Whether a writ of certiorari is appropriate when a district court denies any other form of meaningful access other than in-person for scheduled hearings to a foreign adversary

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. This case is important for the future of meaningful access to the United States courts for indigent persons and in line with modern technology via video conferencing which was extensively used during the COVID pandemic. On September 12, 2023 (post COVID guidelines) the Judicial Conference revised the policy to expand remote audio access over its pre-covid policy. . “The new policy will go into effect on September 22, 2023 immediately after the expiration of the temporary exemption ...the exemption allowed judges to permit audio access to any civil or bankruptcy proceedings during and after the pandemic. This case was heard in the district court during the pandemic and therefore further strengthens the case for video conferencing at the time of the temporary exemption. “Decisions in which the courts usurp the authority of the people are not merely incorrect; they are themselves unconstitutional. And they are unjust” (Robert George. McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence.) When this case was brought before the court of appeals a three judge panel agreed to hear the appeal citing non frivolous issues such as exculpatory evidence in favor of the plaintiff which was not ruled on by the district judge. The questions presented are as follow: 1. Whether a writ of certiorari is appropriate when a district court denies any other form of meaningful access other than in-person for scheduled hearings to a foreign adversary. 2. Whether certiorari is appropriate to correct the appeals courts failure to acknowledge that recusal was appropriate when a district judge only offered restrictive access to his court for indigent participants. 3. Whether a writ of certiorari is required when the three judge panel in the appeals court, had just days before reversed and remanded a case for excusable neglect by the samc district judge for closing a case when the plaintiff did not appcar at his scheduled conference.