Charles G. Kinney v. Roger W. Boren, et al.

By simultaneously dismissing 8 of Kinney's pending appeals, did this 3 Judge Ninth Circuit panel abuse its discretion to cover-up acts by Justice Roger W. Boren and Commission on Judicial Performance ("CJP") employee David Lane who violated Janus and NIFLA by using "vexatious litigant" and "puppet" labels, 100% directly-inconsistent rulings, and sanctions to punish an attorney (and now a pro se litigant) because they didn't like his "professional speech", so they compelled silence upon Kinney? Kinney's speech was "professional speech" (for his clients or himself) as to judges and justices who do not adjudicate disputes but instead act as prosecutors of him under color of authority; and as to ongoing violations of law (e.g. violations of bankruptcy law in favor of Chapter 7 debtor Michele Clark who listed Kinney as a creditor; the court's failure to provide "honest services"; and Hobbs Act violations)? Did the Ninth Circuit abuse its discretion when acting as prosecutors under color of authority? Did this appeal (2 of 8) have "merit" because it challenged the excessive security demanded for a state court appeal by state court Justice Roger Boren and ignored by CJP employee David Lane? Did this 3 Judge Ninth Circuit panel abuse its discretion by ignoring the ongoing 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 violations as to Kinney's federal civil rights?