A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered
from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with
constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding
whether or not the trial court or the circuit court has
jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.

This case involves a sitting United States District
Court Judge and certain government prosecutors
whose acts and actions show a failure of faithful
allegiance to the law and process have violated and
continue to violate Petitioners protected due process
right for a redress of grievances by and through the
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America and in violation of their respective
Oaths of Office.

Furthermore, there are two doctrines that conflict
with each other found in this case affecting every court
in this country. These doctrines are known as the
doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the
object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by
this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this
case, sits in direct violation of the object principle of
justice also partially created by this Court and
supported by other appeal courts and constitutional
provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this
Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but
should be, settled by this Court without delay.

Whether a sitting U.S. District Court Judge and government prosecutors violated the Petitioners' due process rights and First Amendment protections through conflicting judicial doctrines