1. Did any Petitioner/Plaintiffs named in the three complaints filed with
the District Court allege sufficient personal concrete and particularized harm therein to assert Article III standing for violations of each
Plaintiffs individual right to self governance, if any such right exists?

2. Did the Single Judge District Court below and the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals in appellate review act without or in excess of Article III
jurisdiction over the subject-matter as conferred by Congress in 28
U.S.C. §2284(a) and (b)(3) as explained by the United States Supreme
Court in Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (2015) when each refused
to convene a three-court judge district court?

3. Did the judges below (a single District Court judge and the presiding
judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ) violate Article III § 1 and
the principle of "party presentation" when they engaged in conduct so
as to deny Plaintiffs ability to access a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) to present their claims?

Did any named in the three complaints filed with the District Court allege sufficient personal concrete and particularized harm therein to assert Article III standing for violations of each Plaintiffs individual right to self governance, if any such right exists?