Whether a federal court can prohibit pro se representation in a civil case when the plaintiff has demonstrated prior ability to represent themselves, and whether appellate courts have discretion to review potential fraud upon the court in transcript preparation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; 1. Whether any U.S. Federal Court, could prohibit an adult plaintiff from pro se representation in a civil case, when he/she has demonstrated the ability to do so, when he/she has done so in the past or when he/she decides to do so? 2. — Whether the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals (CA), erred by denying the right to Pro SE representation in the District Court (DC), requested in the Motion (Document 44, 3/7/24) of the appeal case (No.: 23-12413)? 3. Whether any U.S. Court of Appeals, has the power and should use its discretion and power at any time, during a civil case for civil rights violations, or during the appeal of an order or a judgment in such case, to take appropriate actions upon receiving a denounce from the of the likelihood that fraud upon the court have been committed, either by a court reporter or by a lawyer, paid by the Defendants, because they have provided the Plaintiffs and the courts with transcripts in which did not appear many of the declarations of the Plaintiffs made © during their depositions and cross-examinations, in which were omitted many parts that affected the Defendants’ arguments and case, and that the Plaintiffs could not. specify in an “errata sheet” all the portions omitted, and “the Defendants did not fix the problem” after various orders of the DC to do it, which “only prejudiced and affected” the Plaintiffs, when they could not use those same transcripts to support their claims, to support their response to the motion for summary judgment and to support their statements during a bench trial. il And whether, should the CA order the DC to direct Defendants’ counsel to provide the Plaintiffs, the DC and the CA with copies of each Zoom recording of the depositions and cross-examinations, pursuant the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3), so that, the Plaintiffs can compare the submitted transcripts with the Zoom recordings before the Plaintiffs draft and file their Brief in the CA? 4. — Whether the CA, erred by denying the Motion (Document 45, 3/7/24) of the appeal case (No.: 23-12413)? 5. Whether any U.S. Federal Court has the power and discretion at any time during a civil case, pursuant the Canon 3B (6) of the Code of Conduct for U. S. Judges, to take appropriate actions, upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood, that a judicial employee’s conduct contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct? 6. Whether the CA, has the power and discretion, at any time during the appeal of the case (No.: 23-12413), to order to the DC, to provide the CA with the original color papers filed by the in the DC, as part of the record on appeal, when our motion (Document 55, 3/18/24) WAS UNOPPOSSED by the and whether, also should provide them, pursuant the FRAP 10(a)(1), the FRAP 10(e), FRAP 10(e)(3) and FRAP 11(e)? iii 7. Whether the CA, erred by denying the Motion (Document 56, 3/18/24)? 8. — Whether the CA, erred by telling that they could be sanctioned for submitting frivolous filings, without filing an opinion in which the court specified which filing they considered frivolous and without explaining how the court reached that conclusion ?