1. U.S. Cont. Agni 5, 10 (recordkeeping), 14 §1; Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a):
a. Under the "Fairness," "Extrajudicial Partial Disclosure," and "Implied Subject Matter" doctrines (including the "Exhaustion" doctrine; see DARBY v. CISNEROS, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), "exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review"), did the judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (within WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock No. 19-1392) err by intentionally laching upon their obligations of "work product protection" (154 Cong. Rec. 18,016 (2008)), under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 10, 14 §1 and Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502, through estoppel, to acknowledge the absence of disclosed prevalent information (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), thereby, forcefully inducing a waiver of PLAINTTFFs' rights (worthy of sanctions), as exceptional circumstances, which PLAINTIFF previously made numerous attempts to resolve (from previously claimed estoppel offenses against the District Court (see WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18-12064(LLS)(SDNY)), under the Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine), yet whose attempts were denied, within the trials of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.) and WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)?

2. U.S. Const. Am. 10; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a):
a. If a PLAINTIFF has made numerous attempts to cure clerical filings of both the District and Appellate courts, gone ignored and/or lached (under U.S. Const. Am. 10; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), should "In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 1987)" (see Appendix A and Appendix B) be a viable common law usage for a determination to deny a mandamus action based upon "exceptional circumstances [which ]warrant the requested relief?;"

3. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 6, 14 §1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 8; 18 U.S.C. §402:
Based upon evidence within the accompanying Appendices A to Z, and upon determination of judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit intentionally laching upon their "work product protection" obligations (under the "Fairness," "Extrajudicial Partial Disclosure," "Implied Subject Matter" and "Exhaustion" doctrines) and, thereafter, laching upon an issuance of orders for sanctions and the curing of PLAINTTFFs' filings, will the Supreme Court of the United States determine a ruling in favor of PLAINTIFFS' sanction claims of estoppel, contempt, and discriminatory delay of court processes (under: U

Whether the judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in intentionally laching upon their obligations of 'work product protection' under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 10, 14 §1 and Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502, through estoppel, to acknowledge the absence of disclosed prevalent information (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), thereby, forcefully inducing a waiver of PLAINTIFF's rights