Whether Petitioner is entitled to intervene

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether Petitioner is entitled to intervene as of right and permissively in this litigation; and denial of the general public’s right of access to judicial proceedings is improper under the Common Law, the Constitution, this Court’s precedent, federal statutes and rules. Il. When is inadequate representation found, or whether for example this Court should also reconsider the New York Times v. Sullivan “actual malice standard” as sufficient to show media bias is inadequate representation; or whether foreign headquartered media intervenors have greater Constitutional rights than American Citizens; or whether the Court taking judicial notice that the Government or Court colluded to leak sealed and classified information to certain Media or the media publishing false information is a sufficient showing of inadequacy. TI. Whether a Court of Appeals can dismiss an of appeal swa sponte when the Court admits it has jurisdiction over the underlying docketed matter; or whether a second (amended) notice of appeal perfected Petitioner’s appeal as of right and permissively as to all claims disposed of or ignored by a district court, or magistrate judge’s paperless orders. IV. Whether an appeal can be immediately taken “directly” to a United States Court of Appeals from a magistrate “decision” denying motion to intervene and motion to intervene to appeal; when for example: Special Counsel ii unconstitutionally fails to follow DOJ guidelines and seeks and other intervenors consent to a non-Article III magistrate instead of an Article III district court judge; other parties consented to the magistrate conducting the court proceedings; no district court judge being assigned to supervise the magistrate; and the magistrate acted upon a Rule 72 Objection Motion instead of a district court judge that the motion was addressed to. V. What is the scope of authority of a magistrate judge, and whether magistrate recusal is required when a magistrate exceeds his authority to “intercept” a Rule 72 motion to an Article III judge; and a motion for judge recusal was properly before a magistrate, or whether in the alternative a Court of Appeals is required to review a refusal to recuse for plain error. VI. Whether a motion to intervene to unseal court records is a criminal or civil matter. VII. Whether Special Counsel has legal standing to oppose an appeal of a denial of a motion to intervene when it did not oppose the motion in the district court. VIII. Whether Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review. IX. Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund ofa second docket fee required to be paid by the District court in the same case on appeal. X. Under the circumstances, should all court records be unsealed and unredacted in the underlying litigation. INTERESTED PARTIES All parties to the Eleventh Circuit proceedings appear in the caption of the case. A list of other interested parties that only participated in the district court are reproduced at Pet. App. A 24-25.