1. Petitioner was denied due process in Kulick's petition for panel rehearing (Docket Entry No. 10) and motion for additional arguments (Docket Entry No. 11) denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

2. The California statute enacted in 1985, the Davis-Stirling Act, governing condominiums and other common-interest developments, gave quasi-government authority under the color of state law to the Leisure Village Association, Inc., this status. And, to include "et al" too.

3. In above item #2, Leisure Village Association, INC., denied Peititioner's rigths of Freedom of Speech & Freedom of the Press. And, to include "et al" too.

4. Only legal police officers of the state, county & city under state law can issue vehicle violations & that result in fines, not the Leisure Village Association, INC., et al, using its police force a foritf of security personal.

5. Leisure Village Association, INC.'s contract is Uncontitutional & invalid since its ambiguous & uncertain which makes it void, & unequal & there was no mandated under law for a quorum to vote on. Election process worthless when elected member of BOD can be removed without any reason.

6. Leisure Village Association, INC., uses assessments which are taxes to pay for the services provided to its Members. This is a quasi-government taxation.

7. Leisure Village Association, INC., has fined Petitioner for publishing the Leisure Village News, while not fining another publication "lnside Leisure Village", neither had BOD approval to publish since the use of the Leisure Village name in not generic, soley belongs only for use by the Leisure Village Association, INC. B0D did not object to LVN use.

8. On page 2. under Related Cases, item #s 1.,2. &3. & in Re: "Please note:" due process denied when a court denied a court hearing under the Constitution, the Constitution does not restrict U.S. Supreme or any court the # of cases per year, it will provide a court hearing, that's Unconstitutional, unless a court hearing has been undertaken for a court determination after this 'courtnhearing.

9. Its Unconstitutional that the 9th Circuit, "has expressly held that "(a) private homeowners' association is not the eguivalent of a or a purported 'quasi-govenment' entity", when the Davis-Stirling Act of California gives that "quasi-government" authority & status to the Leisure Village Association, INC., effecting millions of seniors on a nationwide basis not just in California.

10. The Rules for filing a case with U.S. Supreme Court or any court, Unconstitutional, when Petitioner in Pro Per & a senior & disabled person under ADA of 1990, can only file electronically not by paper via USPS. That's discrimination & not in the Constitution, not limited to above circumstance(s) cited.

11. The public's trust, faith & confidence in U.S. Supreme Court or any court can not be ccompromised for any reason. The judicial system under the Rule of law at stake when "compromised" for any reason. That's the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.

12. Is the Constitution of "original intent" or otherwise moving forward? Or, is it possible to be both of these circumstance(s) contingent of a particular circumstance that it perils of the highest scales of justice of the

Question not identified