Whether 39 U.S.C. §409(d) & (e) waive sovereign immunity for judicial officers and federal agencies acting on behalf of the USPS in violation of federal law

Questions Presented ! ; The questions presented require this Court to resolve an intolerable conflict between the Federal Circuit versus the Third Circuit and the DC Circuit, and an intra-circuit conflict between the presiding Panel and previous panel of the Third Circuit. The questions presented are of importance to the general public and the . United States in regards to a person’s Constitutional and Federal rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, waste and abuse of tax-payer dollars and United States’ resources. , What is also highly important is the fact that the questions presented will allow this U.S. Supreme Court to set a precedence that will prevent any other Federal district or circuit judge, law clerk, or DOJ Attorney from aiding and abetting Respondent USPS evade justice, thereby placing themselves onto the “glue trap” of uncompromising Federal procedural laws that Congress enacted to govern Respondent USPS’s private status, its activities in the private sector, and suits brought against Respondent USPS and “such agency or any officer or employee” arising from intentional torts and violations of Federal law. . “Corruption takes the place of justice when procedural rules are allowed to be disregarded.” This petition arises from judicial officers of the district and circuit courts choosing to disregard the unassailable Acts of Congress, Federal procedural law, a person’s clearly established Constitutional Rights, the binding precedents of its own circuit —only to— act on the behalf of Respondent USPS and its “private sector stakeholder” and provide favors for colleagues and employees of the district, ; i : in what categorically constitutes intentional torts and violations of Federal law committed in the “courthouse”. Title 39, and its amendment, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA”), provides that the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) may compete in the “private sector” under the strict procedural laws of 39 U.S.C. Section 404 SUITS BY AND AGAINST THE POSTAL SERVICE that: 1) subjects all USPS activities to Federal laws prohibiting the conduct of business in a fraudulent manner; 2) unequivocally grants jurisdiction to the district courts; 3) requires that the USPS and “such agency or any officer or employee” acting on the behalf of or in concert with the USPS in any violation of Federal law shall be considered ‘persons’ and summoned in their individual capacities: 4) eliminates any and all doctrines of sovereign immunity protections from suit in Federal court by any person against the USPS and such agency or any officer or employee acting on the behalf of or in concert with the USPS in any violation of Federal law: 5) prohibits the United States Department of Justice/United States Attorneys Office (DOJ/USAO”) from furnishing legal representation to the USPS and “such agency or any officer or employee” acting on the behalf of or in concert with the USPS in any action, suit, or . proceeding arising in whole or in part from any violation of Federal law; and, 6) requires the USPS and “such agency or any officer or employee” acting on the behalf of or in concert with the USPS, to represent themselves and/or employ attorneys to represent them in any action, suit, or proceeding arising in whole or in part from iii any violation of Federal law. As such, the USPS has the USPS General Counsel Civil Division. . The questions presented are: 1. Whether 39 U.S.C. §409(d) & (e) waive any doctrine of sovereign immunity from judicial officers, Federal agencies, and employees acting on the behalf of or in concert with the USPS in any violation of Federal law? 2. Whether 39 U.S.C. §409(g)(1) prohibits the DOJ/United States Attorney’s Office from furnishing legal representation to the USPS and “such agency or any officer or employee” acting on the behalf of or in concert with the USPS : in any action, suit, or proceeding arising in whole or in part from any violation of Federal law? 8. Whether the di