Does the filing submitted by the petitioner(s) serve as a functional equivalent to an informal brief?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) DOES THE FILING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONE(S) UNDER CASE 20-7073 FILED BEFORE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SERVES AS A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT TO AN INFORMAL BRIEF ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT oF THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER MOTIONED 70 HAVE IT CONSTRUED as SUCH? (2) DOES THE ORDER UNDER CASE 21-6275 DENYING THE MOTTON TO STAY FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE ALLOWING THE PETITIONER(S) IN CASE 21-6275 TO APPEAL It DUE TO WHAT IS ARGUED WITHIN THIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIOARI AND WHERE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IF IT SO DESIRED COULD HEAR ALL THESE MATTERS IN THEIR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION? (3) DUE TO THE EGREGIOUS ACTS OF SPOLIATION OF THE INITIAL PLEADING THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO COMPROMISE THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ITSELF VIA VARIOUS EMPLOYEES AND MS. WALKER, TO PUSH THE PETITIONERS PAST THE (90) DAY TIME PERIOD FOR FILING, VIOLATING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE, SHOULD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT GRANT THIS PETITION VIA SANCTIONS AND OR TO IN FUNDAMENTAL a Ir . FAIRNESS TO THE PETITIONERS, LEVEL THE EVIDENTIARY AND OR JUDICIAL PLAYING FIELD TO ADDRESS THE INJUSTICES THAT HAVE. Now OCCURRED? . . , Iti