1. First Amendment Retaliation: Did the lower
courts, including District Judge Mark R. Hor-
nak and the Third Circuit in its August 8,
2024, judgment (App. A1-A9), violate Peti
tioner 's First Amendment rights by imposing
punitive supervised release modifications —
electronic monitoring and mandatory mental
health treatment (Case 2:21-cr-00211*MRH,
Doc. 190, App. A37-A43) —in retaliation for his
protected speech, specifically judicial com
plaints, civil actions, including Case 2:22-cw
03489-MEF-JRA (filed June 6, 2022, App.
A180-A213), and a 2020 civil complaint (Case
2:i9-cv-08100-CCC-JBC, Doc. 32-1, App. A113-
A163J see also Kaetz 's Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari, Appeal No. 24-1646, Appendix a71-
al21) filed concurrently with his criminaliza
tion under Judge- 1, exposing fraud by Educa
tional Credit Management Corporation
(ECMC), Kaplan University 's $4 billion preda
tory scheme, the Department of Education 's
$1.7 trillion fraudulent debt portfolio, and to
talitarian threats to the constitutional repub
lic, thereby chilling his fundamental right to
petition for redress of grievances?

2. Sixth Amendment Denial of Self-Representa
tion: Did the lower courts, as affirmed by the
Third Circuit (App. A1-A9), weaponize the
Sixth Amendment by forcibly appointing inef
fective counsel (Doc. 170, App. A23), dismiss
ing Petitioner 's pro se filings under pretextual
hybrid representation claims (Doc. 190, App.
A37-A43), and proceeding with hearings 375
miles from his residence, which his indigence
($15,650 annual income) prevented him from
attending, thereby denying his absolute right
to self-representation and perpetuating a
structural error in the judicial process?

3. Separation of Powers and Miscarriage of Jus
tice: Does a federal judge 's enforcement of an
unconstitutional Department of Education pol
icy through reliance on vague statutory lan
guage (11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)) and non-binding
judicial dicta, as occurred in Petitioner 's stu
dent loan bankruptcy case (Case 2:i6-cv-
09225, Doc. 57, App. A164-A1795 see also
Kaetz 's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Appeal
No. 24*1646, Appendix al22-al37), constitute
a separation of powers offense that renders 18
U.S.C. § 119 inapplicable, thereby causing a
fundamental miscarriage of justice by crimi
nalizing Petitioner for exposing this constitu
tional violation, an issue the Third Circuit
failed to address (App. A1-A9)?

4

Whether the lower court's actions constitute a violation of First Amendment retaliation, Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, and separation of powers principles