Alaa Elkharwily v. Kaiser Permanente, et al.

1- UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BIASED ADJUDICATION (RULE OF NECESSITY/ SELF-INTEREST): Did the state appellate court violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by proceeding to decide a litigant's appeal and imposing punitive sanctions after that litigant filed a federal lawsuit naming the presiding judges and court personnel as co-defendants for misconduct, where the federal lawsuit was judicially validated as substantial by a United States Court of Appeals? 2- STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS: IMPOSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE AND MANDATE OF COUNSEL: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the mandatory disqualification of an entire appellate judiciary—and/or mandate the appointment of counsel—when the indigent litigant, suffering from a verified disability, is forced to proceed pro se against a large, hostile legal enterprise that requires exposing conclusively established criminal misconduct by the presiding judges and court personnel? 3- CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON JUDICIAL RULE-MAKING: UNREVIEWABLE ARBITRARY PUNISHMENT: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a state court of last resort to rely on its internal rules (RAP) to: (a) impose a punitive monetary sanction and filing bar against a litigant without stating any legal or factual reason or analysis for the penalty; and (b) 2 of 11