Whether Petitioner's case relating to Federal Judge violating the subpoena issue allows him to by-pass the appellate process to petition the Supreme Court directly, citing Marbury v. Madison, 1803

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Petitioner’s case relating to Federal Judge : violating the subpoena issue allows him to by-pass the appellate process to petition the Supreme Court directly, citing Marbury v. Madison, 1803. 2. Whether Circuit Court improperly denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration to by-pass Appellate process to petition the Supreme Court directly citing Marbury v. Madison, 1803, and conflicts. 3. Whether Federal District Court Judge a possible material witness failure to appear after the court was properly served with valid subpoena relating to material questions on witnesses reaches the height of Marbury v. Madison, 1803. 4. Whether Jurists presiding on the case having pecuniary interest violates the federal statutes by denying access . to court. 28 U.S.C. Section 455 as amended. ; 5. Whether the court District Judge was influenced and had prior knowledge via witnesses (Senator Patrick Leahy and others) on decision to strike complaint and dismiss the case. 6. Whether the Judges presiding on the petitioner’s case to unseal government’s investigation abused their discretion having judicial bias and pecuniary interest and possibly part to the 100 Judges investigation. 7. Whether District Court Judge and Circuit Judges abused their discretion denying motion to unseal Government’s investigation, recusal, stay, seizure of the . alleged stolen copyrights when jurists are possibly part to the investigation. 8. Whether Judge should have honored valid subpoena. 9. Whether Circuit Judge abused discretion denying to order Netflix to state whether there was solicitation of the petitioner’s 30 film proposal. 10. Whether the District Court Judge abused his discretion striking the complaint, denying his recusal, denying stay and denying unsealing the federal investigation having pecuniary interest and bias. 11. Whether there was intentional tortious inference in potential contract in this case based on the ongoing Justice Department’s investigation. _ 12. Whether there was undue influence of the court’s decisions and or potential undue influence of the courts tied to material witnesses and Government’s investigation. 13. Whether the District Court Judge Drell violated petitioner’s civil rights denying him a right to sue Netflix, possibly having financial interest. Judge Drell in related case of the same petitioner in re: Whitehead v. Caddo Parish, et al., 17CR-00306 stated he did not own any financial interest in the pending case 17cv225 Whitehead v. Netflix, et al. Judge Drell issued the statement, “The undersigned Chief Judge has NO interest in, is not related to, and has no conflict of interest concerning Travelers Insurance Company nor in the so called “Hollywood studios and lenders.” 14. Whether the District Court Judge held petitioner to the standards of a lawyer drafting complaint when the court stated Attorney Alan Pesnell did not file complaint on his behalf. : 15. Whether dismissal of appeal was proper even though ; court denied motion to by-pass appellant process to petition Supreme Court directly citing Marbury v. Madison, 1803, and various noted conflicts. 16.Whether Judge Paul L. Friedman had prior knowledge of petitioner relating to his employment involving Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton violating the statutes. 17. Whether Judge Dee D. Drell had prior knowledge of ; case stemming from witnesses tied to subpoena matters. 18. Whether District Court Judge had immunity relating to subpoena issue. 19. Whether District Court Judge having conflicts abused his discretion by striking complaint, dismissing case, : and denied leave to amend complaint and to set aside judgment pursuant to Rule 60 (b) as amended.