Question not identified.

No question identified. : Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ies tecan sya ysvinn uggs soestpann ps 1 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 371, 1001, 1512, 1519 6 Rules FED.R.CIV.P. 56 FED.R.CIV.P. 60 ii To the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Pursuant to this Court’s Rules 13.5, 22, 30.2 and 30.3, Petitioner, Jack Jordan, respectfully requests that the time to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari be extended 30 days, up to and including November 17, 2023 or such time as this Court decides is appropriate. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its judgment and opinion on April 11, 2023. A timely-filed petition for rehearing en banc was denied on July 20, 2023. Absent an extension of time, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari will be due on October 18, 2023. This Court will have jurisdiction over the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). This Application is unopposed. Petitioner repeatedly requested a statement from the Office of the Solicitor General regarding whether this Application would be opposed. No opposition was indicated and no objection was asserted. Petitioner is and has been working alone to prepare his Petition. Petitioner also is and has been working alone regarding a disciplinary matter before this Court that is closely related to his Petition. As addressed below, not until October 2 did this Court issue a decision in the disciplinary matter. Such decision will affect Petitioner’s statement of the reason for granting his Petition. But Petitioner is overseas at this time and he will remain overseas until October 11. So until October 11 Petitioner will not receive from this Court any statement or analysis potentially supporting the October 2 decision. Petitioner needs and requests additional time to consider how to address (in his Petition) this Court’s October 2 decision. Petitioner believes that with their October 2 decision (and a June 5 decision), Justices of this Court knowingly violated Petitioner’s rights secured by federal law and the Constitution (and flouted many strong decisions of this Court construing and applying the Constitution) to retaliate against Petitioner for his petitions exposing and opposing the criminal misconduct of judges who knowingly illegally concealed and helped conceal evidence that is the subject of the impending Petition. Petitioner also believes that Justices of this Court are engaging in such conduct to help conceal (in knowing violation of Petitioner’s rights secured by federal law and the Constitution) the evidence that is the subject of the impending Petition. Both matters (the impending Petition and the disciplinary matter) pertain to decisions by Judge Contreras (D.D.C.) and D.C. Circuit judges to illegally and unconstitutionally conceal or help conceal particular evidence dispositive of many federal court and agency proceedings. Judge Contreras (D.D.C.) and attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) knowingly violated Petitioner’s rights secured by federal law and the Constitution to conceal evidence that judges and agency attorneys lied and deceived about the content of evidence that DOJ attorneys sent to Judge Contreras for in camera review. Judge Contreras and agency attorneys also used their own inadmissible hearsay to pretend to substantiate their own lies about (and to knowingly abuse so-called summary judgment to conceal evidence of) words that many agency attorneys represented that Darin Powers included in an email dated July 30, 2013 (“Powers’ email’). D.C. Circuit judges knowingly violated Petitioner’s rights secured by federal law and the Constitution to help conceal particular parts of Powers’ email. See Section I, below. So did this Court’s Justices in the disciplinary proceedings. See Section II, below. I. Subject of Impending Petition. Judge Contreras personally represented (and repeatedly granted summary judgment for the governme