con