A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from
this Court and lower appeal courts, along with conflict that
exists between constitutional provisions and statutes that
do or do not protect treason and misprision of treason.

Also, under the U.S. Constitution and supportive
citations as demonstrated in this case, doesn 't the
lower court have jurisdiction to try the merits of this
case?1.

Also, under acts of treasons doesn 't the lower court
have the authority to remove sitting Justices of this
the Supreme Court of the United States, while
deeming them unfit from ever holding a office under
Federal, State, County or local Governm ents found
within the United States of America?2.

Also, the doctrine of equitable maxim, created by this
Court, doesn 't it set in direct violation of
jurisprudence affecting every court in America?3.

Also, doesn 't the requirement that permission must
first be granted before suing a Federal Officer place a
unconstitutional restriction against the free exercise
of the First Amendment to petition the government
for a redress of grievances?4.

Also, isn't it unconstitutional for any statue, or
citations or any legalese that provides a shield of
immunity towards the protection of the guilty rather
than the accountability of the guilty?5.

6. Due to the fact that the last few words of the oath of
office state "So help me God " does this not mean that
when this oath is taken they have sworn to God with
allegiance to God and the Holy Bible?

7. Also, when one violates the oath of office is it not an
act of treason?

8. Also, does not a remedy exists that supersedes the
unconstitutional governmental immunity while still
protecting governmental officials making other
remedies redundant and unconstitutional?(I

Whether the lower court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case