1. Whether the Three Judge Panel Two Page Order denied and rubber the Mandamus All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. section 1651, consolidated with the appeal, ignored outrageous conduct record where, The Clerk of Appeals Court and the Appeal Court Judge illegally used the Appellees ' DOJ Attorney constitutionally defective Request for Extension of Time to file Appellees ' Brief, thus falsely claim the Request for Extension of Time was Appellees ' motion to oppose Appellant 's motion for an expedited appeal chilling Appellant 's First Amendment Rights to Appeal pursuant Access to the court.

2. Whether the Three Judge Panel Judicial proceeding mirror deep-seated favoritism 28 U.S.C. section 455(a), issued The unconstitutional ex parte two Page JUDGMENT, where the Three Judge Panel ignored the record of the entire judicial proceeding that is under the precincts patrolled by Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e; Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. Sec 701 et seq; Fed. R. Civ. Pro 65; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56; and All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. sec. 1651; (i) Ignored Exhibit of the Chief Operating Officer 's fraud discriminatory Policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301 that accompanied the Appeal Brief; (ii) Ignored Exhibit of the Appellees ' DOJ Attorney 's letter conceding the case from the outset of the litigation by failing to file any responsive pleading to the Jury Demand Verified Complaint incorporated with memorandum of law, Accompanied with Preliminary Injunction Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65.

3. Whether Pro Se Appellant 's litigation was subject to discriminatory judicial practice that chilled Pro Se Appellant 's exercise of First Amendment Rights, where Appellant Petition for rehearing En Banc FRAP 40 upon the Three Judge Panel 's ex parte 2/22/2024 decision denial of Appellant 's Appeal, the two Page ruhng was code evidence where Case manager fictitious denial of several En Banc FRAP 40 Petition as defective, Appellant corrected several more defective En Banc FRAP 40 Petitions where manager deliberately erected procedural devices that cause the hardship consequence of inevitable delay; And in effect, misdirected Pro Se Appellant to file Petition for Reconsideration to same Three Judge Panel 's that rendered to same ex parte 2/22/2024 unconstitutional decision tantamount to chilling U.S. Const 1st Amendment Right to access to the Appeals Court to remedy civil wrong correct manufactured by case manage. This case is replete with deep seated favoritism against pro se litigation where the extraordinary writ authorized by 28 U.S.C. sec. 1651 should be a matter of right in the exceptional circumstances of this case.

4. Whether the Writ Section 1651 should issue upon outrageous conduct pursuant First Amendment deprivation, where Pro Se litigant is entitled to mandatory Preliminary Injunction Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65 pursuant disparate treatment imposed by Chief Operating Officer 's discriminatory fraud policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301 And Summary Judgment Fed. R. Civ

Whether the Three Judge Panel's order denied and rubber-stamped the Mandamus All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. section 1651, consolidated with the appeal, ignoring the record of outrageous conduct where the Clerk of Appeals Court and the Appeal Court Judge illegally used the Appellees' DOJ Attorney's constitutionally defective Request for Extension of Time to file Appellees' Brief, thus falsely claiming the Request for Extension of Time was Appellees' motion to oppose Appellant's motion for an expedited appeal, chilling Appellant's First Amendment Rights to appeal