1. Whether the Clerk of the Supreme Court properly rejected a petition for certiorari before judgment requiring the removal of references to "Rule 11/before judgment " while a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc remained pending in the lower court of appeals, and whether it was proper to reject the same petition for alleged noncompliance with Rule 39 formatting, notwithstanding that the substance and structure of the petitioners declaration complied with Rule 39.

2. Whether the Clerk of the Supreme Court properly rejected a petition for certiorari because the petitioner, appearing pro se, sought to represent both himself individually and his living trust, despite the Court of Appeals ' acceptance of that dual representation.

3. Whether the Clerk of the Supreme Court properly rejected a USB flash drive containing contemporaneously evidence of extraordinary circumstances directly related to systematic violations of the petitioner 's constitutionally protected rights, solely because the Court 's rules make no provision for filing digital media.

4. Whether the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651), authorizes federal appellate courts to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition to state courts in extraordinary circumstances involving systematic violations of federal constitutional rights when no other adequate remedy exists.

5. Whether a Court of Appeals Clerk has the authority to unilaterally reject a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition directed at state-court judges without judicial review, based solely on the clerk's determination that the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, or whether such jurisdictional determinations must be made by a judge after the petition is properly docketed.

6. Whether the Younger abstention doctrine applies when state-court proceedings have concluded but federal courts erroneously determine they are ongoing.

7. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal claims that challenge the constitutionality of state court procedures rather than the substance of state-court judgments.

8. Whether a state-court judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction by failing to follow statutory in rem procedures (specifically C.R.S. § 38-35-114) when issuing an ownership decree against a nonrecord titleholder, especially when the record titleholder and its beneficiaries were not parties to the underlying litigation; and, if such an absence of jurisdiction is found, whether judicial immunity bars a damages claim against the judge.

9. Whether judicial immunity bars claims for prospective injunctive relief against a state-court judge who has systematically violated the Petitioner 's constitutional rights.

Whether the Clerk of the Supreme Court properly rejected petitions for certiorari based on procedural deficiencies and formatting noncompliance, and whether federal appellate courts have authority under the All Writs Act to issue writs of mandamus against state courts, and whether judicial immunity bars claims for constitutional violations and prospective injunctive relief