Whether the district court erred in its rulings on the motions for reconsideration, leave to file a supplemental complaint, and appointment of a guardian ad litem

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; The affirmative answer to the following questions constitutes the proof that both US Courts have drastically departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in a case that is of national and global importance. THE “INSTANT CASE” ON REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO RULE ON THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM. 2002-2011 1. Whether the court erred when it adjudged that “The district court’s May 27, 2009, and July 23, 2009, orders are not properly before the court, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to them.” 2. Whether the court erred when it adjudged that “The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motions for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).”, and: ii ° “Appellant’s motions for reconsideration raised no new arguments concerning the appointment, and the district court could not have granted a Rule 60(b) motion on grounds that this court had already rejected. Moreover, appellant’s allegations do not satisfy any of the specific criteria for relief in Rule 60(b) (1)-(5), or present “extraordinary circumstances” that would entitle her to relief under Rule 60(b) (6). 3. Whether the court erred when it adjudged that “Appellant has shown no error in the district court’s denial of her motion for leave to file a response to the question whether a guardian ad lithem should be appointed, as she received an opportunity to speak at a hearing on the issue, and the proffered response appears to have consisted of material that was either irrelevant to the issue at hand or legally unsound.” 4, Whether the court erred when it adjudged that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, or her motion for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of leave to file a supplemental complaint as of right.”, and “Because the guardian has been given the authority to “assist [appellant]’s counsel with prosecuting this case in Ms. Sturdza’s best interests,” appellant cannot. unilaterally decide to file a supplemental complaint.” 5. Whether a party has the right to fire his or her Lawyer, enter Pro-se representation, file in Court important meritorious information, and correct the Court Record, his or her Lawyer refused to do. 6. Whether the Courts can declare a party “incompetent person”, and a “client with diminished capacity” only because the party wants to correct the Court Record. 7. Whether the courts drastically departed from their normal procedure when the US District Court, violating all the Laws governing the Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem, appointed the Guardian to a person who is not an infant, an incompetent, or a disabled, and does not fit any description of actions taken for which a Guardian should be appointed under law, and the US iti , Court of Appeals, violating the same laws, Su