Whether a censorship-based permanent injunction violates First Amendment and due process rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED After divorcing the Eley (Payne) respondent, Petitioner was minding his own affairs, proceeding through post-divorce bankruptcy when Eley (Payne) resurfaced with one of its criminal defense attorneys to impede and obstruct Petitioner’s bankruptcy discharge. Defending against her attack, Petitioner's communications as a litigant (specifically referencing the Eley (Payne) respondent’s ulterior revenge motives, history of false-accusations against petitioner, and her relevant criminal background) is communication that the federal district bankruptcy ; court, criminal defense attorney Brendetta Anthony Scott, the intermediate appellate court, and the Fifth Circuit panel aim to censor and keep hidden... via the bankruptcy court’s permanent injunction, and under the unsupported, dilatory, red-herring, and incredulous, straw-woman false accusation of “harassment”. Petitioner has had zero communication or contact with the Eley (Payne) respondent since 2019, when he vacated the marital home during divorce proceedings. Questions: 1. Whether a censorship-based, First Amendmentviolating, and substantive due process, Equal Protection Clause-averse, and Texas . Constitution — Article 1 Sec. 3, Sec.8 and Sec. 19-violating permanent injunction can be enforced. 2. Amidst the facts and a recusal motion pointing to bias, should the intermediate appellate court i judge have recused himself from further proceedings? : 3.. Whether an intermediate appellate court's process . “memorandum opinion (amidst recusal motion | and showing of bias) can be enforced. . 4, Whether the intermediate appellate district : court’s avoidance and refusal to adjudicate the . federal question violate the First and Fifth Amendment, substantive Due Process Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Sec. 8 of the Texas Constitution. ii