Whether Petitioner has a Right for direct appeal to this court?

No question identified. : 1 ISSUE(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: 2 1. Whether Petitioner has a Right for direct appeal to this court? ~—3 2. Whether on-going defaults from the clerk-caused the court to err ? 4 3. Whether conspiracies § 241 from clerk(s) caused Mag. judge Michael Harvey to become a de facto officer-subject to the provisions of 5 § 636(c); denying-statutory Right(s) for Article III adjudication ? 6 4. Whether conspiracies § 241 of judge Contreras and Michael Harvey7 deny petitioner Due Process Rights, by-impeding access to the court ? 8 5. Whether the Hon. Court should issue Writ of Mandamus directing 9 the D.C. court to transfer case Calderon Lopez V. Saul, No. CV1901851 KBJ for want of jurisdiction § 1637’; and expedite-C.F.R. 10 404.1592(b)’ reinstatement of benefits. 11 12 13 1§1631. Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction: . Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an 14 appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, 15 if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, 1 and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to 6 which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred. 17 2§ 404.1592b.: 18 The expedited reinstatement provision provides you another option for regaining entitlement to benefits when we previously terminated your entitlement to disability 19 benefits due to your work activity. The expedited reinstatement provision provides the option of requesting that your prior entitlement to disability benefits be reinstated, 20 rather than filing a new application for a new period of entitlement. Also see §§ 404.1592(c)(a); 404.316(a). a1 900 Brentwood Road, N.E. Writ of Mandamus in aid General Delivery of Appellate Jurisdiction 22 Washington, D.C. 20090-9 S8.C., Rule 20.1 Page 2 of 45 1 HONORABLE SUPREME COURT: 2 Per Rule 20.1°, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 16514 & 262° of the Fed. Judicial 3 Code the Pro Se’ petitioner in the above action-respectfully moves the Honorable 4 Supreme Court of the United States, filing writ of Mandamus-seeking its appellate 5 jurisdiction; caused by on-going conduct from Fed personnel 28 U.S.C. § 2671(1)6 establishing personal policies See Schweiker V. Chlicky, 4587 U.S. 412, 108 S.Ct. 7 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988)-depriving petitioner of protected-Const. Right(s) 8 42 US.C. § 1983. Cheney V. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004). 9 10 5Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ: 1. Issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized by 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a) is i1 not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot 12 be obtained in any other form or from any other court. 13 *§1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs 14 necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. See Stern v. South Chester Tube Co., 390 U.S. 606 45 (1968). 16 5The broad power conferred upon the federal courts by § 262 of the Judicial Code includes the power to issue a writ of mandamus either in exercise of appellate 17 jurisdiction or in aid of appellate jurisdiction. See United States v. District Court, 334 US. 258 (1948). 18 Courts should treat Pro Se litigants more favorably than parties represented by lawyers, 19 regarding the standard applied to their pleadings. See e.g. Hianes, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); providing more latitude in their pleadings-not holding them to the rigid 20 standards an