Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in determining that it had authority to deny respondents' strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) motion for failure to comply with applicable rules of court?

Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should have clearly warned of sanctions to come explicitly in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11, for failure to prosecute and no deadlines for default?

Whether the respondents' failure to answer a Ninth Circuit Court order has prejudiced petitioner's lowered opportunity to prosecute his action, which should strongly favor an action of default?

Whether respondents' strategic SLAPP court to carry and deny Carvel obligation and a court will conclude that respondents' strategic SLAPP action admitted to prejudice Correa's allegations?

Whether Correa has pursued his rights diligently, obtaining a timely action as directed by the court, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and respondent's conduct at all, allegedly prevent petitioner Correa from obtaining a timely action through these temporary circumstances of default?

Whether petitioner is bound, WALLA, SACL September 1, 2004 for a judgment from the Ninth Circuit Court for his motion not respondents' failed to file a primary back Rule 11 A.B. question to Victor Ale held (in Appendix-C)?

Whether respondents' strategic SLAPP deliberately failed to answer petitioner's civil grand no. AAA from 149 order, demonstrating strategic, Eastern District Florida verdicts and Ninth Circuit Court order, that it is so for some haven't respondents will fail to answer the United States Supreme Court?

Whether petitioner Correa's claim should have been ruled in his favor, as the valid Florida long, AAO?

Whether respondents' Snakes, et al. manipulated courts into case chemical and victimally failed to prosecute without an appeal?

Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly denied petitioner's timely action and prejudiced petitioner's legal claims through procedural manipulation