Nathan Sebastien Ackermann v. CVS Pharmacy

In pursuant to Rule 14.1(a), and the Pt Amendment right to freedom of speech, debate & to petition the government for a redress of grievances, I present to the Supreme Court of Washington D.C., along with other Constitutional rights mentioned herein, the following questions for review (Nelson v. Johnson, supra, at 33-34). 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) specifically allows writs as necessary. Should the District Court of Rockville rule in favor of CVS Pharmacy's motion for interrogatories and bar the plaintiff Nathan Ackermann for not having responded, based on a false allegation of the statute of limitations passing? (Injury was only discovered and diagnosed via endoscopy in 2014). Should the District Court rule against the Plaintiffs doctor-patient privilege or privileges concerning information, having raised it in court with the belief of having it, without being able to be ever retained by an attorney? Should the Circuit Court and Court of Appeals affirm the two latter decisions, despite one being false and the other being an infringement of privacy and privilege? Should the Plaintiff have to respond in order to continue? Was it ethical for the defending attorney Joseph Smith to propound such motions? Was it ethical for the Judge, in this case, to make a judgement in favor of the Defendant's