1. Whether it is Constitutional for the lower Appellate Court, to so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanction such a departure by the initial court of record, as to call for an inevitable exercise of this Appellate Court's supervisory power to restore Petitioner's appeal to the Second Circuit based on the lower Appellate Court's:
.1 Failure to file an appeal under FRAP Rule 41 Filing of Appeal within 60 days of a case involving a federal employee;
.2 Failure to include three (3) mailing days to the calculation of time for filing an appeal for a final decision mailed to a party that is without electronic filing under FRAP Rule 4 and
.3 Failure of District Judge to control her rubber stamp that created violations of due process when there were major conflicts of interest?

2. Whether it is Constitutional to grant Federal Status for filing within 60 days, an appeal under FRAP Rule 4 on:
1 A US Deputy Marshal Security Monitor contracted by the Department of Justice; and
2 A District Judge's Clerk?

3. Whether it is Constitutional for a duly elected municipal official serving in their duly elected official capacity on the public access television board as a state actor to oversee a state actor private public access telecommunication franchise operator's public forum?

4. Whether it is Constitutional for public access television franchisee operator as a state actor to ban member producers without holding public hearing required under a public forum?

Whether the lower Appellate Court departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in failing to file an appeal under FRAP Rule 4, failing to include three mailing days in the calculation of time for filing an appeal, and failing to control the district judge's rubber stamp that created due process violations