1. "HA" is hereafter used or "hereafter." With respect to (wrt) "appeals" of Case 2:21-cv-03683-GJP Thomas v June et al (HA, Case 03683), and U.S. v. Darron Thomas, Crim No: 21-416 (HA, Case 21-416), should a writ of certiorari be issued against the (Federal) Third Circut Court of Appeals (Ca3) and/or the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPa) for:

(a) reducing or refusing to exercse its jurisdiction in claiming that GJP did not deny Darron Thomas ' (DT) petition for a preliminary injunction (PI) and/or a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)?

(b) a clear abuse of discretion in (i) misappehending the fact that GJP explicitly denied the Pi's and/or TRO 's, that DT was requesing videos to properly identify and give notice to various government officers, and/or the fact that Ashley Banks had been notified of the petition; (ii) misapplied the law in referencing case(s) that are not applicable and/or in claims that Pi's and/or TRO 's cannot be issued against the government without notice; and/or contradicted both Ca3 and SCOTUS precedent?

(c) actual bias and/or an apprehension of bias on the part of each indvidal member of the Ca3 panel that made the Januay 6, 2022 decision in the instant Ca3 case related to the aformentioned EDPa cases?

(d) making a decisions in violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution because the Ca3's January 6, 2022 decision and the EDPa 's decisions are based on a distorted view of he record?

(e) For the EDPa oceeding itout juridiction in Case 2-416 and for failing to recuse in both EDPa cases and the Ca3 sanctioning this wide departure from widely accepted judicial practice, should certiorari be issued?

Whether the lower courts erred in denying the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to recuse a judge who engaged in wrongful, excessive, inappropriate and/or undeserved decisions/conduct