1. Whether Courts have discretion to hold pro se litigants to a strictly following
Fed.R.Civ.P. while ignoring represented litigants ' late filings and while using its
orders to avoid the Rules itself.

2. Whether Courts have discretion to retain jurisdiction, continue adjudicating a case
and issuing orders, and dismissing with prejudice, after striking the Original
Complaint entirely months before dismissal and prohibiting all Amended
Complaints, and therefore, proceeding without an operative Complaint.

3. Whether a judge who was the lawyer for an organization with a policy identical to
those in question in this case, and who, with his wife, is currently employed by that
same organization, and who, in previous cases challenging policies identical to those
held by the organization, ruled in a way that was favorable to his organization 's
policies despite the law, has the appearance of bias in this instant case under 28
U.S.C.§455.

4. Whether a pro se Complaint —to which Defendants responded in a way that shows
they understand what it was about and where no Defendant asked for a more
definitive statement —states a claim upon which relief can be granted and therefore
meets Fed.R.Civ.P.8 requirements even though it is long and contains many
exhibits supporting its factual statements.

Whether Courts have discretion to hold pro se litigants to a strictly following Fed.R.Civ.P. while ignoring represented litigants' late filings and while using its orders to avoid the Rules itself