I. Whether Petitioner is entitled to intervene as
of right and permissively in this litigation; and
denial of the general public's right of access to
judicial proceedings is improper under the
Common Law, the Constitution, this Court's
precedent, federal statutes and rules.

II. When is inadequate representation found, or
whether for example this Court should also
reconsider the New York Times v. Sullivan
"actual malice standard" as sufficient to show
media bias is inadequate representation; or
whether foreign headquartered media
intervenors have greater Constitutional rights
than American Citizens; or whether the Court
taking judicial notice that the Government or
Court colluded to leak sealed and classified
information to certain Media or the media
publishing false information is a sufficient
showing of inadequacy.

III. Whether a Court of Appeals can dismiss an
amended-second-notice of appeal sua sponte
when the Court admits it has jurisdiction over
the underlying docketed matter; or whether a
second (amended) notice of appeal perfected
Petitioner's appeal as of right and
permissively as to all claims disposed of or
ignored by a district court, or magistrate
judge's paperless orders.

IV. Whether an appeal can be immediately taken
"directly" to a United States Court of Appeals
from a magistrate "decision" denying motion to
intervene and motion to intervene to appeal;
when for example: Special Counsel
unconstitutionally fails to follow DOJ
guidelines and seeks and other intervenors
consent to a non-Article III magistrate instead
of an Article III district court judge; other
parties consented to the magistrate conducting
the court proceedings; no district court judge
being assigned to supervise the magistrate;
and the magistrate acted upon a Rule 72
Objection Motion instead of a district court
judge that the motion was addressed to.

V. What is the scope of authority of a magistrate
judge, and whether magistrate recusal is
required when a magistrate exceeds his
authority to "intercept" a Rule 72 motion to an
Article III judge; and a motion for judge
recusal was properly before a magistrate, or
whether in the alternative a Court of Appeals
is required to review a refusal to recuse for
plain error.

VI. Whether a motion to intervene to unseal court
records is a criminal or civil matter.

VII. Whether Special Counsel has legal standing to
oppose an appeal of a denial of a motion to
intervene when it did not oppose the motion in
the district court.

VIII. Whether Court of Appeals applied the proper
standard of review.

IX. Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of a
second docket fee required to be paid by the
District court in the same case on appeal.

X. Under the circumstances, should all court
records be unsealed and unredacted in the
underlying litigation.

Whether Petitioner is entitled to intervene