Can DC and Appeal courts dismiss the complaint of the case 2:23-cv-06909 without further inquiry into the factual evidence of 5 courts and allegation for fraud on courts?

1. In this early stage of litigation, DC and Appeal courts ignored 1-188 pages of factual evidence showing 7 Orders of 4 federal courts ruled by frauds on the courts by the attorneys of the courts, and abruptly dismissed the complaint without inquiry into the vast range of factual evidence. To this date, the Courts and Defendants did not rebut the factual evidence of 4 federal and 1 state courts for frauds on courts stated in the complaint. Question: Can DC and Appeal courts dismiss the complaint of the case 2:23-cv-06909 without further inquiry into the factual evidence of 5 courts and allegation for fraud on courts? 2. The factual evidence in the complaint show Attorney Jablon in filed “Motion to remand and 3 Motions to stay ” with misrepresented statements “BC571555 in the state court had no federal copyright questions ” against material fact of 1-735 copyright discovery Jablon executed in state court BC571555 prior to “Motion to remand & 3 Motions to stay ” filed. After BC571555 remanded and sustained in state court by “Order of remand and 3 Orders of stay ” ruled by frauds, Jablon filed state court BC571555 with “Motion to compel 735 copyright discovery ”. The discovery was executed in the state court of i Page 2 of 3 BC571555 prior to “Motion to remand and Order of remand (CV15-2075) ” filed and “3 Motions to stay and 3 Orders of stay CV15-2343/2347/2351 ” filed. The state court BC571555 ruled “Order against Motion to compel 1-735 discovery ” and stated; (1) attorney Jablon lied to Judge (CV152075) and obtained “Order of remand ”, (2) Jablon ’s 1-735 discovery in BC571555 are all Copyright questions and belong to federal cases pending in federal Doc. 1, page ID 16, 17) Question: Is it fair to disregard such clear and most convincing evidence above relevant to the subject of case 2:23-cv-06909 for frauds on 4 federal courts? 3. The complaint pleads that the 3 federal courts CV15-2343/2347/2351 harmed by frauds in 2015 had no authorities to have filed “3 Orders of dismissal CV15-2343/2347/2351 ” in 2017. [The Supreme court stated; Elliot v. Piersol, lpet, 328, 340, 26 US 328, 340; “If a court is without authorities, its judgment regarded as nullities, they are not voidable, but simply void and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them ”.] Question: Ignoring serious Issues in factual evidence for the frauds on 4 federal courts, Can Appeal courts affirm “Order of dismissal ” without inquiry into the factual evidence self-evidently showing the harmed judicial machinery of Courts i Page 3 of 3 4. BC571555 was remanded and sustained in state court by 4 Orders ruled by frauds on 4 federal courts in 2015. With the default judgment of state court BC571555, Jablon filed Motion to dismiss CV15-2343/2347/2351 and obtained 3 Orders of dismissal in 2017 under concealment of previous frauds on 4 federal courts perpetrated in 2015. Question: For speedy process, Could Supreme court give direction to guide lower courts for the jurisdiction issues on BC571555 remanded by frauds on 4 federal courts to avoid excessive delay from DC Appeal court Supreme court again? 5. Attorney Jablon filed Motion to remand BC571555 back to state court with misrepresented statement that BC571555 in state court did not have any federal copyright questions against material facts of 735 copyright discovery executed by attorney Jablon prior to Motion to remand filed. Now, DC court and defendants stick to doctrine; Remand is not reviewable in high court . In fact, Defendants misused the doctrine and willfully perpetrated frauds on 4 federal courts to have had 735 copyright discovery in state court BC571555. Question: The DC and Defendants stick Remand is not reviewable in high court. Should it be reviewable the Remand Order decided by 4 Orders ruled by frauds on the courts of perpetrated by the attorneys of the courts? The judges and attorneys are all officers of the court. ii LIST OF RESPONDENTS I DEFENDANTS Andrew V