Whether district court orders denied petitioner's Civil RICO rights,

Questions Presented Rule 14.1(a) 1. Whether district court orders dedicate any section of the opinion(s) to deny petitioner’s Civil RICO 18 U.S.C. 1961-1964, in the verified complaint, Jury Demanded, U.S. Const., Seventh Amend., right to a trial by jury; and the RICO complaint to proceed to trial court; Whether predicate acts of Civil RICO allowed for use in respondents counterclaims copyright infringement have be denied and collaterally estopped, since it received a final decision in a prior action. 2. Whether when “Fraud Upon the Court” exists on a Civil RICO complaint pursuant to 18 US.C 1961-1964, by the Officers of both the ; appellate and district court, the Judge, the clerks and the licensed attorney, would all orders be vitiated in favor of the injured party ; violations obstruction of justice and document tampering; US. Const., First Amendment. 3. Whether the district court judge issued orders repeatedly in this case using a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), intentionally, violating the petitioners U.S. Const. Fifth and Fourteenth amend., for due process, when the judge violated the Final Judgment Act Rule that limits him to a final judgment; after a first use, of the Final Judgment Act & Interlocutory Appeal 28 U.S.C. 1291-1292(b) to destroy the merits of Civil RICO 18 U.S.C. to create a manifest of injustice that : would be so difficult to unravel, the review courts would not be able to determine the true merits of this case. 4, Whether the appellate and district court violate petitioners U.S. Constitution First, Fifth lt and Fourteenth Amendments, by allowing the respondents to file an injunction into the district ; court, using an all writs act, out of time and illegal, during the appellate jurisdiction over the case, while judges status was pending on issues in the appellate court for abuse of discretion and “fraud upon the court”, or any rulings for adjudication Civil RICO 18 U.S.C. 1961-1964 claims. , 5. Whether restricting petitioner’s ability to freely participate in proceedings before pretrial actions, demonstrate a prohibited violation of petitioner’s access to the federal courts and freedom of speech, the ability to freely execute simple motions and pleadings requiring permission and restricting, a violation of the U.S. Constitution First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendment, causing undue burden of costs associated with filings that only affect petitioners’ Civil rights and liberties when it is petitioners that initiated complaint. 6. Whether the appellate court erred when they affirmed the prior appellate case 17-14866 as the law-of-the-doctrine of the case on a final set of orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331; a. whether the abuse of discretion on | Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), discovery , perjury, document tampering, dismissal of judge, subject matter jurisdiction and “fraud upon the Court” were avoided in appellate order(s), failing adjudication of petitioners issues, yet allowing a review of the entire district court record, when respondent’s abandoned those arguments, the appellate court abandoned adjudication, and erroneously stated petitioners abandoned arguments on appeal, : Ill what was before them to make _ the determination; and b. Whether petitioners issues are clearly outlined in their “notice or amended notice of appeal”, reply brief(s), with references to laws of citations and district court arguments asserted, . but somehow it is possible that petitioners actual appeal brief(s) in both cases 17-14866 and 1813553 are missing all citations, whether it is evident the court removed those citations of authorities; 7. Whether respondents’ counterclaims for the same claims in a prior case and in the same case are collaterally estopped and res judicata on issues of copyright infringement as a defense in an unrelated case for Civil RICO claim(s); a. Whether the defense is also estopped and inter alia, res judicata, pursuant to Civil RICO, anti-trust act actions never heard or decided any cou