Do the issues presented constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a Writ of Mandamus?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Do the issues presented below constitute exceptional circumstances that there are no other means to get adequate relief that warrants this Court to exercise its discretion to grant a Writ of Mandamus? 2. Do Congressional policies that a judge has a ; paramount duty to decide and that there must be a meaningful appellate review for each appeal underlying 28 U.S.C.§455, 15 U.S.C. §29 and 28 U.S.C. §2109 as held by this Court in United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) require this Petition, in lack of quorum, has not yet had an appellate review for already the second round of appeal, be certified to be transferred to an impartial senior judge at the Court of Appeal in Second Circuit with instruction that this senior neutral judge follows the specific procedure designed by the Congress to empanel an impartial panel as stated in United States v. District Court of Southern New York (App.7-10) when Petitioner’s : motion to change place of appeal (ECF 1922201 . &ECF1920120) and motion to transfer all dispositive motions to Second Court of Appeal (ECF1922459) filed in No.21-5210 appeal at the DC Circuit were all uncontested by any and all 67 Appellees? 3. Is {2 of 28 U.S.C.§2109 inapplicable to this Petition because the appeal has had no review on the merits? 4. Do the 216 felonies of alterations of records, concealment of filing, and recent false notices to block access to Supreme Court were done by three courts in D.C. since August 2017 (App.207 through 228, App.152-17) including 111 felonies (84 felonies of the Supreme Court, 20 of Judge Rudolph Contreras, 7 felonies of DC Circuit in 19-524) which had already been tacitly admitted to by all tt in Appeal No.21-5210 proceeding for at least 20 times, justify reversal of all orders of the DC Circuit in Appeal No.21-5210 and Appeal No.19-5014, and USDC for D.C.’s orders of 8/30/2021 and 1/17/2019, with leave to amend the complaint (ECF 16) to include all new felonies occurred after ECF16? 5. Has this Court violated the due process and First amendment in blocking filings of Motion for : Judicial Notice and Application to Justice Amy Coney Barrett with false notices in Petition 22-28 and failed to enter into the docket about not accepted for filing? 6. Is 8/30/2021 Order of U.S.D.C. for the D.C. an abuse of discretion as it willfully failed to decide any and all issues raised by Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion and motion to change venue, which include, but not limited to, the undisputed conspiracies of the ; Justices of this Court in not to decide 11 matters (9 requests for recusal and 2 Amicus Curiae motions), in purging the Amicus Curiae Motion of the Mothers of Lost Children from Docket 18-569, one of the 11 undecided matters, and in forging order/judgment in 20-524 proceeding (an adverse inference from the undisputed facts that the order and judgment were taken off from the docket three times), where Chief Justice appeared to participate in mail interception of Petitioner’s mail of Petition for Rehearing, in rush filing of 1/15/2021 judgment with knowledge that Petition for Rehearing was to arrive, concealing filings of a Motion for Judicial Notice, Petition for Rehearing, Second Request for Recusal, Motion to file Petition for Rehearing? 7. Shall all orders of the District Court of the underlying case (i.e., Shao v. Roberts, et al., 1:18-cv01233) be invalidated as void, as Judge Rudolph Contreras and Chief Judge of the U.S.D.C.(App.178 ili 179) for the D.C. willfully violated 28 expressly stated this in Notice of Motion in ECF161) in refusing to recuse but denying Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion and motion to change venue, without ruling on any issues for Rule 60(b) motion(ECF 161-1), which included felonies of the courts in all level, including his own undisputed felonies of altering the docket entries of 6/5/2018, 6/11/2018 and 7/24/2018’s two minutes orders (Shao v. Roberts, et al., 1:18-cv-01233RC), which is evidence of his ex parte communications with