Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the District Court to conduct a new trial in the JW Case

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit styled Klayman v. Rao et al., 21-cv-2473 (D.D.C.) (the “Rao Case”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”), and subsequently appealed that case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”), (the “Rao Appeal”), to remedy totally egregious errors that occurred in a separate case styled Klayman v. Judicial Watch Inc. et al., 1:06-cv-670 (D.D.C.) (the “JW Case”) and its appeal Klayman v. Judicial Watch Inc. et al., 19-7105 (D.C. Cir.) (the “JW Appeal”). The Rao Case and appeal sought to obtain injunctive relief and an order mandating that (1) the D.C. Circuit conduct a bona fide review of the record in the JW Case and JW Appeal and (2) a new trial of the JW Case. Thus, the Rao Case necessarily named as Defendants the judges of the D.C. Circuit, as well as judges in the District Court related to the JW Case. The question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the District Court to conduct a new trial in the JW Case?