Anthony Wayne March v. United States

Structural Collapse of Due Process and Separation of Powers. Whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, The Separation-of-Powers Doctrine, and the mandatory “disinterestedness” safeguards codified in 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(14), 324(a), 327(a), 701-703, 1104, and 28 U.S.C. § 586(a), are violated when a United States (NC) Bankruptcy Administrator’s staff attorney compels appointment of a trustee to administer two adverse estates — an individual debtor’s Chapter 7 estate and that debtor’s affiliated § 501 (c)(3) nonprofit estate in Chapter 11 where a federal bankruptcy judge approves the conflicted dual appointment, privately converts the nonprofit’s Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 ex parte without notice or hearing required by 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a)(4), then later contradicts his own findings only after the conflict produced irreparable loss, and permits the same conflicted trustee to resign from the individual debtor’s estate while remaining over the organization’s estate for personal financial gain while the same conflicted BA-staff attorney later crosses the barrier into the Executive Branch to serve as “Special Assistant U.S. Attorney” to prosecute the individual debtor for loss and victimization he himself manufactured; thereby weaponizing the judicial process in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1519, 152, 208, 216, and contravening this Court’s precedent forbidding conflicted fiduciaries or prosecutors from acting in the same cause, including Mosser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267 (1951) and Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987); and whether such convergence of fiduciary breach and prosecutorial conflict constitutes structural error per se, requiring automatic vacatur of all resulting judgments and orders?

Rule 4(b) Cognizability and Rule 12(b)(6) Incompatibility. Whether, after a district court issues an order under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings directing the Government to respond thereby finding the petition “cognizable” and finding at least one constitutional claim warranting response, the Government may nonetheless file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim without violating judicial consistency, due process, and the statutory screening function recognized in Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977), and United States v. Dyess, 730 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2013)? A