Charles G. Kinney v. Tyson Takeuchi, et al.

By simultaneously dismissing 8 of Kinney's pending appeals, did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion by violating Janus and NIFLA to cover-up acts by debtor Clark and her bankruptcy attorney Takeuchi who made false statements under oath on Clark's bankruptcy schedules to circumvent bankruptcy law, and to punish a listed creditor (an attorney who is now a pro se litigant) because of his "professional speech", so they joined forces to compel silence on "creditor" Kinney? Kinney's speech was "professional speech" (for his client or himself) to Judges who did not adjudicate disputes, but acted as prosecutors under color of authority; and ignored numerous violations of bankruptcy law in favor of Chapter 7 debtor Michele Clark who listed Kinney as a creditor and of other federal law (e.g. for refusals by courts to give "honest services" and correct inconsistencies in state and federal rulings; the court's failure to rule or withdraw; and/or Hobbs Act violations)? Was this dismissal an abuse of discretion by a panel acting as prosecutors under color of law? Did this appeal (5 of 8) have "merit" because it challenged numerous false statements made under oath in Clark's bankruptcy schedules by debtor Clark and by her attorney Takeuchi? Did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion by ignoring 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 federal civil rights violations to the detriment of a listed creditor and repeated violations of bankruptcy law?