1. Does a state court judicial officer like Respondent Norman St. George have the right to malicious criminally slander and libel and malicious defame the Petitioner with false slanderous and defamatory utterances repeatedly to the top state NAACP official over the phone over a weekend in order to destroy the Petitioner's reputation within the NAACP just because the Petitioner made a legal written complaint of concern of what he saw in the state court which the Respondent was supposed to be supervising? And does that Respondent have "absolute immunity" or even judicial immunity from Petitioner's lawsuit of equity to redress deprivations of any of his rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States in an action at law and in a suit of equity, brought via Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 etc... action where the Petitioner is seeking to obtain a declaratory judgment by a jury trial against the Respondent and then Petitioner seeks to enforce the judgment or show that according the particular circumstances presented such declaratory relief was not available, See, Hoover v. Tucker CA4/1 Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California quoting from pages 8 and 9; and so does the Respondent have so-called "absolute immunity" or even judicial immunity?

2. Is state a judicial officer who has engages in knowingly and intentional such slanderous and criminally defamatory and perjurious acts against the Petitioner are frivolous just because the Federal judge Ann M. Donnelly does not like that the Petitioner's Federal equity lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment on his claims against the who is also a state judicial officer no answer for the Respondent was allowed to be made by judge Donnelly; and is Federal judge Donnelly right on her fictitious assumption the Plaintiff-Appellant's claims regarding criminal acts of defamation and slander by the Defendant-Appellee Plaintiff-Appellant that the Federal Courts Improvement Act 7996 which amends Title 42 USC Section 1983 gives the Respondent so-called "so-called absolute immunity" or judicial immunity from equity lawsuits and Title 42 USC Section1983 Federal Complaints seeking declaratory judgment and gives Respondent no "absolute immunity" from the criminal acts that Petitioner cites as claims in his Federal Complaint are which is backed-up with eyewitnesses notarized affidavits against the Respondent?

Whether the petitioner's equity lawsuit under 42 USC § 1983 seeking declaratory judgment against the respondent is barred by statute