Whether federal courts must compel state courts to certify records and whether civil liability can be imposed on judges and attorneys for failing to report illegal acts

have risen out of state and federal court final judgments involving retaliatory, fraudulent, conspiratorial, and ultra vires acts or omissions which were committed by religious corporate members, licensed attorneys, and members of the judiciary. Questions of law are raised. The questions were first raised or otherwise fairly raised on appeal as follows: 1. Whether federal courts must compel state-courts to certify and attest to their records on file in each court for deciding whether a federal plaintiff is barred from litigating the federal suit by the preclusion law of the State where the claimant assert that the state-courts failed to address federal constitutional and state issues raised on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S.C. Const. Amends. 5,14. 2. Whether claims can be relitigated apart from independent claims if the plaintiff seeks relitigation under the full-and-fair opportunity exceptions when the claimant plausibly alleges the state-courts failed to provide a full-and-fair opportunity to litigate as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; La. R.S. 13:4231(3), 13:4232(A); U.S.C. Const. Amend. 5,14. 3. Whether civil liability can be imposed on judges, the judicial staff of the court, and licensed attorneys in their administrative and personal capacity if the officers fail in their duty to report all known illegal acts or omissions of impropriety committed by judges, licensed attorneys, or the like if they are required to do so by legislative directive or written judicial policies; or (2) whether civil liability can be imposed on elected governmental officers in their administrative managerial capacity for failing in their duty to promulgate a written policy requiring all members of the judiciary to report all known illegal acts or omissions of impropriety to the proper authorities for protecting the rights of citizens. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 4. Whether private parties may be liable under Section 1983, Title 42 U.S.C., when the attorneys for the private parties collaborate with judges to cause judges to misuse power possessed by virtue of state law for precluding entry of a judgment condemning their ultra vires acts, omissions, retaliatory, fraudulent conduct, bad faith dealings, or the like. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S.C. Amends. 5,14. Page 2 of 76 5. Whether the Younger abstention doctrine prevent federal courts from proceeding when state-court litigation is pending if the proponent plausibly demonstrate that factual circumstances does not fall within one of the three exceptional categories that define Younger's scope. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S.C. Const. Amend. 14. 6. Whether the operative filing presents a viable federal and pendent cause of action against the parish government for the illegal acts or omissions of the elected parish clerk for the district court; and (2) Whether the operative filing presents a viable federal and pendent cause of action on which relief may be granted against the final policy-making appointed supervisory clerk for the circuit court. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 7. Whether there exists an objective reasonably basis which would be expected to prevent the federal district court from adjudicating the case in a fair and impartial manner; and (2) Whether there exists an objective reasonably basis which would be expected to prevent the United States Fifth Circuit Appeals Court from deciding the appeal in a fair and impartial manner as required by the Federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S.C. Const. Amend. 14. 8. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law, or otherwise abused its discretion by failing to assign findings of facts and conclusions prior to denying declaratory and injunctive relief over proponent ’s rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 9. Whether the court erred in dismissing the federal litigation against circuit state court judges i