Whether the Federal District Court improperly denied Pro Se litigant's ECF notification privileges and jurisdiction to enforce trade agreement past arbitration clause

1. Plaintiff submits agreement to the court that was used to set the Counter claim for the defendant... The plaintiff notes in the order from the judge that she sites information contained in the agreement all aspects except the part of the agreement for arbitration; part 13. Plaintiff contends that the defendant has been allowed “double jeopardy ”. If the agreement has an arbitration clause the court is ignoring the demand and agreement for arbitration and has commenced proceedings using self-serving excerpts from the Arbitration and Confidentiality agreement. Judge Lewis never made reference to the arbitration clause on the first page and section 13.5. Plaintiff ask if the district court has jurisdiction to enforce the trade agreement past the arbitration clause that was agreed upon and signed prior to any dispute. 2. The plaintiff would like to present a question of jurisdiction. In Order USCA4: 23-1147 Doc ii 41 the appeals court denied review of appeal 23-1147 due to lack of jurisdiction and on the “Cumulative Finality Doctrine ”. Is it applicable, as the appeal was filed in last resort and the orders did not change? The plaintiff summitted appeals and a request for recusal but was denied with no notification from the court for more than the last 8-10 submissions the court never addresses the plaintiffs motions other than denial. All were denied. 3. The Federal District Court in Columbia South Carolina does not allow “Pro Se” litigants to use the ECF System for Electronic Filing Privileges. The mail from Columbia SC to Rock Hill SC has to pass several cities and sometimes can take as much as 6-7 days. The court allows 3 days for delivery of USPS mail. Are Pro Se litigants with Pacer accounts prejudiced as the opposing council received correspondence from the court instantly, sometimes 6 days prior to the pro se litigant waiting to receive the USPS mail especially during holiday season.. Is it prejudicial for the court to deny Pro Se Litigants ECF notification privileges if they are a party in a case in the Federal District Court of Columbia South Carolina and hable for Sanctions if they don ’t get the mail? 4. Is it prejudicial for the Federal District Court to ignore pleadings from Pro Se Litigants and not acknowledge the submission to answers to pleadings as if they were never submitted? Is it fair to require Pro Se Litigants to have to repeat the same pleadings over and over because the court is ignoring the submission of pleadings due to Pro Se Status? Plaintiff ask as the court refuses to acknowledge the plaintiff motion to show cause without return but allows the defendant leniency and favoritism always, and always says yes to whatever they ask. Plaintiff ask if it is favoritism because of the prior work history and because Judge Childs is a Legal Partner to Nexsen Pruett? Is the relationship between Judge Childs and Nicole Mergo from Nexsen Pruett 9 years causing problems with favoritism and prejudice? Both Trained and worked together at Nexsen Pruett with overlapping tenures in the same exact office in Columbia?? 5. Is a violation of the plaintiffs Civil Rights under “Color of Law ” and of civil procedure Rule 37(e) to collusively hide a plaintiffs pleadings and evidence from the Public and the court through over sealing and concealing submitted evidence? In this case the plaintiffs educational and invention history and so much more information is “sealed ” as the court almost erase the plaintiffs whole “heart of the case ” by sealing everything it seems. All the education and accomplishments at the company were concealed so Judge Lewis never mentioned anything positive about the plaintiff in her final Order and has shown she hates the plaintiff without merit making V disparaging statements that were not true about the plaintiff in her order. 6. 3D Systems brought a counter-claim regarding trade violation and trade secret violation lawsuit against the plaintiff. The confidentiality and arbitration agreement wa