1. Separation of Powers and Miscarriage of Justice: Does a federal judge's reliance on non-binding judicial dicta from United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010), and Tenn. Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440 (2004), and legislative history (Senate Report No. 95-989) to enforce 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) in student loan bankruptcy matters, as Judge-1 did in Petitioner's case (Case 2-16-cv-09225, Doc. 57, Appendix al14-al29), constitute a separation of powers violation by assuming legislative authority, thereby render ing 18 U.S.C. § 119 inapplicable due to the judge's non-judicial actions, and causing a fundamental miscarriage of justice by criminalizing Petitioner for exposing this constitutional violation through protected First Amendment activities, including his 2020 civil complaint (Case 2H9-cv08100-KM-JBC, Doc. 32-1, Appendix a64-al13), as unaddressed by the Third Circuit's denial of appealability on August 7, 2024 (Appendix al-a2)?

2. Constitutional Duty to Uphold Fundamental Rights: Can this Court, tasked with enforcing the Constitution as the supreme law (Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 358 (1911)), permit the sacrifice of millions of Americans' enumerated rights—under the First, Sixth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the separation of powers doctrine—for the expediency of upholding Petitioner's wrongful conviction, particularly when new 2025 evidence, including the Department of Education's termination (White House, Mar. 20, 2025), Kaplan University's $4 billion fraud (N.Y. Times, Mar. 25, 2025), and Petitioner's 2020 civil complaint alleging totalitarian threats (Appendix a64-al13), validates his claims, and when the lower courts' retaliatory actions, including punitive supervised release modifications (Case 2:21-cr-00211-MRH, Doc. 190, Appendix A37-A43 from Case 24-1605), chilled his speech?

3. Inapplicability of 18 U.S.C. § 119: If a federal judge, such as Judge-1, engages in a legislative act by prescribing future law in student loan bankruptcy proceedings (Case 2:22-cv-01148-MRH, Doc. 81, Appendix al5), depriving Petitioner of due process and jury trial rights, does this preclude the judge from being "engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties" under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, thereby negating the protections and penalties of § 119 and necessitating habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a question the lower courts, including Judge Hor

Whether a federal judge's reliance on non-binding judicial dicta and legislative history constitutes a miscarriage of justice in student loan bankruptcy matters