Did the Third Circuit panel commit reversible error by dismissing the petitioner's claims of statutory violations and witness protection under 18 USC Sections 1512/1513/241/242 without due diligence and in potential violation of constitutional rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED USAF Vet Christian Prophet Shaman in reality of the King of Spirits Most High GOD. As is real US Constitution’s First Amendment Proclamation relied : upon (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) Relevantly uniquely American Creed in GOD WE TRUST context. Reader are not ; judicial oaths of office over a Christian Bible. Are not 2024 events the very same racist prohibited First Amendment violations. Complained of as real denial of exercise of Religion expression freedom before US Supreme Court raising the same issues of violations of these federal Statutes. Predicated on antiChristian racism are occurring as a matter of fact . again Q-1 Was it not unlawful violations of applications of invoked Statutory laws 18 USC Sec 1512/1513/241/242 provisions. For Merit Panel of Krause Matey and Chung to dismiss a validated uncontested witness observations pending discovery of Statutory law violations by the clerk and others. Concealed pending sought discovery was briefed to the panel. Is it not true US District Court judge Stark knowingly created unlawful color of law 2020 precedent violating provisions of 18 USC Sec 1512/1513/241/242 victim informant and witness protection from abuse true intent. Of inherent penalties for informing witnesses victimizations Q-2 Was not material evidence of fraud timely presented : to the biased panel preserved in 40 uncontested memorandum. Of record preservation known to be documenting incorporated Statutory law violations. Did not the panels biased lack of due diligence negate Petitioner due required due process rights Q-3. Was i not comprehensive contemporaneous material evidence ignored seeking this highest federal court’s , attention. Regarding sought unmet pending Brady . Rule discovery requirements. Were not US District court Judges Stark and Williams and subsequent Third Circuit panel decision reversable error. Based on meaningful willful perversion by corrupt judges of Statutory laws witness protections. Against color of law fraud abuses by them violating invoked : incorporated operations therein requiring inherent federal penalties. Q-4 Are not material facts uncontested by appellees or Scott Wilcox or either of the two complicit law firm. Are these not now materially uncontestable actionable violations of 18 USC Sec and 2071 invoked provisions. Victim witness informant protections laws regardless of inherent racism Q-5Did not Petitioner thoroughly extensively document unconstitutional implausible US Court of Appeal Third Circuit voided PERSONS RIGHTS court and judge imposed disability to testify on own behalf as victimized witness. Was not petitioner placed again in US Court of Appeals unlawful conundrum of unheard relevant 18 USC Sec witness victimization evidence under these laws voided provisions. Q-6. Was not compelling proof of fraud provided to the panel inherent in Appellant’s 13 Memorandum of record contents preserved therein . Chagares 11/28/2023 order. Documenting fraudulent conclusions drawn by the panel that did not and do not conform to the evidence or invoked Statutory ; provisions. Q-7 Was there not premeditated biased abject refusal by this panel to consider the abundance of contemporaneous uncontested evidence of Scott ii Wilcox fraud in the order of 11/28/2023 APP G-7 Q8. Was not pending factual credible unanswered discovery questions timely raised pursuant to Rule 37 provisions. Was not Wilcox Failure to make disclosures or to cooperate in posed discovery. Actionable violations requiring dismissal of offending appellees and Scott Wilcox. Q-9 Did enabling Clerk Dodszuweit adhere to appropriate standards upon receipt of Wilcox defective rejected reply by filing it in secret acted wrongfully Q-10. Did not Appellant in preservation of record documents objections. Contesting credible evidence of Wilcox defective reply. Of obstructed court disability to testify in any oral argument or pendin