When there is no authority for the preparation of an opinion by the attorney for either side, should the Court of Appeals have applied the 'clearly-erroneous' Rule 52(a) standard?

No question identified. : : , \A-\osQ Lo [ EAD. Pa Mv, WH W-94204 ) . INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES a . CARL SONY Rob Nef pETITIONER ; (Your Name) . \iweent Noa tY etolk, ~ RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO a \ared hued Court 0 Wepeds Coe Whe Tard, Cie (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE) "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI . | Copel Robinson . : (Your Name) : a , © Rot WoZeo-Roo-d . | (Address) . . ‘(City, State, Zip Code) oo (Phone Number) . . . 1 This case presents the question when there's no authority in the Federal Court's that countenances the preparation of the opinion by the attorney for either side, should've the Court of | Appeals apprehended and applied the "clearly-erroneous" Rule . 52 (a) standard when this type of error occurred ? : 2 Whether an order from the Superior Court, that showed and . proved that petitioner had exhausted his remedies in the lower court, contradict lawyers preliminary response, compelling the. trial judge to provide the framework for a suppemental response a from respondents, the court then adopting that response . verbatim as their own, furtherly hindering petitioner from objecting to report & recommendation, by not sending it in time ~ for petitioner to respond within the thirty days? ,