1. WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE ACTS IN EXCESS OF HER DISCRETION AND OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF REASON DURING THE INITIAL SCREENING OF THE PLEADING FOR A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 IF, WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THE MAGISTRATE ENTERS FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, NOR ANYTHING THE MAGISTRATE COULD HAVE LEARNED BEFORE THE PROCEEDINGS - BUT RATHER THE FINDINGS ARE BASED ON WHAT CLEARLY AND OBJECTIVELY APPEAR TO BE PERSONAL EXTRAJUDICIAL FIXED BELIEFS, IDEALS AND CORE PREFERENCES THAT HAVE NO SUPPORT FROM NEITHER THE PETITIONER'S PLEADING NOR THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER?

2. WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE ACTS IN AN EXCESS OF HER DISCRETION AND OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF REASON DURING THE INITIAL SCREENING OF A PRO-SE PLEADING FOR A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 IF SHE WERE TO ENGAGE IN A DELIBERATE PATTERN AND/OR PRACTICE OF REPEATEDLY MISCONSTRUING, MISREPRESENTING AND MISSTATING THE PRO-SE PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS AND IN A DECEITFUL MANNER IN ORDER TO THEN RECOMMEND THAT THE SUFFICIENTLY STATED CLAIMS OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS MERITING HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF BE UNFAIRLY DENIED AND DISMISSED?

IF THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 IS YES THEN,

WHETHER THOSE ACTIONS, PATTERNS, METHODS AND/OR PRACTICES DESCRIBED ABOVE, IN QUESTIONS 1 AND 2), IF THEY WERE TO BE OBJECTIVELY SHOWN TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON BEHALF OF A MAGISTRATE, JUDGE AND/OR TRIBUNAL IN A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND/OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, CONSISTING FINDINGS OF FACT BASED ON EXTRAJUDICIAL PERSONAL FIXED BELIEFS, IDEAS OR CONVICTIONS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS (OR) MISREPRESENTING, MISSTATING AND MISCONSTRUING FACTS IN A NEGATIVE MANNER, WOULD BE STRONG EVIDENCE OF BIAS, PARTIALITY AND PREJUDICE THAT WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION AND RECUSAL FROM A CASE, ESPECIALLY IF IN EVERY INSTANCE THAT SUCH CONDUCT OCCURS IT CLEARLY APPEARS TO ONLY BE IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT AND PREJUDICIAL OR ANTAGONISTIC TOWARDS A PRO-SE INNOCENT PETITIONER?

IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 3 ABOVE IS YES, THEN,

WHETHER THE MAGISTRATE THAT CONDUCTED THE INITIAL SCREENING OF THE PRO-SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT APPEARS TO HAVE ENGAGED AND USED SUCH "ACTIONS, PATTERNS, METHODS AND/OR PRACTICES DESCRIBED ABOVE IN QUESTIONS 1 THROUGH 3) AND THAT WOULD HAVE REASONABLY REQUIRED AUTOMATIC RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE CASE?

WHETHER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF GREAT, IMMEDIATE IRREPARABLE DAMAGES

Whether a district court magistrate acts in excess of her discretion and outside the bounds of reason during the initial screening of a pro-se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if she engages in a deliberate pattern and/or practice of repeatedly misconstruing, misrepresenting and misstating the pro-se petitioner's statements in a deceitful manner in order to then recommend that the sufficiently stated claims of violation of federal civil rights meriting habeas corpus relief be unfairly denied and dismissed