As I, the pro se Plaintiff-Appellant pointed out in my First Amended Complaint I.
(Doc. 9) and in my Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) two (2) different scenes
in "Rosemary 's Baby the Miniseries " in which my vases, in my view . of my actual
written expression can be seen on the screen, could it be possible that the Court of
Appeals Judges and the District Judge overlooked these two frames (each one
appearing for about one second) when they watched the "Miniseries " and
concurred in their decision to dismiss my action? Should not a jury made up of
reasonable lay observers be allowed to view these frames - not by watching the
"Miniseries " twenty-six (26) times as I have - but at least once, attentively?

Is the affirming by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second District, in its Summary II.
Order dated November 12, 2020 concerning the U.S. District Court 's (SDNY)
granting Defendant Cinestar Pictures ' Motion to dismiss my, the pro se PlaintiffAppellant 's, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT considered to be fair and just legal
procedure, when Cinestar Pictures failed to serve me its Motion to dismiss?

Is it fair and just legal procedure for the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, to
affirm the District Court 's and Judge Broderick 's inaccurate statements in
Document 76 and Document 89 - made to justify his dismissal of my SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 51) - that he had used such limiting words as
"only " and "for the limited purposes of' in the court 's leave for me to amend,
when he had not used those words therein?

If Judge Broderick deemed my SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT to be
defective when I submitted it on April 18, 2018, was it fair of him to wait until
June 2, 2019 to dismiss it - more than one year - and never having ordered me to
cure it during that time?

Did the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, err when it affirmed the U.S. V.
District Court 's Order to dismiss seven (7) Defendants in this case based on the
district court 's inaccurate claim that I, the Plaintiff-Appellant, failed to provide the
Court with service information for certain Defendants? Because the said seven
Defendants were not served, should they not have been dismissed without
prejudice?

Did the Court of Appeals, Second circuit err when it confirmed the District Court 's VI.
dismissal of the foreign Defendant Liaison Films with prejudice in this action
when Judge Broderick had formerly written that he would consider permitting me,
the Plaintiff, more time to summon the said foreign Defendant should I write to
him in detail of my efforts to summon that foreign Defendant, which I did?

As, I, the pro se Plaintiff-Appellant pointed out in my First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) and in my Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) two (2) different scenes in 'Rosemary's Baby the Miniseries' in which my pages, in my view, of my actual written expression can be seen on the screen, could it be possible that the Court of Appeals Judges and the District Judge overlooked these two frames (each one appearing for about one second) when they watched the 'Miniseries' and : concurred in their decision to dismiss my action? Should not a jury made up of reasonable lay observers be allowed to view these frames ~ not by watching the ; 'Miniseries' twenty-six (26). times as I have — but at least once, attentively?