Should this case be allowed to conflict with federal and state cases on nonparty intervention

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIOARI | Issues on Appeal . 1. Should this case be allowed to conflict with both federal and state cases which hold that a nonparty cannot intervene in a case without adherence to FRCP 24 or corresponding state rules, and now, on the basis of this case, can any nonparty start filing papers in a case at will? 2. Should this case establish a new rule that it now OK to intervene in a case after it has been dismissed? \ , 3. In the Supreme Court’s own words, has the court of last resort “so far departed ; from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power”? , | 4. Specifically, does the lack of due process and equal protection of the laws, in . . derogation of the appellant’s right to access to the court, raise a federal question that merits certiorari: A. Because this case upends a long tradition of federal and state cases which hold that issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. (As an unauthorized intervenor and an admitted nonparty, Crowell & Owens has asserted claims which were never part.of the original litigation.) ° B. Because there was a rush to judgment before contrary evidence was ; considered—namely, that the factual basis of the Order of Abandonment was | 2 spurious? C. Because the trial court refused to follow the statutory process by which the ; appellant could rule the appellee into court to show why the Order of ) Abandonment should not be set aside.! (Here and below superscripts denote endnotes.) D. Because the trial court misconstrued or ignored supplemental . records that should have been dispositive? E. Because the court below failed to follow binding precedents about a defense-oriented waiver of abandonment? F. Because for succession cases there is a statutory exemption to | abandonment when discovery has been served on all parties, and, as result of ; unresolved discovery, when undue restraint on the appellant implicates the doctrine of non contra valentem? ; | G. Because both the appellee’s former and current counsels were allowed to remain contumacious before the alleged period of abandonment. H. Because other orders of the court were never enforced, including an award of sanctions and attorney’s fees issued before the alleged period of abandonment? I. Because there is a consensus of Louisiana courts that, alone, intent to hasten the case to judgment is sufficient to prevent abandonment?4 | | J. Because the appellee and her two sets of counsels have gotten away : ; not only with contumaciousness, but with fraud and insult to the Civil Code far worse than the technical infraction of which the appellant, however unjustly, was accused? . K. Because, as for the above reasons, there was undeniable evidence of the appellee’s ill practices within the definition of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure 2004(A) (“A final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices may | be annulled”)? L. Because a Supervisory Writ should have been issued that would have left no doubt about the foregoing? M. Because the foregoing facts, especially in combination with each other, are so | unusual that an alternative explanation for them must be considered as well: discrimination against the appellant on the basis of his pro se status and/or age? . ;