1. Harmful Inflation:

a) Is there a difference between “economic derived inflation” and “purposefully reckless derived inflation”, with the first being a “generalized grievance”, and the second being “a claim upon which relief can be granted”?

b) Is the harm of Inflation particularized since tabulating everyone’s percent of paycheck used to pay new price increases would show that Inflation disproportionately affects the Working Class, while at the same time, due to increased interest rates and being able to raise rents on everyone else, Inflation increases the wealth of Rich People?

2. Traceable to the DNC and RNC:

If Inflation is due to out-of-control money printing, which is due to an exponential National Debt, which is due to reckless spending, which is due to the Politicians not working together to create Laws preventing reckless spending, which is due to their unwillingness to work together out of fear of losing their jobs if they do, which is due to the DNC and RNC monitoring Congressional votes and cutting support of the Politicians who “cross the isle”, then…

Can the harm of Inflation very “likely” be traced to the DNC and RNC?

1

21 U.S.C. § 846 makes it a crime to “conspire[] to commit any offense defined in this subchapter.” Prosecutors frequently seek to prove a § 846 violation— as they did in this case—by proving that the defendants conspired to violate 21 U.S.C. § 841, which makes it a federal crime, “[e|xcept as authorized|[,|…for any person knowingly or intentionally … to manufacture, distribute, or dispense … a controlled substance.” 84 Stat. 1260, 21 U.S. C. § 841(a).

A core tenet of conspiracy law is that “the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the elements of the substantive crimes constituting the objects of the charged conspiracy” is a “serious error.” United States v. Martinez, 496 F.2d 664, 669 (5th Cir. 1974); accord United States v. Alghazoult, 517 F.3d 1179, 1189 (9th Cir. 2008). And in the Fourth and Tenth Circuits that is the rule for § 846 conspiracies. They hold that a § 846 conviction on a § 841 theory requires the jury to be correctly instructed as to the elements required to violate § 841. But the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits do not require that.

In the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the fourth time, refused to hold that a person cannot be convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 846 for conspiring to violate § 841 unless the jury is correctly instructed as to the elements of § 841. Judge Jordan concurred. Eleventh Circuit precedent required him to vote to affirm, he explained, but “writing on a clean slate” he “would find the Tenth Circuit’s contrary decision in United States v. Kahn, 58 F.4th 1308, 13811 (10th Cir. 2023), more persuasive.”

The question presented is:

Whether, in a § 846 prosecution for conspiracy to violate $841, a trial court errs if it fails to correctly instruct the jury on the elements of the § 841 offense.

(i)

Question 1: Whether under the Eighth Amendment as applied to the states via the

Fourteenth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits the

continued incarceration of juvenile offenders who have demonstrated sufficient

maturity and rehabilitation as described by this Court in Graham _v. Florida, 130 |

S.Ct. 2011 (2010) and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) when provided

their meaningful opportunity for release?

Question 2: Whether under Florida’s law implementing Graham and Miller juvenile | offender review, does a trial court violate the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and | Unusual Punishments Clause as understood in Graham and Miller when the court is presented evidence of the juvenile’s maturity and rehabilitation but does not

modify the juvenile’s sentence to allow for release? | Question 3: Whether under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, did Petitioner ~ present sufficient evidence establishing his maturity, rehabilitation, and fitness to

re-enter society when provided a meaningful opportunity as understood in Graham

and Miller?

: This request is a matter of why the 3-judge panel did address what was implied by a pro se on to

| | Appellate Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 79 on not directing the DC Circuit’s Past-Clerk of the Court to docket Pro Se’s timely window-filed brief.

The question presented is whether a writ of | certiorari should issue directing the D.C. Circuit to | | error correct what was Pro Se Petitioner’s depository- | | box timely filed July 22, 2024 brief to be added to the

United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s official docket on PACER.

1. Did the Respondents working under the color of the law exhibit abuse in power &/or retaliate, discriminate against Petitioner’s Federal Constitutional Rights of Ist, &/or 14th Amendment Right’s including Due Process, &/or violate Federal Laws & Statutes such as, but not limited to: ADA disability, Equal Protection of the law &/or Section 704 (a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1988, : infringed against Petitioner at any time as a Respondents employee &/or as an academic student from 2013 to present?

2. Is a graduate, faculty nursing student who qualifies and receives Federal financial aid &/or academic financial employment support approved to earn higher nursing degrees academically while being employed by the state, and approved by Respondents to receive academic ADA accommodations, considered by The Higher Court as protected property &/or a liberty interest?

3. Did the Respondents violate Petitioner’s qualified, approved ADA disability by neglecting to provide Petitioner with requests for approved ADA accommodations in 2018?

4. Does the Petitioner’s Federal Civil Rights Case meet the Higher Courts definition, “Absurd” in extraordinary circumstances to meet the requirements to evoke ‘Judicial Authority’ to prevent a miscarriage of justice to be able to investigate extraordinary circumstances, where an | extraordinary prayer of relief may be warranted where a failed state system can be proven to have violated Federal Constitutional Rights &/or Federal Laws?

5. Did the Respondents commit fraud &/or show bad faith having Petitioner sign a confidentiality agreement in 2018 & within two-months of being asked to resign violate Federal laws dismissing from academic studies without cause or warning, without Due Process, as well as violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exhibiting post-employment retaliation?

. | i

1. Whether the Second Amendment lets the federal government prohibit people, including Mr. Mayfield, from possessing any firearms for life based only on any past felony conviction.

2. Whether Mr. Mayfield’s Sixth Amendment fair trial and due process rights were violated when the district court required his attorney to cooperate with the government to the “maximum extent possible’ or start trial on “very bad footing” with the court.

II. Question Presented Is Act 451 of 1976-THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE, in part, unconstitutional and in violation of Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights, Equal Protection rights, Economic Liberty rights, Personal Property rights, and a nine (9) month Contractual Obligation, when and where the statute is applied through a new calendar?

III. Question Presented | Do the actions of Michigan’s Department of Education, or any officials in positions appointed by the Department of Education, violate Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, when offering school districts waivers to bypass state law (school start date), for more than eighteen years, while creating and financially supporting new calendars, that take and convert a public-school employee’s (Petitioner’s), time and earnings, for the state’s own use, based on Act 451 of 1976- The Revised School Code?

1