Simona Tanasescu v. United States, et al.

Whether the Ninth Circuit refrained from acting upon its statutory duty to review Petitioner’s appeal as a right, by using Circuit Rule 3-6(a) without any clarification or opinion on the facts of the case, to avoid deciding Petitioner’s allegations in the 62-page brief with exhibits, that named federal officers acted in violation of their oath codified in 28 U.S. Code § 453 to deny hearing and adjudicating RICO claims related to fraud upon the United States in the procurement of naturalization and allegations of fraud upon the California Superior Court for the rubber-stamping of dissolution judgements, in zeroday sham cross-marriages obtained and maintained by force for the sole purpose of circumventing immigration laws, that decided questions of immigration law without authority.

Whether the Ninth Circuit Rule 3.6(a) and judge-made rule from United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1982) violate a litigant’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when used for summary disposition on a plain finding of “insubstantiality of the appeal” (id at 858) without presenting in support any opinion or clarification derived from the facts and laws briefed and the district court record.

Whether federal judicial officers act unconstitutionally, illegally and “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction”—when they violate federal law and their oath to “administer justice without respect to persons” and to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” “under the Constitution and laws of the United States” (28 U.S. Code § 453), thereby forfeiting judicial immunity from adjudication in federal tort claim actions.

Whether federal judicial officers and other court members who violate federal law and their respective oath of office thereby act in breach of the implied contract with a litigant who comes before their courts of law and pay the court fees in reliance on the government’s promise to be heard and be afforded due process and impartial fact-finding adjudication.

Whether “sanctuary” policies in a state expand as to also influence or corrupt federal judicial officers into acting unlawfully and in violation of their oath such that they even deny an indigent child (while a minor) who is being harmed since birth from RICO acts, related to procurement of naturalization unlawfully as codified in 18 USC §1425, the right to be heard and to be afforded due process in civil action under FRCP Rule 17(c)(2) for the court to