Whether a judge's unilateral order for remote court appearance violates constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and qualifies for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners were unlawfully prevented from physically appéaring in to court against their will by Judge Carla R Pepperman (Pepperman). Petitioners were not consulted nor were consent obtained prior to issuing of unilateral order of remote hearing. She when presented with simple question through motion “WHAT JURISDICTION COURT HAS OVER PERSONAL PROPERTY OF LITIGANTS FOR ORDERING THEIR USE IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEIR WILL?” She did not answer but has continued her diseretionary practice till date. Petitioners were forced to file civil law suit under provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking permanent injunction in federal court against this inhuman and draconian practice forced upon petitioners which is violating their privacy and constitutional rights. Federal judiciary further complicated issue through continuous deprivation of constitutional right of petitioners. District judge dismiss the complaint with prejudice citing controversial local doctrine of “SHOTGUN PLEADING” without affording due process of law to petitioners. 11 circuit court was asked only to review the legality of final judgment rendered and reverse it. They took a diversionary approach and tried to portray that case is not about injunctive relief petitioners are requesting:but about judicial immunity of corrupt and malicious judge Thus the question(s) presented are; ~~ : (a) Does practice of Judge Pepperman of unilaterally ordering petitioners to appear through. remote hearing only which involves non-consented and non-compensated use of personal property of ; ii litigants, violate constitutional rights of petitioners (4th 5th and 14th Amendments) & qualifies for relief : under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and review of Supreme Court ; -’under provision of Article III. § 2. Clause 1.8.7. . (b) Should the judge-made doctrine of absolute/ : qualified immunity, which. cannot be: justified by “* yeference to the text of Article III, .§ 1 of US :constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the relevant +. common law background, and which has. been shown not to serve its intended policy goals, be narrowed or abolished? () Is judge KATHRYN KIMBALL MIZELLE , Z (KKM) of Middle District of Florida abuse her .. : judicial authority with her arbitrary and capricious decision(s) and acted in collusion and conspired | -with respondent WHEN oo, pss .@) She dismissed petitioners’ complaint on . _s ‘s, ground of controversial doctrine of “shotgun ' pleading” which is in stark contrast with landmark judgment issued by Supreme Court _. in.a case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, . 804 U.S. 64 (1938), and pleading standard set by Iqbal and Twombly... Gi) | She removed her order from a docket of : an active case with malicious intent and : _ thereby willfully and knowingly committing a : criminal offense punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 2071. am Gii) ~Sheknowingly acting -as. inquisitorial judge ruled against. petitioners: without . awaiting and. offering any opportunity to respondent to file responsive pleading thereby violating constitutional rights of both parties. (c). | Is removal of documents once ‘uploaded on ‘court docket is criminal offense punishable under 18 USC § 2071. Are judges duty bound to report: such ' violation to office of public prosecutor automatically ; when such matter brings to their notice? —— (d) Does malicious, unethical, abusive and -excessive conduct of judges, exhibited in performance of their duty, qualifies the standard of “GOOD BEHAVIOR?” specified in Article TII,. § I of ' US constitution? If Not, does it automatically ‘ empowers the congress to remove judges, reduce _ their self assumed power to stay on job lifelong and ‘"“ yeducée their ‘compensation’ as deemed fit ~“commiensurate to degree ‘and’ sevérity of act for "peeviditig religf t0 victiin(s)° ". () Does judicial discretion ‘authorizes judges a ‘right to violate constitutional ‘tights of citizens, and act in contravention. of statutory rules created by congress and Federal Rule Civil/crimi