JUDICIAL COMPLAINT REGARDING THE RIGHT TO PETITION and THOUGHTS ON JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY READ THE ARTICLE " One of the most important civil cases in American history" THEN YOU CAN SKIP THE FOLLOWING INTRODUCTION; SCROLL TO THE LINES UNDER THE ==== EQUALS SYMBOLS LINES========

=========================================================================================

=========================================================================================

BRIEF INTRO TO THE CASE AND CHARACTER OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE JUDGES

In Jan. 2025 I filed a petition asking the exiting president cabinet and incoming cabinet and several committees and US congressional committees and elect to make several changes to the practice of the courts. The courts current practice is to ignore the injured and poor, if a person is too mentally impaired to cognate and litigate this nations judges completely ignore these victims pleas. They happily dismiss and deny in countless cases (they don't keep records of detail on why litigation fails and justice does not clearly result) technical issues and costs of discovery have created a pay for justice system the nations judges sit in indifference and further. So In so many more polite words and detailing's I notified the petitioned parties.

While that issue is a small but impactful one (justice can not be sold, or equality of class fails). The petition was not responded to and the issue became a much more impactful one.

Does an American have a right to file a petition for redressing of grievance's in the courts miscellaneous docket. (To a public preservation of the petition as its presented to the court and served on the party petitioned, also recording any responses.)

Currently if you send a petition to a congressional member or to the clerk of the US House, nothing of the substance of your petition is recorded (if you send a petition to a member of congress this is not publicly recorded). Your name(s), the title and an incomplete short sentence summary is written in the journals of congress. That's it; You could explain how to balance and secure the US economy across all the states for the next 50years, with data and research that definitely proves the plan can not be subverted by outside influences and will not fail. But nothing of the substance will be documented. Because we are a representative government of the people this is unacceptable. It allows the elect (the parties) to hide all information they don't find beneficial, everybody in disagreement with or opposition to the party(ies) or an elects ideas are hidden and kept unknown. There is no proof they ever got the info or gave it serious study.

==============

==============

==============

THE COMPLAINT MATTER AND SUBSTANCE

So the issues of the petition became a non issue and I was forced to defend the belief the petition right exists [as stated in bold above]; Because the courts refused to keep the docket open allowing any elect chance to reply. I informed numerous judges repeatedly (many recused without reason) that I believed the right to petition is one that informs the people of grievance's and remedy requests in detail. The right to petition is not only a constitutional right to complain to the government; Its a right to a public recording of the complaint that anyone in this representative government can look at allowing them to use that info to decide if the elect are in serious error and out of alignment with the will and principles of the people.

But repeatedly the judges ignored the question, finally the case was appealed. I put forth an argument and some documents of support. It was not definitive evidence, I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar. So the completeness of the assertion is unknown. But the argument did raise a question of law, and the American judiciary (every damn one) is bound to answer questions of law by their servants code. To do otherwise would mean the judges are tyrants who don't serve, but reign for life and serve only who they desire to.

Even though I presented a clear question of law, the three judge panel decided they would show just how disgustingly evil and politically perverted the judges can be.

The judicial panel of Patricia Millett ; Florence Y. Pan; Bradley N. Garcia

twice denied without reason or explanation of the question of law.

So I ask that all three be removed from the bench; and I am also contacting congress about it.

INSERT THE TEXT OF THE COMPLAINT SUMMARIZED AND ITS

THE FOLLOWING IS THE COMPLAINT (FOLLOWED BY A THOUGHT ON HOW TO PROVE AND PREVENT THIS TYPE OF UNJUST BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE):

The full complaint has been attached as the pdf sent to the judicial review board:

This complaint is submitted based on an unclear belief that judicial misconduct of bias of political, personal belief, 1st amendment retaliation or some similar conspired judicial acts occurred by the panel of judges who ruled on the case.

I must warn you to read the entire document thoroughly, do not go running off as the judges complained about did.

This is a matter of initial bias refusal to engage the QOL presented and at the panels second ruling their bias is undeniable. I intend to get as loud and be as unforgiving as legally possible and have yet to get active in the D.C. area, dont make a mistake that makes the judiciary look worse than these judges have done.

I have 5 questions I require you answer in addition to this complaint review. (If you are barred from answering or decline to answer and satisfy the questions; properly cite the laws and rules. So they can be challenged or petitioned.)

1. How long are judges required to keep the materials they use to make determinations in cases; materials such as lists of texts and cases reviewed and researched by the judges.

2. Can you provide theses materials, in this instance of a final ruling? (in their original format with metadata)

3. If not what prohibits you from doing so?

4. Can you provide the materials related to your investigation (all documents of research the judges created in their determination and all records of legal dockets and texts they requested and you review as part of this determination.)

(Since the matter is out of their jurisdiction there exists no issues I can perceive and supports ensuring a proper investigation is/was performed.) I ask these because I believe the panel gave an intentionally unresearched and malicious denial of the right as an act of conspiracy, that was misconduct.

5. If not what prohibits you from not acting dishonestly as these judges have, what safeguards and practices are in place to prevent you from doing these judges a favor and what evidence can you show to disprove statements that any lack of finding is not further judicial tyranny? Where showing your methods and work allows for a determination of your investigations adequacy in the determination.

This brings us to the question at hand and the complaint.

I question the extent of the panels work as bias in the following:

A.) Whether they gave a ruling as a malicious act absent performing proper research, if they can show no evidence of precedential findings or cases and information exchanged, but a proposed denial that the others willfully conspired to agree to. Error is clear and undeniable, all should be removed from the bench.

B.) Or if they had genuine grounds for their ruling and only acted maliciously in withholding the analysis and opinion and instead simply saying the law is what they say its is. The act also malicious denying me and the American people of proper review and any further questioning.

C.) Where three judges acting in unison absent showing the work and giving a ruling absent analysis on a QOL shows they were all temporarily disabled, and all acted in error is an explanation I am sure the people would love to see, (How three judges, being servants of the people were to tired or impaired to do their job and showed up to work to get paid any way. Their other work for those days also coming into question.)

What I believe they did was a cowardly deed in service to themselves. It constitutes a judicial eschewing of duty and a conspiracy to deny me the and the American people affirmations of rights and the public recordation the petition clause was historically designed to entitle and protect.

Where the bias presents is also in specifics of the panels ruling that dont equate to a valid ruling. they are as follows and you may find more instances:

D.) The panel in unison stating the opinion was not to be published. An affirmation their ruling a meritless act of bias.

The questions and pleadings of the appeal are docketed:

I asked the court what the law was regarding a right to file petitions to government entities and elect (specifically in this case several US elect) in the miscellaneous docket of the courts;

On February 24, 2026 they gave the empty unexplanatory ruling as follows:

"FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s June 17, 2025 order dismissing appellant’s complaint be affirmed. The district court did not err in treating appellant’s amended complaint – which was prepared using the district court’s civil complaint form, alleged injuries to appellant’s interests, and requested various forms of

injunctive relief – as a civil complaint. The district court correctly concluded that the complaint failed to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), because it did not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” or “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

[appellant] is entitled to relief.”

a.) This is simply an irrelevant statement that shows they did not read the appeal (clear triple disability or bias) where in the appeal I stated the intent but they ignored this statement

[Document #2149628 page 10 Lines 17-19: [" Doc.13 P. 5 L. 20-24 issue Z2.] and [Doc 21. P.1 L. 7-19]."]

These two citations both point to me directing the previous judges they mention as to where the document was a petition for grievances. Its generally irrelevant beyond the fact that it shows bias. (Where they affirm the judge was right to dismiss the case, where issue z2 of doc 13 clearly shows a petition that requested a response.)

But what is relevant is that in the appeal pleadings I bring the question of law.

USCA Case #25-5259 Document #2149628 page 9

"1. Does a person have the right to use the Nations courts dockets as a venue to facilitate communication with government, elect and officials for the purposes of redressing grievances, proposing legislation and actions; asking questions and for

debate of matters petitioned (Where the petitioned have no duty to reply), and the court has a duty to maintain an open docket and facilitate filing between parties to allow this form of 1st amendment petitioning and assembly (Where the parties have payed their filing fees). "

and go on to argue it, the validity of the argument irrelevant where the court

had a duty to say what the law is!

The duty is clear and the three refused that duty as one panel.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 137 (1803)

"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

But despite the clear question of law being asked. The actual ruling they gave is this single sentence:

Document #2160733 page 1-2

"To the extent that Mr. Woodall now argues that his filing was only a "request for communication and to debate the merit of the matters presented," this court's jurisdiction is constitutionally limited to actual "cases" or "controversies." U.S.

Const., Art. III, § 2."

There is not explanation of how the law applies; no statement as to why a petition to the government is not considered a case (or controversy); the reconsider motion expressly brought an argument showing the right of petition is akin to other

cases that dont have controversial matters determined. The work not done or not shown, now your duty to investigate if the work was not done or not shown.

The first ruling goes on to say:

"Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41."

Where the panel clearly improperly applied rule 36 is as follows:

" (A) with regard to a substantial issue it resolves, it is a case of first impression or the first case to present the issue in this court;"

If this was a novel case the court had no precedent and had to create it, to satisfy the Marbury duty.

"(G) it warrants publication in light of other factors that give it general public interest.".

The right to petition is an American right to public recordation that allows the American people to hold their government servants accountable and to give recognition to the ideas of the people, so that factions can not appropriate the works of the people in furtherance in political agendas that may not align with their own.

If any case is of general public interests, The American peoples right to instruct and debate and review their servants is of the most important matters. Therefor the ruling was improper by a panel who did not create precedent or recuse or direct this to the higher court. The decision to not publish shows a conspiracy to eschew duty and deprive of rights.

Since they gave that ruling I motioned for a reconsideration and en banc on March 16 and 25th of 2026; I argued a historical test and that a petition is a case but not a controversy and why I believe it to be so. Despite this the panel again refused to engage with the question of law. This is not simple judicial error its three judges in unison affirming their bias. The reason of the bias unknown, the known effect of their actions undeniable a denial without cause (if they and you cant show the reasoning it does not exist and that is judicial misconduct warranting legal and communal reactions). They decided to ignore the QOL. The panel response is nothing more than an empty affirmation of their first ruling on the 26th of Feb 2026. But it was no simple ignoring of a roughly argued pro se pleading it was acknowledged as a question of law, It is likely a novel or new constitutional question. Instead of recusing they refused to properly address the legal grounds of the QOL. They said it was not an Americans right to do so, and worse they said its not my right to be recognized and vindicated as first to bring question, secure the right and bring attention to the petition and

its matters. By stating the opinion should not be published, its evident the motive was political and bias.

CONCLUSION

The duty to explain the theory of their novel opinion is undeniable [by their rule] [ a 3 judge conspiracy to subvert the right in question or a refusal to perform their duty of explaining their opinions theory. A duty since before Marbury ]. The bald assertion without opinion is reaffirmed as intentional omission when they affirmed the improper opinion in their response to the reconsideration. Its clear and inexcusable political bias in a three judge panel act of conspiracy

[repeated] not an error of the clerks. It was done intentionally to deprive Me and the American people of our rights. The reason of the bias; a political motivated harm on the rights questioned and the matters of my petition and any petitions that will follow.

The acts demand removal from the bench for all three, if true. No matter the reason of bias; The bias is clear and demands correction. To correct this injustice I ask two things:

1. That this review board reverse and remand the case to either an en banc panel or to another panel. What the panel did was an unreconcilable act. Where clear bias exists a fair review is the courts duty. The only remedy is a proper determination of law and so you must find the precedent and power to correct their act of oppression or you further their injustice, If you find they did no research or fabricated an unfavorable ruling absent evidence then a statement of this finding should be attached to the docket and a rehearing is required to ensure correction.

2. I ask that you remove all three from the bench, If you decide anything less is warranted then I hope you intend to present evidence that shows why your determination was warranted.

Please contact me to confirm you have received this complaint and send a copy via email to ensure it reached you without any issues and in completeness. Failure to do so will result in repeat communication attempts by regular and novel ways not limited to community outreach.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Nicholas Woodall

771-241-4590

====

HERE IS THE PDF VERSION

REDACTO_Redacted.pdf

Download PDF • 3.52MB

======

THE FOLLOWING ARE THOUGHTS ON FUTURE CORRECTION AND PREVENTION OF THESE ACTS

========

FUTURE PRACTICE OF LAW AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT LAW IN THE MODERN AGE

This instance also reminded me of the absolute void of oversight the judiciary has.

Where it alone polices itself, and the void of integrity is affirmed in nearly every federal judge that seated. They can not be trusted to police themselves. I am still doing research to determine if a judicial complaints investigation materials must be produced on request (similar to discovery in any other civil matter,

Further than that, there is to my knowledge a mechanism of evil that has perpetuated the federal and state judiciaries to perform evils like opinions absent show of

the work they do. This is a fundamental issue, Where any case that creates precedent or applies precedent to address a novel or nuanced issue of law. Questionably every opinion should show not simply the opinion and the precedent and reasoning forming it.

The materials researched must also be shown so a review of the judges conclusion can be properly reviewed and any deviations from usual practice that show bias can be addressed. Further it allows a better education of the law when the opinion is accompanied by the materials (books, case law, evidence, etc.) used to form the opinion.

Without these the practice of the judiciary will continue as one of authoritarianism, subverting the rights of Americans representative government of the people and the social compact of government serving the people. The effect will be most often people you dont know and the day it happens to someone you care about.... You will realize you could have prevented it.