In Re Charles Simon

Whether the Three Judge Panel Two Page Order denied and rubber the Mandamus All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. section 1651, consolidated with the appeal, ignored outrageous conduct record where, The Clerk of Appeals Court and the Appeal Court Judge illegally used the Appellees’ DOJ Attorney constitutionally defective Request for Extension of Time to file Appellees’ Brief, thus falsely claim the Request for Extension of Time was Appellees’ motion to oppose Appellant’s motion for an expedited appeal chilling Appellant’s First Amendment Rights to Appeal pursu­ ant Access to the court.

Whether the Three Judge Panel Judicial pro­ ceeding mirror deep-seated favoritism 28 U.S.C. section 455(a), issued The unconstitutional ex parte two Page JUDGMENT, where the Three Judge Panel ignored the record of the entire judicial proceeding that is under the precincts patrolled by Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e; Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. Sec 701 et seq; Fed. R. Civ. Pro 65; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56; and All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. sec. 1651; (i) Ignored Exhibit of the Chief Operating Officer’s fraud discriminatory Policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301 that accompanied the Appeal Brief; (ii) Ignored Exhibit of the Appellees’ DOJ Attorney’s letter conceding the case from the outset of the litigation by failing to file any responsive pleading to the Jury Demand Verified Complaint incorporated with memorandum of law, Accompanied with Preliminary Injunction Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65.

Whether Pro Se Appellant’s litigation was subject to discriminatory judicial practice that chilled