Whether subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked for alleged Title VII and 1983 violations involving tax fraud, retaliation, and concealment of funds from 2004 to 2021

1. Whether subject matter jurisdiction matter was properly invoked involving a continuing violation of Title VII, 1983 etc. in the underlying claims of retaliation that falsified documentation of 1099 forms and W-2 from the year 2004 to 2021 involved the concealment of monies illegally endorsed by Leonard Sweeney Esq. Bank fraud 2. That conspiracy to conceal these funds for some 17 years from the IRS and the petitioner Michael F. Kissell were to obstruct the Justice of a Jury award issued in 2002 so future attachment of Petitioner wages and pension would be diminished 3. Whether petitioner ’s attorney Christopher-P. Skatell hired in 2017 blatantly failed to continue the appeal to SCOTUS in 2017 and filed a fictitious case 2-18-cv-1409 to conceal the Tax Fraud, involvement of Patsy lezzi esq. tax attorney and Brian Zweicher. 4. Whether the actions and coercion of the Respondents malpracticed the petitioner. Violating the constitutional right of the petitioner and title VII to be made whole 5. Whether the honorable Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy should have been assigned to Case 2:22-cv-1715CRE knowing the prior fraudulent indiscretions and failures of Petitioners attorney Christopher P. Skatell in Case 2-18-cv-1409 that she presided over. 6. Whether the respondent ’s deceptions led to a limited investigation by the IRS and the IRS attorneys up to and including the Tax Court in 2021. Causing a unjustified decision. 7. Whether the scheme developed was in fact developed to create further bias through the rein statement process in violation of Title VIL Creation of a hostile environment. 8. Whether inadequate and or blatant procedural process has denied the rights of the petitioner by and through misrepresentation, deception and lies that inspired violations of the rules of professional conduct rules of the Court by the attorneys hired by the peti tioner, leading to tax fraud, further retaliation 14th amendment article 1 section 2 9. That the petitioner has read the statement of the per curiam CM/ECF document opinion document 46. The appellant is not an attorney but has read and presented information from the Law library computer that were presented in the appellants CM/ECF docu ments 9 and 40 that counter the opinion involving sovereign immunity presented to dismiss the appellants complaint and was addressed on page 7 second para graph CM/ECF document 40 10. The statute of limitations are timely with information again copied from the law library and computer on appellants page 6 document 40. Appel lants documents 9 and 40 are established from the information from the law library. 11. Petitioner has met the filing requirements in the district court complaint and the respondents have never answered the charges escaping and avoiding the merits of the case. The statements of claims are established from the rulings of the IRS the tax court and actions developed by retaliation of the respondent past actions and relief is proposed at document ECF 73.