Susan Romanov v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company

The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Court-Inflicted Capping Issue: Whether a federal district court divests itself of diversity subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) when the court itself—through independent intervention rather than a voluntary amendment by the plaintiff—actively strips the plaintiffs statutory bad-faith and punitive damages claims, enters pretrial orders capping maximum recovery at $69,162.87, and subsequently forces a pro se litigant to a federal jury trial on a claim falling entirely and to a legal certainty below the statutory $75,000 threshold.

The Article III Court Integrity and Substantive Clerk Signature Issue: Whether an Article III appellate court violates the Separation of Powers and constitutional Due Process by permitting unconfirmed administrative clerks and caseworkers to intercept, delay, and sign final judicial orders dismissing appeals and entering $0 judgments, thereby completely insulating substantive trial court errors from review by Senateconfirmed federal judges.

The Court Reporter Act, Transcript Spoliation, and FRAP 10(e) Paradox: Whether a federal court violates a civil litigant’s Fifth Amendment Due Process right to a meaningful appeal by adjudicating the merits based on an officially certified transcript that is demonstrably missing critical interactions and oral motions for a mistrial—replaced by arbitrary ellipses (“...”)—and whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) permits an appellate court to blindly defer to a district court’s refusal to augment the record when raw audio backup recordings proving judicial bias and transcript fraud are uniquely within that district court’s control.

The Coerced Settlement and Independent Duty to Investigate Fraud Issue: Whether a federal court’s inherent, unyielding obligation to fully investigate colorable allegations of fraud upon the court under Hazel-Atlas and Universal Oil to protect its institutional integrity is automatically rendered moot by a subsequent confidential agreement, when that agreement was directly coerced by the underlying fraud and ultimately breached by the fraudulent party to evade a lawful $200,000 default judgment.

The Technological Coercion and Right to Testify Issue: Whether a trial court violates procedural Due Process under Mathews v. Eldridge by enforcing a rigid electronic-exhibit mandate, running a pro se litigant’s non-tolled 90-minute trial clock during court-owned hardware failures, and actively denying functional, alternative presentation workarounds— such as the presentation via the clerk’s terminal or central podium—thereby executing a constructive forfeiture of the party’s fundamental right to testify. (i<) 6. The Structural Courtroom Exclusion and Jury Contamination Issue: Whether a federal court deprives a physically disabled self-represented litigant of Due Process, Equal Protection, and her Seventh Amendment right to a fair trial by failing to provide physical wheelchair access to the podium and witness stand, forcing compliance under threats of immediate dismissal, and subsequently empaneling a six-person civil jury comprised heavily of the corporate defendant’s active policyholders, including an individual who confessed on the record a fear of premium retaliation.