Charles G. Kinney v. Michele R. Clark, et al.

By simultaneously dismissing 8 of Kinney's pending appeals, did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion to cover-up acts by Justice Gutierrez, debtor Clark, and others who violated Janus and NIFLA by using new state court proceedings to circumvent bankruptcy law, "vexatious litigant" labels for a "listed" creditor, directly-inconsistent state rulings, attorney's fees and/or sanctions to punish an attorney (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 and/or others who did not adjudicate disputes, but acted as prosecutors under color of authority; and for repeat 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 (3 of 8) have "merit" because it challenged court rulings that violated federal law and a district court's refusal to rule? Did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion by ignoring Sec. 1983 federal civil rights violations and repeated violations of bankruptcy law?