C. The March 28 / April 19, 2024 Chronological Fraud. The record before the district court includes documentary evidence establishing a chronological impossibility in the state court proceedings underlying Appellant's § 1983 claims. On March 28, 2024, Judge Anne C. Martin conducted an improper "bench trial" in Interpleader Case No. 23-0279-II and issued orders purporting to domesticate the California decree—while Appellant's Writ of Mandamus filed March 19, 2024 (TR Vol. 13-15, p. 2765) challenging Martin's authority remained pending and unaddressed. The legally required domestication hearing in the 3rd Circuit Court had been scheduled for April 19, 2024—twenty-two days after Judge Martin purported to act unilaterally. The record thus establishes that on March 28, 2024, Judge Martin, Maher, Bellamy, and co-defendant Adam Barber obtained orders they knew were procedurally premature: the required hearing had not yet occurred, federal removal petitions were on file, and multiple cases had been diverted to Judge Jackson. Conducting and obtaining court orders at a proceeding the participants knew preceded the legally required hearing by three weeks constitutes coordinated fraud upon the court, and forms one of the core bases of Case No. 3:24-CV-01430. TR Vol. 13-15, p. 2785. The district court's remand order does not address this evidence. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lc8QoSSV2lqkS2hH4W_8bOWvkoXs-iyp/view?usp=drivesdk Legal Knowledge: Vanderbilt Law school alum, corrupt AF Fairness & Impartiality: D. Magistrate Frensley's Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest. The remand order adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jeffery "Chip" Frensley. Appellant timely filed a Motion to Recuse Magistrate Frensley on February 20, 2026 (Doc. No. 16). Magistrate Frensley neither ruled on the recusal motion nor recused himself before issuing his recommendation. Judge Trauger adopted the recommendation without addressing the pending recusal motion. The following documented conflicts required mandatory disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b): • Dual Case Assignment Creating Direct Conflict: Magistrate Frensley was simultaneously assigned to Case No. 3:24-CV-01430—in which Judge Anne C. Martin is a named defendant— and to Case No. 3:25-cv-00616, in which the foundational state court order at issue was issued by Judge Martin. Frensley was thereby placed in the position of adjudicating removal and remand in a case whose entire jurisdictional predicate—the validity of Martin's Blakemore Order —was simultaneously before him in a case where he was overseeing proceedings against Martin as a defendant. • Harry Phillips American Inn of Court: Public records for the 2023-2024 term reflect that Magistrate Frensley served as an At-Large Executive Committee Member of the Harry Phillips American Inn of Court while Judge Anne C. Martin simultaneously served as its President. Shared organizational leadership between a named federal defendant and the magistrate adjudicating that defendant's conduct creates a disqualifying appearance of partiality under § 455(a). A reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would question Frensley's impartiality. • Vanderbilt Law School Alumni Affiliation: Both Magistrate Frensley (Class of 1995) and Judge Martin (Class of 1992) are Vanderbilt Law School alumni, providing an additional institutional layer compounding the Inn of Court conflict. Recusal is mandatory where "a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994). An adjudicator who holds organizational co- leadership with a named defendant while adjudicating matters implicating that defendant's judicial conduct cannot satisfy this standard. Frensley's failure to rule on the recusal motion before issuing his recommendation, and Judge Trauger's adoption of that recommendation without addressing the recusal motion, constitute independent grounds for reversal. See Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988).