1- UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BIASED ADJUDICATION (RULE OF NECESSITY/
SELF-INTEREST): Did the state appellate court violate the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by proceeding to decide a
litigant's appeal and imposing punitive sanctions after that litigant
filed a federal lawsuit naming the presiding judges and court
personnel as co-defendants for misconduct, where the federal
lawsuit was judicially validated as substantial by a United States
Court of Appeals?

2- STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS: IMPOSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE AND
MANDATE OF COUNSEL: Does the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment require the mandatory disqualification of an
entire appellate judiciary —and/or mandate the appointment of
counsel —when the indigent litigant, suffering from a verified
disability, is forced to proceed pro se against a large, hostile legal
enterprise that requires exposing conclusively established criminal
misconduct by the presiding judges and court personnel?

3- CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON JUDICIAL RULE-MAKING:
UNREVIEWABLE ARBITRARY PUNISHMENT: Does the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state court of last
resort to rely on its internal rules (RAP) to: (a) impose a punitive
monetary sanction and filing bar against a litigant without stating
any legal or factual reason or analysis for the penalty; and (b)
simultaneously prohibit any subsequent motion for reconsideration or
clarification, thereby rendering the imposition of the punitive
sanction unreviewable, arbitrary, and fundamentally
unconstitutional?

4- DISREGARD OF FEDERAL RULE, NULLITY OF REMOVAL, AND WAIVER
OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS:Does the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment permit a state's highest court to extinguish a
litigant's accrued procedural rights —including the right to a default
judgment and the enforcement of waived affirmative defenses (Res
Judicata/S.O.L.) —by disregarding the federal "nullity of removal"
doctrine, thereby unilaterally imposing a federally unauthorized
"pause" on the state procedural clock for the improper removing
defendants, and ensuring the dismissal of the entire case?

5- FEDERAL PRECLUSION CONFLICT AND JUDICIAL EVASION OF
MERITS: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
require the Supreme Court to clarify the enduring command of
Semfek Inf'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp, when a state court of last
resort disregards the trial court's explicit finding that the new claims
were notbarred by Res Judicata, and applies an overly broad, state
law test for res judicata to a prior federal judgment, thereby creating
an unreviewable conflict in federal preclusion law that extinguishes a
litigant's right to pursue claims of post-judgment criminal fraud and
denies the fundamental constitutional guarantee of access to an
impartial tribunal?

6- JUDICIAL EVASION AND DENIAL OF APPELLATE REMEDIES: Does the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses prohibit a state appellate
court from: (a) imposing sanctions without stating any reason or
legal basis for the penalty;

Whether a state appellate court violates due process by proceeding to decide an appeal and impose sanctions after a litigant files a federal lawsuit against presiding judges, where the federal lawsuit was validated by a U.S. Court of Appeals