Whether courts below relitigated issues of disability, legitimate termination, and medical advice contrary to collateral estoppel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | | : i Whether, in contravention to collateral estoppel | | doctrine, courts below relitigated, inter alia, issues of: (1) whether pro se litigant Roseman was disabled at the . | time of employer -FCA’s November 21, 2018 termination of his employment; (2) whether FCA’s November 21, . 2018 termination of Roseman was legitimate; aind (3) . whether Roseman’s continued absence, in the purview of applicable laws,:adequately buttressed by medical , advice when FCA terminated him on or about November | 21, 2018 such that this Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory role to correct error. Whether federal ruling below is contrary to | . . Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because district court below ruled that image depicting . Roseman, the Petitioner in this writ, in possession of a . | firearm was sufficient grounds for his employer to, among other things, terminate him? . 7 Whether, in the aggregate, proceedings of federal _ | courts below upheld “less stringent standards” tradition | pertaining to pro se litigants? Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. J 520 (1971). Whether, particularly given the rulings of | Michigan judges, Roseman showed a strong likelihood of . success on the merits of his claims such that injunctive. . | relief Roseman sought was meritorious but erroneously : denied? . , Whether, in contemplations of all pertinent and reasonably available facts, it may be found: that, in this . , case the outcomes of the proceedings of federal courts | below are of adequate importance to persons not party . to this case; and, that, rendered outcomes are so far out . i : of bounds that this Supreme Court should exercise its ; : supervisory role? '.