1. Whether the Staff Attorney Programs in the lower courts violate non-delegation
principles of Article III duties to non-Article III decision makers; exceeding the limited
rule making authority of the Federal Courts.

2. Whether Pro Se appeals are unconstitutionally being decided by Staff Attorneys who are
supervised, not by Article III Judges, but rather by "Supervisory" Staff Attorneys,
thereby reducing the quality of decisions by the lower courts and allowing for opinions
seemingly issued by Article III Judges, but in reality issued by non-judicial actors with
only "rubber-stamping" by Article III judges which results in a "pay to play" venue in
the lower courts as Pro Se filers under this scheme would not have access to Article III
Judge determinations, while Counseled petitions do have such access.

Whether the Staff Attorney Programs in the lower courts violate non-delegation principles of Article III duties to non-Article III decision makers; exceeding the limited rule making authority of the Federal Courts