Whether federal magistrate judges can issue dispositive orders without parties' consent and whether Supreme Court precedent has been systematically subverted across federal circuits

] a) (w/o parties ’ consent) Per 28 U.S. Code § 636, the Master or Magistrate Judge must not as a practical matter dispose of a claim, defense, or motion for injunctive reliefs. This law is commonly violated across the nation , with MJs issuing practical “judgment on the pleadings ” in IFP rulings or disposing of motions for injunctive reliefs or issuing otherwise dispositive orders . H. I. . « b) 28 U.S. Code § 636, local rules across the country subverts, blocking [Xjudgej (an individual judge) from exercising the STATUTORY discretion as to whether to allow a MJ to hear and determine any pretrial non-dispositive matters, as well as the STATUTORY discretion to allow or disallow a MJ to conduct hearings & recommendations on matters excepted in 28 U.S. Code § 636 (b) (l) (a).'.I Iserious insurrection BY ALL CIRCUITS as LRs are approved by circuits. c) Subversion of FRCP 72 (a) across the country. d) ARsifming matters to MJs when lacking special reasons violates the privileges and immunities clause and the EPC. e) Countless acts of departure from the usual course of conduct of judiciary, which aren ’t all included in this petition, but should be considered if certiorari granted. f) DJ “taking ” MJ recommendation w/o any findings or conclusions, illegal. 1 ‘Commonly DJs frustrate reviews w/ judgments w/ no findings or conclusions 1 w/ MJ recomm.. which is sanctioned by CAs. which subverts SC precedent. 1 g) CONSPICUOUS subversion of de novo consideration 28 U.S. Code § 636~| requires ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 1 ,h) Not so rarely, MJs deal with nosttrial matters that are dispositive, i) M(F)J Insurrectional Scoundrel JEP issued DKT#11 CONDITIONAL ORDER 1 OF DISMISSAL 1 WITH absolutely no party ’s consent. ■j) 'Notably out of departure from the usual course of conduct of judiciary, TWO I 'CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGES of NCMD TN A ROW, reiving on a 5* circ. case I WHTCH CONSPICUOUS! Y SUBVERTED OOVERNTNO SUPREME COURT I PRECEDENT, ordered in a prece dential judgment to prohibit the legal effect & i force of THE FIRST AMENDMENT These 2 DC judgments and CA~5 judgment [ have effect in the whole countr y. | k) TWO CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGES of NCMD IN A ROW claimed right to aid, abet illegal conduct as a result of a judge criticized ONCE, which violates nemo judex, and the EPC, the privileges and immunities clause, the 5th amendment due process rights, the 8th amendment and laches.* |of NCMD ruled in a precedential judgment Petition -2 ihvsically beaten with a claim to cure such dismissed It (a textbook rape of the 1st & 8th & 14th amendment) , u add two CHIEF DISTRICT \fake (insurrectional) iudees IN A RO W alone is SUCH UNQUESTIONABLE 1 \comvellins public interest for the supreme court to deal with) l) _LEMME beclearhereL serial, sequential, identical or virtually, identic al acts of I subversion or insurrection has.a uniqueand speci fic nam e: SECESSI ON What] jthe FIFTH CIRCUIT along with 2 CHIEF DISTRICT fake judges OFTHE\ WOURTH CIRCUIT in a row'did added together is no differen t than what the! Southern rebelsdid. This is SECESSION, trigger of a civil war ! m) jThe two 4th circ. CDFJs relied on a case of the 5th CIRCUIT , which hasn ’t been overruled, and violates nemo judex, the EPC, and the 5th amendment due process rights, the 8th, and laches, and the privileges and immunities clause, and the first amendment. That CA-5 case DOES violate them all. rThe 5th circuit case that subverts multiple constitutional clauses incl. the first | amendment quoted by two CDFJs of the _4^ circuit is. still standin g US case law that] has been used in other circuits . which needs to be.corrected. j jin)Jit is asked that the SC corrects its earlier subversion of the Constitution in Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), and fire and prohibit the insurrectional | ■scoundrels pursuant to section 3 of amendment XTV, as they will even violate the | first amendment IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY if not injuncted. | o) Also , whether Brown _v Board of Education should be ov