1. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") confirmed in
United States v. Lumumba, 794 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1986) that provocation and "impropriety on the
part of the trial judge" may be considered "in extenuation of the offense and in mitigation of any
penalty imposed", doesn't hindsight sufficiently establish that both the Second Circuit and U.S.
District Judge Lorna Schofield ("Judge Schofield") prejudicially and biasedly chose to ignore
that key fact as Judge Schofield pretextually dismissed the district court action that is hereinafter
referred to as "the DC action" and the Second Circuit rubber-stamped that dismissal on appeal
that warrants immediate reversal partly due to that clear and unduly prejudicial procedural
infirmity that violated my First and Fourteenth Amendment rights?

2. Shouldn't this Court adopt findings in Tolentino v. City of Yonkers, No. 15-cv-5894 (VB)
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2017) that are about but-for causation and a snowball effect to grant me
declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief partly by declaring that illegal and/or otherwise
abusive acts and omissions by Judge Schofield facilitated such acts and omissions against me by
federal court security officers ("CSOs") and members of the U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS")
that caused me enormous, unduly prejudicial, and manifestly unjust harm that excuse offensive
remarks that I expressed in legal filings that I filed in the DC action out of frustration about the
fact that Judge Schofield and other federal judges were illegally shirking their legal duties to
intervene on my behalf against CSOs and the USMS to end illegal and otherwise abusive acts
and omissions by them against me that were sabotaging my right to fair trials in the DC action
and other litigation of mine?

3. Doesn't hindsight sufficiently establish that Judge Schofield flagrantly violated relevant
and controlling findings in In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 647 (1985) and Triestman v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) as well as the rules of conduct for U.S. judges in
the DC action that proximately provoked me enormously and caused me tremendous harm to
such a degree that she was equitably estopped by her failure to lead by example by complying
with applicable legal standards from penalizing me in the DC action in response to how I
expressed

Whether the Second Circuit and U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield prejudicially and biasedly ignored key facts, violating the petitioner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights