Whether the failure of Federal District Judge Carl J. Barbier to recuse himself prior to his summary dismissal of an underlying civil diversity action, on a sua sponte basis, without Notice and without any hearing, on the pretext of enforcing 15-year-old monetary sanctions against Petitioner, violated Petitioner's First Amendment rights to speech and access to courts, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process, where the Judge had previously participated in making the payment of sanctions a condition of Petitioner's right to file pleadings, even Pro Se pleadings, and where the same Judge, who had previously voted to disbar Petitioner, had so enmeshed and entangled himself in Petitioner's affairs as to warrant his recusal for bias and prejudice, thus bringing this case within the parameters established in Supreme Court Rules 10(a) and 10(c)?

Whether the First and Fifth Amendments were violated by a Federal District Judge who failed to recuse himself on grounds of bias and prejudice notwithstanding his prior participation in rulings that disbarred Petitioner and made the payment of monetary sanctions a condition of Petitioner's right to file pleadings, even Pro Se?

Whether the Circuit Court Judges violated Petitioner's First and Fifth Amendment rights when they failed to recuse themselves notwithstanding their participation in prior rulings that disbarred Petitioner?

Whether the violation of Petitioner's First and Fifth Amendment rights by Judges who failed to recuse themselves constituted judicial misconduct?

Regardless of whether judicial misconduct occurred, whether the failure of the District Court and Circuit Court Panel to address any of the substantive constitutional issues involved in this case, when they issued their Orders and Opinion, violated the Judge's Oath (28 U.S.C. §453) and/or Canons 1, 2 and 3 (and applicable Commentary) of the Code of Conduct for United States judges, resulting in unconstitutional preclusion of judicial review?

Whether the Circuit Court Panel members committed judicial misconduct because they failed to address the issues of recusal, disqualification, and conflicts of interest, notwithstanding the fact that each Panel Member was identified in Petitioner's Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1 Certificates of Interested Persons as "having an interest in the outcome of this case?"

Whether the Lower Courts' decisions, which were issued summarily, without hearing, resulted in unconstitutional preclusion of judicial review?

Whether the entire Eastern District of Louisiana and Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court Benches should have recused themselves in Petitioner's cases due to an unconstitutional risk of bias, because Petitioner had accused "a Brother Federal Judge," namely Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., who all of the other Judges knew well, of corruption and criminal judicial misconduct?

Whether the monetary sanctions imposed against Petitioner are time-barred by prescription, or otherwise "uncollectable," because they were properly "listed," "scheduled," and "discharged" in Petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding?

Whether the monetary sanctions were "procured through fraud" and "corruptly motivated" and, therefore, unenforceable pursuant to Turner v. Pleasant?

Whether the failure of Federal District Judge Carl J. Barbier to recuse himself prior to his summary dismissal of an underlying civil diversity action violated Petitioner's First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights