Whether the Supreme Court should establish minimum standards for digital video authentication and admissibility in judicial proceedings to prevent potential evidentiary bias and ensure reliability of surveillance footage

1, Whether an applicant is entitled to all-writs relief preserving the status quo when lower courts admit or rely on digital video without minimal authenticity showings under Rule 901 and adequate safeguards against unfair prejudice under Rule 403. In the alternative, no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET), Thursday, October 16, 2025.” 2. Whether courts must require administrable minimums for digital video authentication—(a) pre-/post-export cryptographic hashes, (b) an Edit Decision List (EDL) or equivalent log for every alteration, (c) and continuity verification, and (d) export chain admitting edited or enhanced video. 3. Whether courts should apply process-level bias-mitigation (e.g., LSU-E with documented unmasking and blinded review) to avoid the bias cascade that can occur from narrative-driven selection — export — enhancement > presentation. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and Supreme Court Rule 20, to issue orders “in aid of” its jurisdiction and to preserve the status quo pending the filing and consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND TIMELINESS This Application is timely and necessary to protect the Court’s prospective jurisdiction. On September 30, 2025, the Essex County Court ordered Petitioner to “appear in court on October 20, 2025 or submit a request for extension.” On that date, Petitioner expressly requested a written order; chambers subsequently indicated “no need to appear.” The notice by email then reflected October 20, 2025 as a “controlled date only,” i.e., no appearance absent a further written order. Nevertheless, the matter is now moving toward reliance on edited/enhanced surveillance video without a Rule 901 foundation or Rule 403 guardrails. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on June 30, 2025, and it was docketed on September 17, 2025, well within the time permitted by Supreme Court Rule 13. Absent temporary relief, the October 20, 2025 controlled date—and associated reliance on disputed video—will irreparably alter the status quo, risk tainting the record with unauthenticated and potentially misleading exhibits, and frustrate this Court’s ability to grant meaningful relief on certiorari. The requested, narrowly tailored all-writs relief preserves the status quo and prevents mootness or practical defeat of the Court’s jurisdiction pending certiorari review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Sup. Ct. R. 20, 22; cf. FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603-05 (1966); United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172-75 (1977). BACKGROUND 1. The Disputed Video: The case turns on multi-camera surveillance footage that has been excerpted and enhanced. The lower tribunals accepted edited clips without complete provenance or integrity showings: no end-to-end hashing, incomplete or absent edit logs, unclear export methods and tool versions, and unresolved questions. [Third Circuit (Case No. 24-1448 ) ECF # 43-