This Court presses judicial equality 1, yet Judges under the two-part Barron Test 2 can cause intentional unconstitutional harm to a Party and still have judicial immunity. The Defendant (Judge) deliberately deprived the non-Party Petitioner of [her] personal property forever, based on pre-bias and retaliation 3 i.e., Judicial theft via the guilt by association fallacy intentionally harms the non-Party Petitioner and is not a covered immunity under the Barron Test. Why? Because the Defendant Judge allowed a Party to sell the non-Party ' personal . property for profit without a financial accounting requirement 4 thus is outside [his] judicial purview.

Under the Barron Test a judges ' harm to litigants are vast and immunity is just as broad. In this Courts ' courtroom there is no room for a Barron Judge 5 but only a Judge who ensures due process of law from the very beginning and sees it through 6. Is ■ oi - it possible for a judge to be liable for acts outside the t scope of.Barron judicial immunity? If so, is theft described herein to a non-Party covered under Barron judicial immunity?<, • i m it

Whether a judge can be liable for acts outside the scope of Barron judicial immunity, including theft of a non-party's personal property without due process and financial accountability