1. Why did both lower court judges say a fourth amendment seizure requires an arrest and refuse to challenge your stare decisis ruling, Hodari D., 499 U. S., at 624, that states it doesn't require arrest or detention "A seizure doesn't have to necessarily result in_actual control or detention. It is true that, when speaking of property, "fflrom the time of the founding to the present, the word 'seizure' has meant a 'taking possession." cited in the original Complaint?

2. If officers acknowledges no criminal activity and no reasonable suspicious or probable cause to act but start assuming the incident being under domestic duties using their authority to take possession of Petitioner's freedom of movement from reboarding a bus that breach Georgia's Motor contract carrier laws a private contract agreeing with the same bus driver refusing Petitioner contract paid service, would this be a "meeting of the minds" as in Adickes a Conspiracies Between Public Officials and Private Persons, Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., Id. at 158, 90 S. Ct. at 1609,?

3. How is it that the lower district courts expecting self-litigants/pro se to support all allegations with supporting proof when this lower court judge granted respondent/defendant's motion that claimed separate entities having no supporting proof nowhere found on the record

Whether police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing a passenger's freedom of movement without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and whether such seizure constitutes a conspiracy between public officials and a private motor carrier in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983