Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in dismissing the case involving product liability claims against Dow Defendants and jurisdiction over federal versus state law claims

REGARDING BANKRUPTCY 1. Whether a Bankruptcy Discharge, can Protect a Party,from Liability for Fraud ulent Acts that were Committed. Specifically* Concealment or Misrepresentation along with a Violation of Federal Law, Such as the “FDA ’S Prohibition on the Distribution of Liquid Injectable Silicone in the USA? REGARDING JURISDICTION 2. Whether the Appeals Court Erred in finding that this Case was Properly in Federal Court, given the U.S. Supreme Court*s Precedent Establishing that Claims of Product Liability are Subject to State Law Jurisdiction? 11 CourtProceedings Sol M. Leiner V. Dow Defendants & Orentreich Defendants New York Supreme Court, Queens County, Index No. 714443 / 2022 on July 12, 2022. Dow Defendants, Removed the Matter to the Federal Court, in the Eastern District of New York. Following a Conference, the Court Transfered The Dow Defendants to the United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, and the Qrentreich Defendants back to the original New York Supreme Court in Queens County on Dec. 06,2022. Sol M. Leiner V. Dow Defendants Case No. 22 -13 068 U.S. District Court Eastern District od Michigan Southern Division, Dismissed Case on Sept. 29,2028 United States Court of Appeals foPthe Sixth • CircUt, Case No. 23 -1913 Leiner V. Dow Defendants, The Court Affirmed the District Court Judgment on July 08,2024 Leiner V. Dow Defendants, United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, Leiner filed Petition for a Rehearing on July 17,2024, upon Considereation, the Panel Denied the Petition for a Rehearing on Aug. 13, 2824•‘-V. . 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner, Sol M. Leiner, Respectfully Petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to Review the Judgment 1 of the TJ.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. OPINIONS BELOW The Sixth Circuit, August 13,2024, Leiner v. Dow Inc* et al. Case No. 23 1013, Decision is Reproduced Regarding a denial for a Rehear ing The Sixth Circuit, July 08,2024, as App* 1. Leiner v. Dow Inc. et at Case No. 23 -1013, Decision is Reproduced Regarding Affitining the District Court ’s Denial as App. 2. The District Court ’s Denial in Leiner v. Dow Inc. et al. Case No. 2213058, Sept. 29,2023 is Reproduced as App. 3. 2 REGARDING RULE 14*5 Petitioner received letter from the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk dated Nov. 26,2024, stating that the Petition was Timely Received. However, the Petition was returned as per Buie 14.5, in order to Correct parts of the Petition. Petitioner was given 60 days from the date of the Clerks letter for the Sixth Circuit to Besubmit as per Rule 14.5 JURISDICTION The Sixth Circuit ’s order Denying the Petition for a Rehearing was entered August 13,2024. The Sixth Circuit order Affirmed the dismissal of the Case in its entirety, was entered July 08, * 2024. ■ . ■ ; / i This Court has Jurisdiction to review this case pursuant to 28 U.S. C. Section 1254 ( 1 ), which grants the Supreme Court the power to review judgments and decrees of the United States Court of Appeals, The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction, over Appeals from the United States District Court within its Circuit Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 3\ REGARDING RULE 14.1 (e ) ( v ) The Constitutionality of an act of Congress is drawn into question, therefore 28 U.S.C. Section 2403 ( a ) may apply. Petitioner has Served a Copy of his Petition on the Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5616, Dept, of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Wash ington D.C. 20530-0001. Petitioner has no knowledge that any Court Certified to the Attorney General that the Constitutionality of an Act of Congress was drawn into question. The Constitutionality of a Statute of any State that May apply to 28 U.S.C. Section 2403 ( b ). Therefore, Petitioner has served the Attorney General of New York State with a copy of his Petition. Petitioner has no knowledge that any Court Certified to the State Attorney General that the Constitutionality of a Statute of the