a) The 9th circuit 's insurrection of 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c) (1) subverting the 1
plain text of CPA 230 cl'. This was called "republishing nonsense ".
b) _ jThe 9th circuit inventing immunity from it, not supported by any text of cl
incl. short title. At best, "republishin g" supports full restitution! !
c) The arbitrar y (partial/preferential ) enforcem ent of "republishing " and
"immunity ", benefiting one specific group —criminal syndicates (social
media companies) with such unreasonable loathing against , notoriously
working vilely and tirelessly against, the essence of the first amendment .
The 9th circuit 's nonsense, if applied fully, voids the modem internet in
full: if applied partially, turns it into a dark web. Amazon and PayPal and
eBay will all have to be out of business; all their users are too "immune ",
so are they immune with any dealing of user info and with most frauds.
d) The 9th circuit 's subversive falsit y ("republishing nonsense " and
"immunity business ", the latter of which is purely original) (not the actual
act by the actual Congress) is in such direct and impudent violation of the j
first, fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution*
e) Whether the right to jury trial could be subverted at free will by judge,
especially w/ FRCP 50's strict limitations to judgments as a matter of law.
f) Whether_askin g some one_to repeat themselves or otherwis e manufactured '
difficulties in the court context could possibly fit the,due.process_clause ._j
g) The difference between TRQ and Pi, and appealabilit y, ignored by courts. :
Specificall y, court cannot call a noticed motion "TRQ ." 1
h) The current different appeal ability of PI and TRQ does not fit the equals
protection clause, which is a result of ignoring the plain text of rule 65. If
65 is applied as it is written, this issue dissolves. Specifically, court has to
answer when a TRQ transforms into a PI. Or should TRO be seen as a PI?
i) At least FOURTE EN counts of serious corruption by.CAND and CA-9.1
j) Properly construing and applying section 3 of the 14^ amendment. It is
asked that the SC corrects its earlier subversion of law in Trump v.
Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024).
k) Also, whether Brown v Board of Education should be overr uled, which ]
relates directly to enforcing the section 5 of amendment XIV.

Whether the Supreme Court will review the 9th Circuit's interpretation of 47 U.S. Code § 230 and its potential constitutional implications