Whether a Writ of Mandamus should issue to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where an appellate panel:

1. Introduced a newly discovered, previously undisclosed extra-judicial designation ('Sr.'), for Appellant, into the judicial record after August 29, 2025, the date of original panel assignment —a designation absent from the entire underlying record and all party briefing, that could only have resulted from undisclosed ex parte communication(s);

2. Refused to apply the mandatory presumption of prejudice required by Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent (Standard All. Ind. Inc. v. Black Clawson Co.; Price Bros. Co. v. Philadelphia Gear Corp.; Liljebersg v. Health Serv. Acq. Corp.) upon the discovery of th is undisclosed ex parte communication(s) requiring mandatory vacatur and re-assignment to a new untainted panel; and

3. Issued an intentionally false and logically impossible 'boilerplate" denial of mandatory vacatur, claiming the issue was "considered" during the principal appeal, despite the fact that the ex parte contact(s) was undisclosed and only discovered and raised by Appellant after the close of briefing and issuance of Judgment.

Whether a Writ of Mandamus should issue to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where an appellate panel introduced a newly discovered, previously undisclosed extra-judicial designation into the judicial record after panel assignment, refused to apply the mandatory presumption of prejudice upon discovery of undisclosed ex parte communications, and issued an intentionally false denial of mandatory vacatur despite the ex parte contact being undisclosed and only discovered after the close of briefing