Whether the Supreme Court finds it appropriate by law, The United States Constitution and Federal Rule 60 to VACATE all attached federal orders in case No. 20-15343 and No. 5:19-cv-06973 due to violations of petitioners First Amendment Rights, which reflects VACATED orders by Honorable Magistrate Nathanael Cousins and denied petitioners Rights under 28 U.S.C.§ 636 (c)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ii 1. Whether the Supreme Court finds it appropriate by law, The United States Constitution and Federal Rule 60 to VACATE all attached federal orders in case No. 20-15343 and No. 5:19-cv-06973 due to violations of petitioners First Amendment Rights, which reflects VACATED orders by Honorable Magistrate Nathanael Cousins and denied petitioners Rights under 28 U.S.C.§ 636 ©. Note: Petitioner overnighted a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court one day . prior to any knowledge of a Mandate order in this case, Writ submitted by United States mail date of November 30, 2020, and resubmitted on December 19, 2020 to date per court clerks request. 2. Whether the California District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Intentionally and willfully deprived petitioner of all Rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242, denying Equal Protections under the law while ignoring a pattern over ten years of multiple Federal offenses and Constitutional violations by all Respondents with new case law by an Honorable Ohio Sixth Circuit Court judge. . 3. Whether the California Courts failed to acknowledge multiple violations of No Due Process by holding petitioner against petitioners will under a false bench warrant concerning Petitioners home contract against an irrevolcable Binding Arbitration award ~ , while failing to offer petitioner Procedural Due Process from October 2019 to date, nor any resolve or assistance, as petitioner is a victim of assault and financial abuse. 4. Whether petitioner was intentionally denied a trial by jury against petitioners Sixth Amendment Right. 5. Whether the District Court judge and the Ninth Circuit judge’s intentionally retracted Petitioners Forma Properous in retaliation for filing an appeal, vilified petitioner in court Orders stating petitioner filed a frivolous complaint and a matficous litigant while ruling In error of Rooker Feldman Doctrine on speculation, not Federal law or Constitutional Violations with no hearing against petitioners Right to be heard under The United States Constitution. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED CONTINUED 6. Whether this Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organization Act case involving Wiretapping and multiple Federal crimes should have been taken seriously by the California District Court and The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 7. Whether the California courts intentionally ignored Mortgage fraud and violated public trust laws in this case.