Whether courts can deny judicial notice of a scientifically verifiable fact when such denial potentially constitutes a crime against humanity under Customary International Law

Question Presented The following constitutional question is now vouchsafed at the Supreme Court of the United States; Under united rules of evidence (state and federal,) can the courts of America deny a request for judicial notice of a fact “whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned” when that denial aids and abets a brightline crime against humanity under Customary International Law? Concerning a concealed mechanism describing the cause of chemical lobotomy, the following scientific and adjudicative fact is now overripe for judicial notice; ‘However, we observed a pronounced general shrinkage effect of approximately 20% and a highly significant variation in shrinkage across brain regions. In conclusion, chronic exposure of non-human primates to antipsychotics was associated with reduced brain volume.” -University of Pittsburgh Primate Research Laboratory2005; research held by the U.S. National Library of Medicine/NIH PubMed ID #15756305 — “The influence of chronic exposure to antipsychotic medications on brain size before and after tissue fixation: a comparison of haloperidol and olanzapine in macaque monkeys” . 1 September 28, 2024 Pet. for Writ Cert. to SCM — Savoy IV Party to this Proceeding ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT (Office of the Comptroller of Maryland;) Jessica K. Wisner Assistant Attorney GeneralAttorney #1112150287 80 Calvert Street Suite 303 Annapolis, MD 21401 2 September 28, 2024 Pet. for Writ Cert. to SCM Savoy IV Related Court Proceedings on a Central Grievance Involving Chemical Lobotomy SAVOYI (the central grievance was never addressed in the lower courts) Case no. 12316-12L, was an APA case in the U.S. Tax Court (with a denial of leave to file an interlocutory appeal on a question) Case no. 14-1901, APA Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Case no. 15-5054, Supreme Court of the United States (a rightful review of the lower court decisions was converted into a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIA SPECTRUM OF DISORDERS IN AMERICA”) Petition denied (the central grievance was not acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States and there was no Confession of Errorby the Solicitor General concerning the ongoing DOJ defense of nationalized chemical lobotomy) SAVOYII (the central grievance was never addressed in the lower courts) Ex parte motion in U.S. district court (see below) for an emergency stay of proceedings (instanter) per active FRCP Rule 62(b)(4) in late Spring of 2018 [note: Rule 62(b)(4) was tragically abolished on December 1, 2018 and Rule 62 is no longer tied directly to Rule 60(b)(6)] [Savoy III, based on Rule 60(b)(6,) was implicitly tied to this action in Savoy II, pointedly because old Rule 62(b)(4) was active at the outset of Savoy ID Case no. 3:18-cv-O0086-GMG, U.S. District Court for the N. Dist. of West Virginia Case no. 18-1710, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Case no. 18-8407, Supreme Court of the United States (featuring the “Pittsburgh Study” that definitively proves brain destruction occurred) Case considered closed (the central grievance was not acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States and there was no Confession of Error by the Solicitor General concerning an ongoing DOJ defense of nationalized chemical lobotomy) SAVOY III (the central grievance was never addressed in the lower courts) A NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION (FRCP Rule 5.1) was posted in the lower court in the action notated below while taken under Rule 60(b)(6) ... Case no. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—Alexandria Division [a post judgment action under Rule 60(b)(6)--with a procedural interlocutory appeal taken by right pending an indicative ruling on a defamatory statement issued by the court-FRCP Rule 59(e)] 3 September 28, 2024 Pet. for Writ Cert. to SCM — Savoy IV Case no. 21-1600, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [interlocutory appeal by p