When a judge ignores mandatory statutory hearing requirements, acts ultra vires, and potentially violates separation of powers, are their rulings null and void ab initio?

The “proper role of the judiciary ” is “to apply, not amend, the work of the People ’s representatives. ” Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718, 1726 (2017). This court has routinely ruled that every word within a statute is there for a purpose and should be given it’s due diligence “where congress includes particular language in a section of the statute it is generally presumed Congress acts intentionally and purposely in it’s inclusion ” Russello V. United States, 464 US 16, 23,78 L. Ed, 2d 17, 104 S. Ct 296 (1983). This Petition is at the heart of the separation of powers doctrine, the protections of constitutional rights, and is a matter of immediate great public interests. Accordingly the questions presented are as follows; 1. When a judge ignores or removes the requirements for a mandatory hearing as set forth in the language of a statute, and thus violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution Article III, and their very oath of office to uphold the constitution, are they acting ultra vires no longer acting in a judiciary role and without complete jurisdiction, rendering their rulings null and void ab initio? 2. When foreign country parties are named, is the court required to determine its jurisdiction in accordance with the Madrid Protocol International treaty to which the U.S. is a signed member? I 3. When a judges acts ultra vires and their rulings are null and void, and challenged by a party in a F.R.C.P. 60(B)and (d) motion, is the decision upon such a motion immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine as an exception to the finality doctrine where justice delayed is justice denied? 4. When the lower court was without complete Jurisdiction, and fraud was later discovered, and an appeal is taken, is the appellate court required to vacate all prior rulings of the lower court and its own prior rulings pursuant to this court ’s precedent in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U. S. 238 (1944) and dismiss the appeal without addressing the merits? 5. Whether the dismissal of one federal defendant based upon the plaintiffs lack of standing requires the dismissal of all defendants? ii