Does the Supreme Court agree that the Petitioner's case was wrongly dismissed due to disability accommodation issues and procedural violations by the IRS and federal courts?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Introduction This case is brought to the Supreme Court for review of the District Court’s Report and Recommendation and Judgment and the Appellate Court’s Opinion and Judgment. The purpose of this suit is to examine the IRS’s unauthorized 2006 tax collection activity and their secret levy of 13 years. Calculations were wrongly based on self-employment. Petitioner's employer had not paid his employment taxes. The Petitioner appealed, but the IRS refused to communicate. The IRS dismissed administration of her claims by refusing a hearing on the matter and closing the appeal. Petitioner filed suit before the two year deadline. Petitioner’s Social Security (“SS”) was levied without the statutory notice of deficiency or, 13 years later, the 30-day notice of levy. The IRS negligently changed Petitioner’s 30-year residence address on her account without her knowledge or permission. As a result, the levy occurred without notice. Petitioner has been denied documents and instructions regarding her privileges and duties in the due process tax collection process. The IRS acted without authority in a multitude of ways so that the cumulative effect denied Petitioner of her right to due process under the laws of the United States and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (H.R. 2337) which is based on the Constitution. This unconstitutional situation caused great harm to Petitioner. After filing suit, the courts disrespected Petitioner because she was pro se. They denied her accommodations for a disability that kept her from attending her deposition and then used that to sanction dismissal. The judges and IRS attorney used a multitude of deliberate bad acts, fabrications and misunderstandings to deny Petitioner's rights at every step, The discriminatory acts and abuses of the Courts have accumulated to violate Petitioner's right to a trial, to compensation and wholeness. With all due respect, please consider the following questions. ! QUESTION 1: Does this Court agree that Petitioner’s case was wrongly dismissed as a sanction for her inability to attend a deposition without accommodations under rules of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and 29 U.S.C. § 794 -— Nondiscrimination under federal grants and programs? (a) Does the ADA apply to the Middle District? Judge Irick contends that ADA rules and HIPPA don’t apply to federal proceedings. (b) Did the IRS wrongly demand medical information be produced to the public or there would be no accommodation in depositions or hearings? (c) Did Judge Irick wrongly disregard Petitioner’s physician’s letter opinion asking for accommodation (dismiss or quash information) in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 636? (d) Did the IRS wrongly demand disabled Petitioner pay $140 for her own accommodations? (e) Did the Court wrongly dismiss this case for lack of prosecution? (f) Did the Court wrongly award costs of $4,900 for depositions which the IRS made sure Petitioner could not attend due to no accommodations? QUESTION 2: Does this Court agree that Petitioner did exhaust what administrative remedies there were AND the exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot apply where the IRS has no jurisdiction? ii QUESTION 3: Does this Court agree that one requested amended complaint is not a fair limit, considering Petitioner is a pro se first-time litigator? QUESTION 4: Does this court agree that this suit was wrongly dismissed for alleged violations of Antiinjunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act? QUESTION 5: Did Judges Irick and Mendoza wrongly dismiss this case by alleging the government had not waived sovereign immunity? QUESTION 6: Does 28 U.S.C. § 636 apply to Judge Irick who considered this case claiming it asked for injunctive relief, issued a judgment on the pleadings, dismissed or quashed information, dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and involuntarily dismissed this action? QUESTION 7: Did Judge Irick’s prejudice against pro se l