Whether government employees classified as judicial officers are absolutely immune from prosecution for declaratory relief when sued in individual capacity for alleged constitutional violations

in the D.C. Circuit on December 27, 2024 *** [un] answered after the circuit acknowledged its disqualification in the entirety to sit en banc under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure *** A. Whether government employees classified as judicial officers are absolutely immune from prosecution for declaratory relief only, if they are sued solely in individual capacity for violating the U.S. Constitution; and for foreclosing Civil / Constitutional Rights while acting under color of law, thus deemed to have acted ultra vires their assigned judicial authority and immediately became private actors stripped of their status as representatives of the sovereign, as the U.S. Supreme Court so held in Ex parte Young to wit: When an official acts pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, the absence of valid authority leaves the official ultra vires his authority, and thus a private actor stripped of his status as a representative of the sovereign. It is simply an illegal act on the part of the official... ‘If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce is a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, ii and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his individual capacity to the consequences of his conduct. ...’ See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), id. 159160, 28 S.Ct., at 454.26; et seq.; and under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (In Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), “we reserved the question whether violation of that command by a federal agent acting under color of his authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his unconstitutional conduct. Today we hold that it does. ”); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ^petitioner is immune unless his actions violated clearly established law... We conclude that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security function ”) B. If the answer to the preceding question is to the negative, in that said judicial officers *** who are sued only in individual capacity for violating the U.S. iii Constitution are not immune from prosecution for declaratory relief only *** must said judicial officers, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985(3), as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the 5th and the 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, be found to have violated a clear declaratory decree set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1251 when they falsely [and deliberately] proffered that the U.S. Supreme Court possessed “original-exclusive ” jurisdiction to adjudicate the Constitutional I Civil Rights claims PAG-Bishay lawfully brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Civil Action No. l:21-cv01831-TNM, which PAG-Bishay properly brought under declaratory decrees set forth in Article III, §§ 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 1391(b), 1651(a), and 2201, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & §1985(3), as part of the Civil Right Act of 1871; 18 U.S.C. § 4; 18 U.S.C. § 63; 18 U.S. C. § 152; 18 U.S.C. § 1503; 18 U.S.C., Ch. 73, § 1509; 18 U.S.C. § 1341; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (including §§1962(d) and 1964(c)); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315; 18 U.S.C. § 3284; 11 U.S.C. §362; and the Mandatory Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A and 3664 as applying to twenty eight (28) specific defendants described in said action as the “beneficiaries ” of eight (8) federal crimes listed therein; knowing that said defendants were neither States within the United States that brought actions against citizens of another S