Whether bombing courts or shooting judges is a holy mission to counter a corrupt judicial system?

Whether bombing courts or shooting judges is a holy mission to counter a corrupt judicial system? That is a satire to ridicule the Courts below if a corrupt judicial system is on the other side of God for God to clean up. It is uncertain how other Circuits did their job. However, in the Third Circuit, legal proceedings are not a matter of right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, or fair or unfair but a lawless game for the Court to play. It is not a baseless accusation. There are facts sufficient to be a book. We can see that from 2017, the Courts below "always" issued per curiam orders, contravening precedents or statutory laws, to rule against the Petitioner. How could a Court issue a per curiam order in contravenance with precedent? Why did the District Court and the Third Circuit not issue an order, contravening the precedent, against the big guy? Does the judicial system deserve trust? The District Court and the Third Circuit did not proceed according to procedural rules. The procedural controversy started in 2017 after District Judge O'Neill in November 2016 denied the defendants' motions to dismiss; since then, this case was reassigned to two other judges because of the judge's retirement. After the defendants' motions were denied, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4), defendants should answer within 14 days after their motions were denied. It is the rule requirement that every Court follows. However, the defendants never answered; the Petitioner followed Rule 55(a) to request a default. The District Court could grant or deny the request. (ii) If the District Court did not grant the default request, the proceeding needs the defendants' answers to continue. The District Court should either grant Petitioner's request for default or order the defendants to answer. However, the District Court did not grant Petitioner's request for default judgment and also did not order the defendants to answer. Instead, the District Court sua sponte ordered Petitioner to amend the Complaint for defendants to dismiss. That is ridiculous. Petitioner had no duty to amend the Complaint; how could the District Court sua sponte order Petitioner to perform an act that Petitioner had no duty? Have any legal professionals ever heard that a District Court sua sponte ordered a plaintiff to amend the Complaint after the defendants failed to answer and a request for default was pending? Which legal basis allowed the Courts below to do so? The District Court and the Third Circuit acted no differently from a murderer. Are they proud of themselves? Is that the so-called justice? After the first murder attempt failed, the Courts below instructed others to injure the Petitioner. The Court below allowed defense counsels to file another pre-answer motion to dismiss the Complaint again. Have any legal professionals ever heard that after a defendant's pre-answer motion to dismiss a Complaint is denied, the defendant can file another pre-answer motion to dismiss the Complaint again? It should never have happened before; however, the Courts below allowed defendants to do so in this action. The point is which rule allowed the defendants to file another pre-answer motion to dismiss a Complaint repeatedly. Especially, Fed. R. (iii) Civ. P. 12(a)(4) set the effect of filing a motion to dismiss. Under Rule 12(a)(4), it is the rule requirement that defendants must answer within 14 days after the Court denied their motion to dismiss. Defendants should answer, not file another motion to dismiss the Complaint repeatedly. How could the Courts below refuse to enforce the rule requirement? The District Court and the Third Circuit should know what shame is, a murderer, never respecting and complying with the laws but constantly attempting a murder. Are they proud of themselves? That made Petitioner make the satire to ridicule the Courts below: Whether bombing courts or shooting judges is a holy mission to counter a corrupt judicial system. It is uncertain how other Circuits did their