1. Whether an entity not legally authorized to exist in
a jurisdiction possesses the First Amendment right to
petition tribunals in that jurisdiction —a prerequisite
inherent in the Noerr-Pennington doctrine that no
court has articulated because no case previously
raised it.

2. Whether a clerk 's 143-day refusal to perform the
mandatory ministerial duty prescribed by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(a) —"the clerk must enter the party 's default "—
warrants mandamus relief, and whether an appellate
court may deny such relief by recharacterizing the
requested entry of default as a request for default
judgment.

3. Whether the proceedings below so far departed
from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court 's
supervisory power, where: (a) the district court
granted a motion its own published policies required
it to deny, after defendants admitted violating the
mandatory prerequisite for filing it; (b) the district
court prejudged a pending mandamus petition in a
footnote to the case-dispositive opinion; and (c) the
appellate court 's opinion mischaracterized the relief
sought, contradicted its own factual recitation, and
selectively engaged with a supplemental filing while
ignoring the documented facts it contained.

Whether an entity not legally authorized to exist in a jurisdiction possesses the First Amendment right to petition tribunals in that jurisdiction under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, whether a clerk's refusal to perform the mandatory ministerial duty to enter default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) warrants mandamus relief, and whether proceedings departed from accepted judicial procedures warranting supervisory power