Whether the district court erred in excessively delaying the case, engaging in discriminatory conduct, and refusing to recognize the corporate structure

No question identified. : 1 ISSUE(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: 2 I. In Aid of its Appellate Jurisdiction, this Hon. Court is empowered to 3 Compel the District Court to decide excessively delayed cases. 4 II. Appellate Review has been futile; on-going discriminatory conduct 5 from Courts in the State of California-refuse to follow regulation or 6 case law; thus, maintaining the Corp. fiction for personal reason(s). 7 Ill. On-going Prejudice from the Central District Court-refuses to 8 recognize advances of the Corporate structure; therefore, it erred; 9 engaging in-Reversible error. 10 .||IV. The Office of the Clerk at the U.S. Supreme 11 did not follow regulation 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Infringing Petitioner Rights12 denying its Writ of Certiorari on harmless Error-immaterial principle 13 || V. The Office of the clerk-failed to follow regulation; not docketing 14 petitioner-timely emergency application to Stay the courts Mandate 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 900 Brentwood Road, NE. Petition for Writ of Mandamus . General Delivery in Aid of Appellate Jurisdiction 22 Washington, D.C. 20090-9 Page 2 of 44 1 HONORABLE SUPREME COURT: 2 Per Rule 21.1' & pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§§ 1651(a)’; 1631° & 2111‘ the 3 Pro Se petitioner, in the above captioned action-moves the Hon. Supreme Court of 4 the United States, seeking writ of Mandamus in Aid of its Appellate jurisdiction, 5 caused by on-going un-Constitutional conduct; prejudice from the central district 6 court of C.A.-establishing personal policies See Schweiker V. Chlicky, 4587 U.S. 7 412 (1988); denying Constitutional Rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 8 See Cheney V. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) 9 1Rule 21. Motions to the Court: 10 1. Every motion to the Court shall clearly state its purpose and the facts on which it is based and may present legal argument in support thereof. 1 281651. Writs: (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs 12 necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. Stern V. South Chester Tube Co., 390 U.S. 606 (1968); 13 Taylor V. Social Sec. Admin. , 842 F.2d 232, 233 (9" Cir.1988). 14 3§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 15 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, 16 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. 17 ‘Rule 61. Harmless Error. Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence—or any 18 other error by the court or a party—is ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. At 19 every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s substantial rights. On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in 20 any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 21 . 900 Brentwood Road, N.E. Petition for Writ of Mandamus 22 General Delivery in Aid of Appellate Jurisdiction Washington, D.C. 20090-9 Page 3 of 44