Question not identified.

No question identified. : who are among my legal adversaries in this petition directly and/or indirectly enabled severe damage to 2 laptops of mine and the subsequent theft of one of them as the theft occurred between 8/24/24 and,8/25/24. That circumstance prejudicially sabotaged my ability to effectively prepare my petition io Sel of certiorari for this appeal. This is partly because relevant evidence and court decisions were stored on the hard drives of those laptops. Through their acts, omissions, and agents, those same legal adversaries also enabled me to be criminally repeatedly, viciously, and prejudicially assaulted partly on dates when I was working on preparing a legal filing for this Court about the underlying district court action that also is the subject of this petition. I will elaborate about that in my upcoming petition and that information further establishes that the Second Circuit’s 11/14/24 order was baseless, vexatious, and prejudicial. c. The Second Circuit issued relevant findings about whistleblower retaliation in its 2/10/25 decision in Murray v. UBS Sec., LLC, No. 20-4202(L)(2d Cir. Feb. 10, 2025) that I wish to properly incorporate in my pending petition or a writ of certiorari. Attached is a copy of the Second Circuit's 11/14/24 order that baselessly and prejudicially denied me leave to appeal in Komatsu v. City of New York,No. 24-1309 (2d Cir. Nov.14. 2024). That flagrantly violates this Court's decision in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1966) that points out that a) all judges are required to continuously and diligently exercise proper control of court and b) a new trial should_be ordered for a case if “publicity during the proceedings threatens the fairness of the trial". Respectfully, we ) /s/ Towaki Komatsu / C7 Towaki Komatsu Page 2 of 2