Whether a state criminal court can renege on a prior dismissal of criminal cases and whether such action constitutes judicial misconduct or violates due process rights

is whether a criminal court in a state can renege on the dismissal of criminal cases when a prior judge and/or the same judge has rendered a verdict of dismissal? And does this action constitute judicial misconduct? 2. Does a court lacking jurisdiction, which defies the federal courts and the Connecticut Supreme Court, possess immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution for abuse of process or any other civil/criminal law or tort? (e.g. Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Defamation, Misconduct, Abuse of Process and any statutory provisions listed herein)? i | P a g e 3. Do the prosecutors for the State of Connecticut possess liability in civil or criminal cases that contravene double jeopardy, the {U.S. Const, amend. XIII) and {U.S. Const, amend. XIV), the anti-peonage act (42 U.S.C.S. § 1994), and have defied the higher courts in favor of malicious prosecution and defamation of a U.S. Congressman? SECTION 1.02 STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS JOINING AS A PLAINTIFF TO ARGUE PEONAGE AND SLAVERY (see Appx. C -1.02) 4. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit err in its judgment by misleading Plaintiffs, U.S. Congressman Edwin L. Rojas and the State of Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, into believing that the case (Rojas v. Connecticut, No. 23-7179,2023 U.S. App. LEXIS ii | P a g e 34536 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27,2023)) would be overturned in favor of Appellant U.S. Congressman Edwin Rojas, consequently dissuading the filing of a potentially disruptive brief by the intervening party? 5. Did the United States Court of Appeals fail to appropriately adjudicate the motion to add the State of Massachusetts as an Appellant subsequent its leave to intervene, thereby compromising the presentation of substantial evidence indicative of violations of Massachusetts and Federal labor laws by an identified interstate network of labor violators? 6. Was the case's (see id) dismissal executed without due consideration of the severe violations articulated by the State of Massachusetts Attorney General ’s Office and U.S. Congressman Edwin Rojas, which include allegations of acts tantamount to peonage [42 U.S.C.S. § 1994)? 7. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals accord the Petitioner(s) appropriate standing under the Thirteenth (U.S. Const, amend. iii | P a g e XIIIJ and Fourteenth (U.S. Const, amend. XIV) Amendments to effectively initiate a civil action against a specific network of labor violators alleged to be in contravention of federal and multi-state legal provisions? SECTION 1.03 CHALLENGE U.S. DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT OBSTRUCTION (seeAppx. C -1.03) 8. Petitioner(s) hereby challenge the Appellate court's dismissal of the case (Rojas v. Connecticut, No. 23-7179, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34536 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2023)), and the designation of the briefs, (id) and (l:23cv3140, Rojas Et Al V. State of Connecticut Et Al (2023) 11th Cir. D.D.C.) as frivolous or malicious. 9. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals possess unequivocal knowledge of an impeded brief within the U.S. District Court, obstruction iv | P a g e of U.S. Congressman Rojas and does this sequence of events underscore a critical failure to provide proper adjudication on the substantive issues presented? 10. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal articulated before the court the measures undertaken to address and alleviate the obstruction of the brief filed with the United States District Court. Must the court scrutinize and question the validity and integrity of the original brief under the designation of having been obstructed? SECTION 1.04 U.S. PRESIDENT JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR. CHALLENGING SUPREME COURT IMMUNITY RULING AND AFFIRMING LITIGATION WITH U.S. CONGRESSAMAN ROJAS (seeAppx. C -1.04) v | P a g e 11. Petitioner(s) hereby formally challenge the doctrine of governmental immunity as it currently stands. Petitioner's] assert that no government official requires immunity to effectively perform their duties, as such, does immunity only serve to undermine the princi