Yi Tai Shao v. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, et al.

Did the district court and court of appeal violate due process by failing to rule on requests for recusal and disqualification, and failure to provide any explanation as to the accused irregularities contained in the affidavit of disqualification as the grounds for recusal?

Are lower court orders void where they were issued before the courts had ruled on motions for recusal or to disqualify the judges hearing the motions?

Are the judges of the lower courts disqualified because of bias or appearance of bias arising from the alteration of court records and dockets, and ex parte communications?

Did the district court violate due process or act in excess of its jurisdiction by acting on its own motion to grant relief that was not requested and to dismiss actions summarily against defendants in default?

Did the district court violate due process or act in excess of its jurisdiction by dismissing actions summarily against defendants who had not made appearance?

Was the district court judge required to recuse himself when he was named as a defendant in the same proceeding?

Did the district court violate due process by dismissing the case against himself when he was in default?

Does the American Inns of Court, in facilitating ex parte contacts between lawyers and judges, create the appearance of bias or partiality requiring recusal and disqualification of judges who are members of the American Inns of Court?

Did the lower court violate due process by affirming judgments in favor of the American Inns of Court when its motion was made without notice?

Is the Temple Bar Scholarship funded by the American Inns of Court a payment of economic value to judges or employees of courts that constitutes an illegal gift and creates the appearance of bias and requires recusal and disqualification?