Whether the judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in intentionally laching upon their obligations of 'work product protection' under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 10, 14 §1 and Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502, through estoppel, to acknowledge the absence of disclosed prevalent information (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), thereby, forcefully inducing a waiver of PLAINTIFF's rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. U.S. Censt. Am: 5, 10 (recordkeeping), 14 §1; Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a): a. Under the “Fairness,” “Extrajudicial Partial Disclosure,’ and “Implied Subject Matter’ doctrines Gncluding the “Exhaustion” doctrine; see DARBY v. CISNEROS, 509 U.S. 187 (1993), “exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review”), did the judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (within WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock No. 19-1392) err by intentionally laching upon their obligations of “work product protection” (154 Cong. Rec. 18,016 (2008)), under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 10, 14 §1 and Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502, through estoppel, to acknowledge the absence of disclosed prevalent information (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), thereby, forcefully inducing a waiver of PLATNTIFFs’ rights (worthy of sanctions), as exceptional circumstances, which PLAINTIFF previously made numerous attempts to resolve (from previously claimed estoppel offenses against the District Court (gee WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., under the Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine), yet whose attempts were denied, within the trials of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-39(2"4 Cir, Ct.) and WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-240(2"4 Cir. Ct.)? 2. U.S. Const. Am. 10; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a): a. Ifa PLAINTIFF has made numerous attempts to cure clerical filings of both the District and Appellate courts, gone ignored and/or lached (under U.S. Const. Am. 10; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), should “In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 1987)’ (gee