a) (w/o parties ' consent) Per 28 U.S. Code § 636, the Master or Magistrate Judge
must not as a practical matter dispose of a claim, defense, or motion for
injunctive reliefs. This law is commonly violated across the nation , with MJs
issuing practical "judgment on the pleadings " in IFP rulings or disposing of
motions for injunctive reliefs or issuing otherwise dispositive orders .

b) 28 U.S. Code § 636, local rules across the country subverts, blocking [Xjudgej
(an individual judge) from exercising the STATUTORY discretion as to whether to
allow a MJ to hear and determine any pretrial non-dispositive matters, as well as
the STATUTORY discretion to allow or disallow a MJ to conduct hearings &
recommendations on matters excepted in 28 U.S. Code § 636 (b) (l) (a).'.I
Iserious insurrection BY ALL CIRCUITS as LRs are approved by circuits.

c) Subversion of FRCP 72 (a) across the country.

d) ARsifming matters to MJs when lacking special reasons violates the privileges
and immunities clause and the EPC.

e) Countless acts of departure from the usual course of conduct of judiciary, which
aren 't all included in this petition, but should be considered if certiorari granted.

f) DJ "taking " MJ recommendation w/o any findings or conclusions, illegal. 1
'Commonly DJs frustrate reviews w/ judgments w/ no findings or conclusions 1
w/ MJ recomm.. which is sanctioned by CAs. which subverts SC precedent. 1

g) CONSPICUOUS subversion of de novo consideration 28 U.S. Code § 636~|
requires ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 1

h) Not so rarely, MJs deal with nosttrial matters that are dispositive,

i) M(F)J Insurrectional Scoundrel JEP issued DKT#11 CONDITIONAL ORDER 1
OF DISMISSAL 1 WITH absolutely no party 's consent.

j) 'Notably out of departure from the usual course of conduct of judiciary, TWO I
'CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGES of NCMD TN A ROW, reiving on a 5* circ. case I
WHTCH CONSPICUOUS! Y SUBVERTED OOVERNTNO SUPREME COURT I
PRECEDENT, ordered in a prece dential judgment to prohibit the legal effect & i
force of THE FIRST AMENDMENT These 2 DC judgments and CA~5 judgment [
have effect in the whole countr y. |

k) TWO CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGES of NCMD IN A ROW claimed right to aid, abet
illegal conduct as a result of a judge criticized ONCE, which violates nemo judex,
and the EPC, the privileges and immunities clause, the 5th amendment due
process rights, the 8th amendment and laches.*
ParticularlytheLASTCDfeke)J
|of NCMD ruled in a precedential judgment thaTon^shoul^^^ontinuousl^^B
ihvsically beaten with a claim to cure such dismissed forcriticizing^_judgejonce It
(a textbook rape

Whether federal magistrate judges can issue dispositive orders without parties' consent and whether Supreme Court precedent has been systematically subverted across federal circuits