The patchwork of nonuniform District Court local rules that deny general admissions privileges to lawyers licensed in forty-nine states is challenged in this case. This patchwork of nonuniform local rules that deny general admissions privileges to lawyers licensed in forty-nine states directly contradicts the Rules Enabling Act, First Amendment text, and this Court's First Amendment precedent since the Founding. This patchwork of nonuniform local rules occurs in some District Courts, but not in other District Courts where all lawyers are created equal. Six of the sixteen Third Circuit appellate judges are members of the Third Circuit Judicial Council defendants. They are defendants based on the Congressionally enacted Rules Enabling Act. This appeal has been sitting in the Third Circuit for sixteen months collecting dust. The government has not even filed an Opposition Brief. The Third Circuit is deciding it's own case, and it has decided not to decide.

A judge's recusal is required because of a due process violation when the judge becomes a "part of the accusatory process." In re Murchison (1955) 349 US. 133, 137, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625. A party's right to due process is violated when a judge "becomes embroiled in a running bitter controversy" with a litigant. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (1971) 400 U.S. 455, 465, 91 S. Ct. 499, 505

The question presented is should this Court exercise its supervisory duty over local rules and the administration of justice in the federal courts and assign a hearing panel composed of judges from outside of the Third Circuit because the Third Circuit is "part of the accusatory process" and it has "becomes embroiled in a running bitter controversy" or should this Court renege on its supervisory duty over the lower courts and nullify the People's First Amendment freedoms by local rule?

Should this Court exercise its supervisory duty over local rules and the administration of justice in the federal courts and assign a hearing panel composed of judges from outside of the Third Circuit because the Third Circuit is 'part of the accusatory process' and it has 'becomes embroiled in a running bitter controversy' or should this Court renege on its supervisory duty over the lower courts and nullify the People's First Amendment freedoms by local rule?