Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteen Amendment requires recusal of a judge when there are multiple instances of bias, including half-truths, lies, misstatements, and statements not supported by the record, and whether the failure of the Court of Appeals to provide an explanation for affirming such a decision is error that warrants review by the Supreme Court.

In Universal Health Services. Inc, v. United States. 579 U.S. 176 (2016), Justice Thomas stated that misleading representations are half-truths, and that are material having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing [the judge]. In United States of America v. Jeffrey Spanien No. 16crl545-BEN, 637 Fed. App’x. 998, 1000-01 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016), Hon. Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge wrote that, “Half the Truth is often a great Lie.” In Petitioner ’s case, Respondents started by falsely accusing the Petitioner of a criminal conviction at the NYS Court of Appeals (SCDC ECF No. 33 at 3 footnote 5 cont,). Official certification from that Court shows “NO RECORD FOUND” meaning that Plaintiff has no criminal record in the State of New York. Defendants also wrote to the district court -in the answer to the complaintregarding Plaintiff as a “lawyer from Honduras .” (SCDC ECF No. 33 at 2-3 footnote 5. Documents on that case start saying: “Israel Romero, a lawyer from Honduras ”) In addition -in the answer or reply to Plaintiff ’s Motion for Default Judgment (SCDC ECF No. 31) and for Entry of Default (ECF No. 32), Respondents wrote a disparaging false statement that Plaintiff [Petitioner] was claiming they fail to verify the answer and motion (SCDC ECF Nos. 25 and 25-1) because did not sign those documents “under the pains and penalties of peijury. ” The Magistrate Judge -influenced by Respondents, filed a Report & Recommendation (SCDC ECF No. 53) filled with half-truths, inconsistencies, and statements not supported by the record, repeating those misleading statements. The District Judge in the final decision and Order (SCDC ECF No. 65) wrote a total of sixteen (16) inflammatory and disparaging comments: half-truths, blatant lies, “camouflaging bias,” other multiple instances of bias or the appearance of bias, misstatements, and statements not supported by the record that warrants review by this Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (USCA4) failed to follow its own standard that, “On review, we must accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint. ” Lansford v. Joyner. 62 FA* 122, 123 (4th Cir. 2023). Also failed to apply its own theory and standard set on Bivens that, “Bivens claims before us are for the denial of procedural due process and equal protection. ” Annappareddv v. Pascale. 996 F.3d 120, 132 (4th Cir. (2021). In Woods v. Greensboro. 855 F.3d 639 (4th Cir. 2017), USCA4 stated that, “modern-day discrimination is more likely caused by ‘nuanced decisions ’ and implied bias.” 4th Cir. states that when a court renders a decision, the court must “provide an adequate explanation for the [final order],” (TJ.S. v. Jackson. Case No. 23-4580 4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2025); but in Petitioner ’s case 4th Cir. did not explain at all. However, the Appeals Court itself made three (3) instances that can be considered biased in violation of Petitioner ’s rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, bringing a total of nineteen (19) instances considered bias, error that warrants review by this Court. The question presented is: Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteen Amendment requires recusal of a judge when there are multiple instances of bias, including half-truths, lies, misstatements, and statements not supported by the record, and whether the failure of the Court of Appeals to provide an explanation for affirming such a decision is error that warrants review by the Supreme Court. (I)