John W. Fink v. Jonathan L. Bishop, et al.

In my underlying complaint which invoked F.R.C.P. (“Rule”) 60(d), I alleged two judges in the District of New Jersey had deprived me of due process by committing a combined 50+judiciary violations, including their use of extrajudicially sourced facts. These violations constituted a pattern that spans four related prior cases and revealed the judges bias against me. In a Rule 12(b)(6) proceeding in the underlying case, the presiding judge dismissed my case. In doing so, he also committed judiciary violations, thereby revealing his bias against me. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his decision. Significantly, the four Respondents who participated in this matter did not disprove with specificity any of the facts supporting my allegations about the pattern of 50+ judiciary violations. The Questions Presented are: • Did the Third Circuit judges repeatedly fail to impartially decide my underlying appeal case, as well as other previous appeal cases of mine? • Did the Third Circuit fail to conduct a true plenary hearing, especially since they did not address any of the 50+ judiciary violations which had deprived me of due process and which the Respondents had not disproved with specificity? x *v