As, I, the pro se Plaintiff-Appellant pointed out in my First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) and in my Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) two (2) different scenes in 'Rosemary's Baby the Miniseries' in which my pages, in my view, of my actual written expression can be seen on the screen, could it be possible that the Court of Appeals Judges and the District Judge overlooked these two frames (each one appearing for about one second) when they watched the 'Miniseries' and : concurred in their decision to dismiss my action? Should not a jury made up of reasonable lay observers be allowed to view these frames ~ not by watching the ; 'Miniseries' twenty-six (26). times as I have — but at least once, attentively?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. As, I, the pro se Plaintiff-Appellant pointed out in my First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) and in my Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) two (2) different scenes in “Rosemary's Baby the Miniseries” in which my pages, in my view, of my actual written expression can be seen on the screen, could it be possible that the Court of Appeals Judges and the District Judge overlooked these two frames (each one appearing for about one second) when they watched the “Miniseries” and : concurred in their decision to dismiss my action? Should not a jury made up of reasonable lay observers be allowed to view these frames ~ not by watching the ; “Miniseries” twenty-six (26). times as I have — but at least once, attentively?” IL. Is the affirming by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second: District, in its Summary Order dated November 12, 2020 concerning the U.S. District Court’s (SDNY) granting Defendant Cinestar Pictures’ Motion to dismiss my, the pro se Plaintiff. Appellant’s, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT considered to be fair and just legal procedure, when Cinestar Pictures failed to serve me its Motion to dismiss? Ill. Is it fair and just legal procedure for the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, to affirm the District Court’s and Judge Broderick’s inaccurate statements in . Document 76 and Document 89 — made to justify his dismissal of my SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 51) — that he had used such limiting words as “only” and “for the limited purposes of” in the court’s leave for me to amend, when he had not used those words therein? : (Continued) e\ IV. If Judge Broderick deemed my SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT to be defective when I submitted it on April 18, 2018, was it fair of him to wait until . June 2, 2019 to dismiss it ‘more than one year — and never having ordered me to cure it during that time? V. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, err when it affirmed the U.S. District Court’s Order to dismiss seven (7) Defendants in this case based on the district court’s inaccurate claim that I, the failed to provide the Court with service information for certain Defendants? Because the said seven 5 Re ¥ Defendants were not served, should they not have been dismissed without . prejudice? . VI. Did the Court of Appeals, Second circuit err when it confirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the foreign Defendant Liaison Films with prejudice in this action when Judge Broderick had formerly written that he would consider permitting me, the Plaintiff, more time to summon the said foreign Defendant should I write to him in detail of my efforts to summon that foreign Defendant, which I did? , iii