Whether the 9th Circuit Court had full jurisdiction of the appeal, having no notice of appeal filed by petitioner in the District Court until 1 year and 6 months later

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR THE HIGH COURT . e WHETHER THE 9™CIRCUIT COURT HAD FULL JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL, HAVING NO NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED By , PETITIONER IN THE Centra, DISTRICT COURT UNTIL 1 YEaR AND 6 MONTHS LATER, DECEMBER 7, 2020, AND THE CIRCUIT CouRT RULED ADVERSELY on DEcEMBER 10, 2020. ¢@ WHETHER THE 9™ CTRCUTT COURT COULD ASSTGN THE APPEAL 19-55905 WHTTEHEAD V. NETFLTX, ET AL., CASE PRTOR TO NoTTCE oF APPEAL / BETNG FTLED WITH THE DTSTRTCT COURT, MOUNTTNG TO FRAUD ON THE COURT AND CONFUSTON TNVOLVTNG A PRO SE LTTTGANT AND THE COURTS. e@ WHETHER THE 9™ CTRcUTT COURT COULD DECTDE ON MERTTS OF CASE AFTER THE NOTTCE OF APPEAL FTLED WITH DTSTRTCT COURT 1 YEAR AND 6 MONTHS LATER WITHOUT AFFORDING THE PRO SE LTTTGANT TO AMEND HTS PLEADTNGS, VACATTNG THE COURT’ S TATNTED EARLTER ORDERS OR ASSTGNING A NEW CASE NUMBER MOUNTTNG TO FRAUD ON THE COURT AND CONFUSTON TNVOLVTNG A PRO SE LTTTGANT. . e WHETHER THE 9™ CTRCUTT CoURT COULD CONSOLTDATE THE FRAUDALENT APPEAL 19-55905 WITH THE ORTGTNAL NOTTCE OF APPEAL FTLED WTTH THE DTSTRTCT COURT ON DECEMBER 7, 2020, WTTHOUT VACATTNG EARLTER ORDERS AND WITHOUT ASSTGNTNG A NEW CASE NUMBER TO THE ORTGTNAL FTLED NOTTCE OF APPEAL: DECEMBER 7, 2020. 3 e@ WHETHER DTSTRICT COURT AND MAGTSTRATE JUDGES SHOULD BE RECUSED DTSQUALTFTED FROM THE CASE DUE TO HAVTNG BOTH PECUNTARY TNTEREST TN COMCAST APPELLEE, JUDTCTAL BTAS AND PERSONAL BTAS AND INTEREST TN THTS CASE. 28 U.S.C. SECTION 455 A, Bl, B2, B3, B4. @ WHETHER THE MAGTSTRATE JUDGE FATLED TO RECUSE HTMSELF TN A TTMELY MANNER AFTER ADMTNG THAT HE WAS A PARTNER WTTH OPPOSTNG COUNSEL OF MSK LLP (MTTCHELL STLBERBERG & Knupp LLP). THE court (MAGTSTRATE ETCK) WAS ASSTGNED CASE WTTH CHTEF JUDGE CHRTSTTNA SNYDER AND THEN WITH JUDGE JOHN F. WALTER (RULING CourT) . @ WHETHER THE CTRCUTT COURT’S ACTS VTIOLATES THE PETONER’S CONSTTTUTTONAL RTGHTS TO FATR HEARTNG (5™ anp 14™) AMENDMENTS ) , LACKTNG JURTSDTCTTON OVER THE CASE WITH NO NOTTCE OF APPEAL FTLED TN THE LOWER COURT PRTOR TO DECEMBER 7, 2020. e@ WHETHER DTsTRTcT CourT JUDGE AND MAGTSTRATE JUDGES SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM HOLLYWOOD CASE HOLDTNG PECUNTARY TNTEREST TN Comcast AND AT&T APPELLEESAND HOLLYWOOD LENDERS. e WHETHER THE TEXAS JUDGES SHOULD HAVE RULED ON THEIR RECUSALS INSTEAD OF TRANSFER OF CASE TO CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT, HAVING NO WAIVERS. “Failure to comply with the procedural requirements for disclosure under section 455(e) for waiver of disqualification can result in reversal. In Barksdale v. Emerick, 853 F.2d 13859 (6th Cir. 1988). Further, section 455(e), the Sixth Circuit reversed, noting that “[t]here is no disclosure ‘on the 4 record and therefore no properly obtained ‘waiver.’ The court went on to say that section 455(e)’s disclosure and waiver requirements “must be strictly construed. See Id. Accord United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1538-39 (7th Cir. 1985) (disclosure must be on record). @ WHETHER THE PREFTLTNG COURT HAVTNG PECUNTARY TNTEREST TN THE PREVTOUS LTTTGATTON WHTCH TSSUED THE PREFTLTNG ORDER CAN PROHTBIT THTS CASE FROM GOTNG FORWARD ON THE MERTTS OF THE ALLEGATTONS AND CLATMS. IN OTHER WORDS, CAN THE JUDGE TSSUE A PREFTLTNG ORDER HAVE PECUNTARY TNTEREST WHTLE TSSUTNG THE PREFTLING ORDER. THE SAME JUDGE RECUSED HTMSELF TN THTS ACTTON REASSTGNED TO ANOTHER COURT HAVTNG PECUNTARY TNTEREST. ; 5 . II PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS AND