Whether the failure of the District Court to appoint a federal monitor or special master to review the matter was error

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) Whether the failure of the District Court to ap: point a federal monitor, or special master to review the matter was error. 2) Whether the District Court’s failure to inform and put petitioner on notice, that it intended to undertake a sua sponte summary review of issues presented, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to formally rebut or reply to the res : judicata issue, constituted a violation of due pro. cess, and was an abuse of discretion, authority and a violation of the First Amendment and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances. 3) Whether the failure of the District Court to recognize that in failing to read or comprehend the sur; vey maps and metes and bounds descriptions within the subject title deed presented, it also : : failed to recognize that the matters pertained to , two separate and distinct parcels of land, and that the Court’s unilateral confusion was an error, in . which it proceeded to summarily dismiss the petition. 4) Whether the District Court’s continued failure to further comprehend that its reliance on the 1997 . Queens County Court Decision by Judge David . Goldstein, addressing an adjoining property tract : involving an adverse possession and abandon; ment claim, resulted in its unconstitutional misapplication of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 5) Whether the District Court’s error included the failure to recognize that the disposal of the underlying private property claim was not inherently ii ; QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued dispositive of the other issues presented in the pe; : tition, and was an unconstitutional preemption. 6) Whether the District Court’s complete failure to : review that part of the petition for pre-action ; relief, included an application to prescribe a pro: tective order, including measures to safeguard : against expected anticipated harassment, threats, intimidation, menacing and violent reprisal, was a matter under the Court’s legitimate jurisdiction, ° and that its, failure was a preemption of those , Constitutional rights articulated within the Petition before it. 7) Whether the District Court’s failure to review or refer the Second Amendment and HellerMcDonald cases presented, and those involving ; the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. N.Y.S. . and N.Y.P.D., was error. 8) Whether the Second Circuit’s failure and refusal ; to upload the underlying petition into the Courts . E.C.F. System, maliciously intended to avoid and evade further review on the merits, and thereby ; _ compounded the error, together with those of the . District Court. . . : : . 9) Whether the facts and circumstances described in 7 the underlying April 9, 2018 pre-action petition, together with the errors of New York’s Federal Courts, requires this Supreme Court to undertake a review, and consider the need to recognize, acknowledge and proscribe measures that pertain to the issue dealing with an individual right to iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued self-defense, contains the Constitutional implica_ tion under the Supremacy Clause, that a national ; right to keep and bear arms exists, superior | New York’s unconstitutionally narrow licensing | scheme. 10) Whether the failure of the District Court and Second Circuit were unconstitutional attempts to suppress this petition and manipulate this Court’s own review standards pertaining to the aforementioned inter-related Second Amendment matter, that was granted Certiorari on January 22, 2019 and was captioned as New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. New York and N.Y.P.D. Licensing. 11) Whether this Court’s Jurisprudence would be best ; served by granting the Petitioner the opportunity and leave to draft and serve an enlarged brief on this Second Amendment issue, previously presented in the underlying application. 12) Whether the District Court and Second Circuit further unconstitutionally ignored matters raising questions as to whether the failure of New Yor