(1) DOES THE FILING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONE (S ) UNDER
CASE 20-7073 FILED BEFORE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SERVES AS A
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT TO AN INFORMAL. BRIEF ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF
THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER . MOTIONED TO HAVE IT CONSTRUED AS
SUCH?

(2) DOES THE ORDER UNDER CASE 21-6275 DENYING THE MOTION
TO STAY FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLLATERAL ORDER
DOCTRINE ALLOWING THE PETITIONER (S) IN CASE 21-6275
DUE TO WHAT IS ARGUED WITHIN THIS PETITION FOR WRITTO APPEAL IT
OF CERTIOARI
AND WHERE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IF IT SO DESIRED COULD HEAR ALL
THESE MATTERS IN THEIR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION?

(3) DUE TO THE EGREGIOUS ACTS OF SPOLIATION OF THE INITIAL
PLEADING THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANTS
SOUGHT TO COMPROMISE THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
ITSELF VIA VARIOUS EMPLOYEES AND MS. WALKER, TO PUSH THE
PETITIONERS PAST THE (90) DAY TIME PERIOD FOR
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE,FILING, VIOLATING
SHOULD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
GRANT THIS PETITION VIA SANCTIONS AND OR TO IN FUNDAMENTAL
IT
FAIRNESS TO THE PETITIONERS, LEVEL THE EVIDENTIARY AND OR
JUDICIAL PLAYING FIELD TO ADDRESS THE INJUSTICES THAT HAVE. NOW
OCCURRED?

Does the filing submitted by the petitioner(s) serve as a functional equivalent to an informal brief?