Peter Thompson v. Gregg Sullivan, et al.

Did the Ninth Circuit err in concluding that the lower US District Court of Montana proceedings could be equitably affirmed when the district court objections of record and a number of the noticed for appeal orders were inappropriately excluded and not reviewed on appeal? Alternatively, does the combination of Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1.3. “No Excerpts Required for Pro Se Party” and the circuit’s prohibition of “citations directly to the underlying record” authorize opposing counsel to unconstitutionally withhold legally required documents that would otherwise be available for pro se filers under FRAP 30(b)(1)?

Did the Ninth Circuit err in affirming their clerk’s order denying this Petitioner’s right to cite documents of record from the district court proceeding (as argued in the appellant’s opening brief) in his reply brief while in the same order denying this Petitioner the right to file a reply brief?

Did the Ninth Circuit err when it held the opening brief accountable to technical pleading require­ ments that circumvented adjudication on the merits after the circuit’s published for pro se use, informal forms counseled the pro se pleader that they did not have to do more than say in what part of the record the district court had made mistakes and affirm that the alleged mistakes had indeed been objected to in the district court proceedings?

Did the Ninth Circuit err in not addressing the allegations that opposing counsel were obstructing the course of justice and collaboratively engaging in extrinsic fraud by breaching their procedural duties to