John E. Reardon v. Phil Murphy, Governor of New Jersey, et al.

1 Questions/Issues for Review Given this Court’s Mandate found in Wong Kim Ark v U.S., 169 U.S. 649, 654, 1898 that all Courts must consider the Common Law in its decisions and Payne v Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 855, 1991that no matter what the lower courts personal beliefs they have of this Courts decisions that they must comply with them and that the lower courts have failed to comply with this court’s decisions in 40 Issues and Claims made in this Lawsuit as to Void Proceedings due to Discretionary, Jurisdictional and/or Mandatory defects that holds all officials for liability if violated, the courts have abused their authority by refusing to comply with this courts findings of Liability for Legal and/or Equity Relief and all sections of the U.S. Constitution allegedly violated by the State. Does the officiala. Lose Discretion and/or Jurisdiction for violations of these mandates upon them make their decisions void and of no effect? b. Should the official have recused themselves from the matter rather than rule against the plaintiff? c. Is the injured party thus entitled to either Equity and/or Legal Relief for their failure to so comply with these mandates, when they were informed of the same? d. If the proceedings are being challenged based on void orders for Discre­ tionary, Jurisdictional and/or Mandatory Defects, or as being a Trespasser in the law are judges immune from a collateral attack for Equity relief for said reasons?