Whether the failure of the District Court to appoint a federal monitor, or special master to review the matter was error.

Whether the District Court's failure to inform and put petitioner on notice, that it intended to undertake a sua sponte summary review of issues presented, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to formally rebut or reply to the res judicata issue, constituted a violation of due process, and was an abuse of discretion, authority and a violation of the First Amendment and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

Whether the failure of the District Court to recognize that in failing to read or comprehend the survey maps and metes and bounds descriptions within the subject title deed presented, it also failed to recognize that the matters pertained to two separate and distinct parcels of land, and that the Court's unilateral confusion was an error, in which it proceeded to summarily dismiss the petition.

Whether the District Court's continued failure to further comprehend that its reliance on the 1997 Queens County Court Decision by Judge David Goldstein, addressing an adjoining property tract involving an adverse possession and abandonment claim, resulted in its unconstitutional misapplication of the Rooker-Feidman doctrine.

Whether the District Court's error included the failure to recognize that the disposal of the underlying private property claim was not inherently dispositive of the other issues presented in the petition, and was an unconstitutional preemption.

Whether the District Court's complete failure to review that part of the petition for pre-action relief, included an application to prescribe a protective order, including measures to safeguard against expected anticipated harassment, threats, intimidation, menacing and violent reprisal, was a matter under the Court's legitimate jurisdiction, and that its failure was a preemption of those Constitutional rights articulated within the Petition before it.

Whether the District Court's failure to review or refer the Second Amendment and Heller-McDonald cases presented, and those involving the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. N.Y.S. and N.Y.P.D., was error.

Whether the Second Circuit's failure and refusal to upload the underlying petition into the Courts E.C.F. System, maliciously intended to avoid and evade further review on the merits, and thereby compounded the error, together with those of the District Court.

Whether the facts and circumstances described in the underlying April 9, 2018 pre-action petition, together with the errors of New York's Federal Courts, requires this Supreme Court to undertake a review, and consider the need to recognize, acknowledge and proscribe measures that pertain to the issue dealing with an individual right to self-defense, contains the Constitutional implication under the Supremacy Clause, that a national right to keep and bear arms exists, superior New York's unconstitutionally narrow licensing scheme.

Whether the failure of the District Court and Second Circuit were unconstitutional attempts to suppress this petition and manipulate this Court's own review standards pertaining to the aforementioned inter-related Second Amendment matter, that was granted Certiorari on January 22, 2019 and was captioned as New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. New York and N.Y.P.D. Licensing.

Whether this Court's Jurisprudence would be best served by granting the Petitioner the opportunity and leave to draft and serve an enlarged brief on this Second Amendment issue, previously presented in the underlying application.

Whether the District Court and Second Circuit further unconstitutionally ignored matters raising questions as to whether the failure of New York State and City authorities lack of capacity to perform its Fourteenth Amendment duties,

Whether the failure of the District Court to appoint a federal monitor or special master to review the matter was error