(1) The trial and appellate court ruled against
Petitioner on rehearing filed under Florida rules of
civil procedures 1.540 and 1.530 and 28 U.S.C. 455(a)
and (b) for biased ruling filed for disqualification of
judge for the reentry of default knowingly that Re
spondents showed no meritorious defense to vacate the
previous judge warning, that default be entered. Peti
tioner petition for direct Appeal filed in Florida Fourth
District Court to the United States Supreme Court and
it was redirected by the Clerk of Court acting together
under 'the color of law ' and sent to Florida Supreme
Court and Subsequently, dismissed in admitting it
lacked Jurisdiction.
The first question presented is rather any and all
judges and officers of the court who were sworn by the
constitution to uphold the law, and who contravened
the law under 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 are immune
from "conflict of interest or lack of impartiality " when
judges ruled out of jurisdiction, should any court in
dulged in prejudiced cases causing irreparable
harm , or failed to apply the remedy as substantiated
court dockets records holds the answers to Justify cor
rective measures to ensure both injustice and ineffec
tive administration preservation of a fair trial in a civil
trial case be maintain in remedying inadvertent and
intentional misconduct by trial Attorneys and judges.
Fletcher v. Tomlinson. #16-4399 (8th circuit. 2018)
18 U.S.C. section 242.
ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW

(2) The trial court and Appellate Courts ruled
subsequently in protecting or providing avoidance of
certiorari conundrum for rehearing with intension in
depriving under, 18 U.S.C. Section, 242; improper de
meanor by the judge not disqualifying him-self by en
gaging in ex parte conflict contrary to due process.
The second question presented is rather the court
Should considered default against a Respondent as ex
pressed originally by the First judge Or should the
court switched judges with a biased and prejudiced
Judge to overruled the original judge 's decision and in
fact ruled out of jurisdiction dismissing Petitioner 's
case because of the duo longtime friendship.

(3) The trial court and the Appellate Court ruled
in favor of the judge, Judges or Courts of Clerk de
parted from the accepted usual course of Judicial du
ties of office by not setting precedence over all
activities, in violation of hierarchy rules and code of
conduct. Article VI, paragraph, 2 U.S.C.
The third question presented is rather the second
judge subject matter by ruling out of jurisdiction and
failure to comply under Rules of Fla, rule of Judicial
Admin. 2.160 and Fla Statue 38.10, As established by
law for disqualifications of judges applies.

(4) The trial and the appellate Court ruled un
constitutionally by siding not to follow the law acting
as trespassers of the law, as stated in ruling that
judges are immune from wrong doing.
The fourth question presented is rather Judges or
Attorneys who violates the State 's

Whether judges and court officers who contravened the law under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are immune from 'conflict of interest or lack of impartiality'