1. Whether a Clerk of Court violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by "misconstruing"
an official judicial record —specifically by maintaining a fraudulent "1FP Pending" status for
over 70 days despite a prior fee waiver (Entry 31)—to block the entry of a $100,000,000.00
defaultjudgment?

2. Whether a Clerk of Court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by
imposing a "clerical embargo" on a pro se litigant —holding curative filings (Entries 87-107) in a
perpetual "Received" status —to prevent the case from reaching a Judge for a ruling on the
merits?

3. Whether a Court of Appeals may constructively deny the right of access to the courts by
indefinitely withholding a ruling on an In Forma Pauperis (IFP) application while allowing a
"default" clock to run against an indigent petitioner who has provided forensic proof of identity?

Whether a Clerk of Court violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by misconstruing an official judicial record to block entry of a default judgment, whether a Clerk of Court violates the Due Process Clause by imposing a clerical embargo on a pro se litigant to prevent judicial review on the merits, and whether a Court of Appeals may constructively deny access to courts by indefinitely withholding a ruling on an In Forma Pauperis application while allowing a default clock to run against an indigent petitioner