Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Oakland Circuit court to retain jurisdiction of case or/to remand the case to the district court without delay

QUESTION PRESENTED This case was before the United States District Court on a writ of “Supervisory Control.” The Court held that Petitioners’ lawsuit challenging the Defendant's acts of fraud and misrepresentation defendants was dismissed in summary Judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the district court’s order. The question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Oakland Circuit court to retain jurisdiction of case or/to remand the case to the district court without delay. Awrit of mandamus is needed to compel Oakland County Court, a lower court to retain jurisdiction of Petitioner’s claim and MCL 600.1629(d)(2) , states that a change of ; venue can be used to have the case transferred to Oakland County, whereas, the Petitioner, request the Circuit Court to reserve her right to cure her claim to file a change of venue. Petitioner understands that Writs of mandamus are not routine, but, the writ of mandamus is necessary because the traditional appeals process didn’t and wouldn't work, because of the Defendant’s fraud and no other legal relief, or solution to the problem, can be available which is why an order for a writ of mandamus is requested to be considered. The writ of mandamus is the last resort from all other options to resolve the situation legally that have been attempted and not applicable and a United States | Supreme judge is necessary to considers granting a writ of mandamus and mitigation the risk of a serious injustice which will occur and will continue to occur, if action is not taken. The writ of mandamus’ order from this court to Oakland County Court, Wayne County Third Circuit and Wayne County, ordering the courts and Wayne County government official to properly fulfill their official duties and to correct an abuse of | discretion. (See, e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court For D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 | | | ii (2004) 334 F. "...used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance." The Petitioner has no alternative means of seeking review under the Defendant's acts of fraud upon the lower courts, including United States District Court. The All Writs Act gave the "Supreme Court authority to issue writs of mandamus "in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."Further, 28 U.S. Code § 1361 gave federal district courts "original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."That the Defendant’s tort and fraud played significant role in enforcing Jurisdiction to Oakland County Court. The Petitioner objective is to secure trial by the common law method of a jury in order to achieve common law resolution of issues. The Petitioner have a clear right to relief, that there is an undisputed duty on the lower court, that there is no adequate remedy at law; that I asked the lower court act first To compel Third Circuit courtand Wayne County Clerk’s Office to provide accurate court record to Oakland Circuit court. The Supreme Court via writ to direct, Wayne County, to perform the legal duties to use correct court records, which it has refused to perform. Third Circuit and the Wayne County government to the performance of a legal duty, how abused its discretion and where the petitioner has no other remedy. The legal right of the Petitioner has been infringed. The infringement of the petitioner's right(s) has been infringed due to, inaccurate maintain records, nonperformance of statutory ministerial duty by the Defendants. iii The Petitioner is arguing that Third Circuit Court and Wayne County Clerk’s office failed to perform his duty or exceeded his authority in such a way that the Supreme court must immediately intervene to direct Third Circuit Court and Wayne County Clerk's office to correct its conduct. Petitioner prove that she has a clear right to the relief requested; 2) defendant has a