1. Plaintiff submits agreement to the court that
was used to set the Counter claim for the
defendant... The plaintiff notes in the order
from the judge that she sites information
contained in the agreement all aspects except
the part of the agreement for arbitration; part
13. Plaintiff contends that the defendant has
been allowed "double jeopardy ". If the
agreement has an arbitration clause the court
is ignoring the demand and agreement for
arbitration and has commenced proceedings
using self-serving excerpts from the
Arbitration and Confidentiality agreement.
Judge Lewis never made reference to the
arbitration clause on the first page and section
13.5. Plaintiff ask if the district court has
jurisdiction to enforce the trade agreement
past the arbitration clause that was agreed
upon and signed prior to any dispute.

2. The plaintiff would like to present a question
of jurisdiction. In Order USCA4: 23-1147 Doc
41 the appeals court denied review of appeal
23-1147 due to lack of jurisdiction and on the
"Cumulative Finality Doctrine ". Is it
applicable, as the appeal was filed in last
resort and the orders did not change? The
plaintiff summitted appeals and a request for
recusal but was denied with no notification
from the court for more than the last 8-10
submissions the court never addresses the
plaintiffs motions other than denial. All were
denied.

3. The Federal District Court in Columbia South
Carolina does not allow "Pro Se" litigants to
use the ECF System for Electronic Filing
Privileges. The mail from Columbia SC to
Rock Hill SC has to pass several cities and
sometimes can take as much as 6-7 days. The
court allows 3 days for delivery of USPS mail.
Are Pro Se litigants with Pacer accounts
prejudiced as the opposing council received
correspondence from the court instantly,
sometimes 6 days prior to the pro se litigant
waiting to receive the USPS mail especially
during holiday season.. Is it prejudicial for the
court to deny Pro Se Litigants ECF
notification privileges if they are a party in a
case in the Federal District Court of Columbia
South Carolina and hable for Sanctions if they
don 't get the mail?

4. Is it prejudicial for the Federal District Court
to ignore pleadings from Pro Se Litigants and
not acknowledge the submission to answers to
pleadings as if they were never submitted? Is
it fair to require Pro Se Litigants to have to
repeat the same pleadings over and over
because the court is ignoring the submission
of pleadings due to Pro Se Status? Plaintiff
ask as the court refuses to acknowledge the
plaintiff motion to show cause without return
but allows the defendant leniency and
favoritism always, and always says yes to
whatever they ask. Plaintiff ask if it is
favoritism because of the prior work history
and because Judge Childs is a Legal Partner
to Nexsen Pruett? Is the relationship between
Judge Childs and Nicole Mergo from Nexsen
Pruett 9 years causing problems with
favoritism and prejudice? Both Trained and
worked together at Nexsen Pruett with

Whether the Federal District Court improperly denied Pro Se litigant's ECF notification privileges and jurisdiction to enforce trade agreement past arbitration clause