The issue here goes beyond a miscarriage of justice. It's lower courts ' and it's
officers as such in this case District Attorney Matulewicz blatant and outright
refusal to administer justice, when law warrants otherwise; it's contrary to what
this court in Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 240, (1972) proclaimed, "throws
open the doors of the United States courts to those whose rights under the
Constitution are denied or impaired",

1. When the doors of the U.S. Courts are willfully, maliciously, and improperly
closed to non- influential, self-represented persons, like the disabled
petitioner thereby foreclosing (1) a civil forum of justice, and (2) denies
petitioner his "day in court", simply because the fraudsters want to protect
their own kind via abuse of power, does this court's refusal to intervene and
foreclose a civil forum send a disturbing message that the "Las Vegas" kind
massacre remains the only avenue for attention/justice?

2. How can a perpetrator/defendant, be also an adjudicator, and worse, be
permitted on this court's watch, to corrupt the judicial process? The law
profession is clearly incapable of policing its own kind

Question not identified