Question not identified.

No question identified. : NOTICE TO THE COURT According to a COMPLAINT of PERJURY a quorum in the above named COURT OF APPEALS has misused the construction, standing, and effect of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the NEW TRIAL rule, as may have relevance to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(d), the fraud on the court rule, as may have preliminary order of timeliness defined under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4; Rule 59 was intentionally misused to prevent the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals from learning the ins and outs of Judicial Fraud claims from civil plaintiffs for the first time in the history of the United States Courts. The PLAINTIFF now attempts extraordinary action in the DISTRICT COURT and seeks an extension of time to file on the extraordinary terms of U.S. SUPR. CT. R. 30. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 1. GIVEN there are ninety days from 7/10/28 to file a Notice of Appeal on a petition for Writ of Certiorari under U.S.Supr.Ct.R.13.1. 2. GIVEN 90 Days will have expired the time to file on 10/09/23, the first Monday after the weekend, a petition for REHEARING was terminated 7/10/23.1 3. We make this petition holding these are indeed the most extraordinary circumstances; the lower courts have, we have demonstrated it, and intend to demonstrate here, built a complex seditious resolution which targets the right of any PLAINTIFF to petition for review of the Constitutionality of a State Law. 1See APPX at 016. 4. That is, we have demonstrated on record there are repeated PERJURIES at fraud on the court, and that in this instance where we attempted to clarify everything, defining Judicial Malpractice, codified misconduct, and false declarations in the official transactions judges in the lower courts first made false claims of Judicial Immunity, and then made false RULE 59 limitations which kept them from reviewing the JUSTICIABILITY of the court’s holding under RULE 60(d). 5. We took the time to petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for review of the plausible CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, that is the panel’s treatment was inordinate and looked like CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS and CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES. 6. I sent a petition into the CLERK, and the CLERK there lost the petition; they misconstrued it as vexatious and attempted to accuse me of misbehaving, refusing to recognize the Petition and the letter Thad sent by mail as they had instructed me to. 7. Later, after mailing, and after several weeks in July and August of trying to gain there attention on this matter which concerns CIVIL RIGHTS I finally spoke with Leslie Fathallah in the Circuit Executive’s Office who disavowed knowledge of CONTEMPT authority in the TENTH CIRCUIT, generally. 8. Fathallah also informed me the Contempt complaint had been filed as a Behavioral Misconduct complaint, a 28 U.S. § 351 complaint which does not bear standing when a false declaration is made on the merits of the case. 9. I asked her to return the filing with an explanation of why and how the court had elected not evaluate circumstances of CRIMINAL CONTEMPT by its own membership. 10. She returned to me NOT the Contempt Petition, but a followup letter I had mailed asking more or less what the court had done with the filing. 11. My pursuit of that object precipitated the Chief Deputy Clerk, Jane Castro to not only ignore my questions,” but also to issue the Court’s MANDATE over a month after the PANEL had made the issue in question.3 2 Id. 012-014. 3 Id. 010. 12. Timely appeal was thereby delayed for at least one month while the court’s CLERK refused to recognize an EMERGENCY PETITION that there was repeated intentional fraud on the court, and that it was bad for everyone involved. 138. Once it was obvious the Plaintiff could have no venue to access TENTH CIRCUIT contempt jurisdiction, a circumstance we allege is an extrajudicial assessment over a litigable claim, we applied for DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE C