Whether, in contravention to collateral estoppel
doctrine, courts below relitigated, inter alia, issues of:
(1) whether pro se litigant Roseman was disabled at the
time of employer FCA 's November 21, 2018 termination
of his employment; (2) whether FCA 's November 21,
2018 termination of Roseman was legitimate; and (3)
whether Roseman 's continued absence, in the purview of
applicable laws,.adequately buttressed by medical
advice when FCA terminated him on or about November
21, 2018 - such that this Supreme Court should exercise
its supervisory role to correct error.

Whether federal ruling below is contrary to
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
because district court below ruled that image depicting
Roseman, the Petitioner in this writ, in possession of a
firearm was sufficient grounds for his employer to,
among other things, terminate him?

Whether, in the aggregate, proceedings of federal
courts below upheld "less stringent standards " tradition
pertaining to pro se litigants? Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
520 (1971).

Whether, particularly given the rulings of
Michigan judges, Roseman showed a strong likelihood of
success on the merits of his claims such that injunctive
relief Roseman sought was meritorious but erroneously
denied?

Whether, in contemplations of all pertinent and
reasonably available facts, it may be found: that, in this
case the outcomes of the proceedings of federal courts
below are of adequate importance to persons not party
to this case; and, that, rendered outcomes are so far out
of bounds that this Supreme Court should exercise its
supervisory role?

Whether courts below relitigated issues of disability, legitimate termination, and medical advice contrary to collateral estoppel