Whether a state appellate court violates due process by proceeding to decide an appeal and impose sanctions after a litigant files a federal lawsuit against presiding judges, where the federal lawsuit was validated by a U.S. Court of Appeals

1UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BIASED ADJUDICATION (RULE OF NECESSITY/ SELF-INTEREST): Did the state appellate court violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by proceeding to decide a litigant's appeal and imposing punitive sanctions after that litigant filed a federal lawsuit naming the presiding judges and court personnel as co-defendants for misconduct, where the federal lawsuit was judicially validated as substantial by a United States Court of Appeals? 2STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS: IMPOSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE AND MANDATE OF COUNSEL: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the mandatory disqualification of an entire appellate judiciary —and/or mandate the appointment of counsel —when the indigent litigant, suffering from a verified disability, is forced to proceed pro se against a large, hostile legal enterprise that requires exposing conclusively established criminal misconduct by the presiding judges and court personnel? 3CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON JUDICIAL RULE-MAKING: UNREVIEWABLE ARBITRARY PUNISHMENT: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state court of last resort to rely on its internal rules (RAP) to: (a) impose a punitive monetary sanction and filing bar against a litigant without stating any legal or factual reason or analysis for the penalty; and (b) 2 of 11 simultaneously prohibit any subsequent motion for reconsideration or clarification, thereby rendering the imposition of the punitive sanction unreviewable, arbitrary, and fundamentally unconstitutional? 4DISREGARD OF FEDERAL RULE, NULLITY OF REMOVAL, AND WAIVER OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS:Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state's highest court to extinguish a litigant's accrued procedural rights —including the right to a default judgment and the enforcement of waived affirmative defenses (Res Judicata/S.O.L.) —by disregarding the federal "nullity of removal" doctrine, thereby unilaterally imposing a federally unauthorized "pause" on the state procedural clock for the improper removing defendants, and ensuring the dismissal of the entire case? 5FEDERAL PRECLUSION CONFLICT AND JUDICIAL EVASION OF MERITS: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the Supreme Court to clarify the enduring command of Semfek Inf'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp, when a state court of last resort disregards the trial court's explicit finding that the new claims were notbarred by Res Judicata, and applies an overly broad, state law test for res judicata to a prior federal judgment, thereby creating an unreviewable conflict in federal preclusion law that extinguishes a litigant's right to pursue claims of post-judgment criminal fraud and denies the fundamental constitutional guarantee of access to an impartial tribunal? 3 of 11 6JUDICIAL EVASION AND DENIAL OF APPELLATE REMEDIES: Does the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses prohibit a state appellate court from: (a) imposing sanctions without stating any reason or legal basis for the penalty; and (b) enforcing a punitive monetary bar that prohibits an indigent litigant from filing the following mandatory motions —thereby effecting a total and unconstitutional denial of appellate review mandated by statute and ethical rules: (i) motions to disqualify presiding judges and opposing counsel for conclusively established misconduct; and (ii) any and all subsequent lawful post-opinion motions (including motions for reconsideration, petition for review, and motions to abate due to record falsification and destruction)? 4 of 11