Human experimentation rules

1. Whether a Federal Court of Appeals departs from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by denying a motion to reinstate a plausibly meritorious appeal involving constitutional challenges to federal human-experimentation rules, and where the Court issued its mandate prior to the expiration of the filing deadline set by its own Local Rules? 2. Whether not reinstating this type of appeal also creates a ‘ Manifest Injustice ’ — as defined by the Court ’ s own precedents in Lattanzio v. COMT A, 481 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2007) and grounded upon the 1967 enactment notes to FRAP Rule 2? 3. Whether the standard of ‘ Proof absent jurisdictional discovery as applied to Plaintiffs-Appellants, in the U.S. District Court (in the context of legal standing), but also in the federal Appellate Court (concerning making a showing of Extraordinary Circumstances), is unjust or inappropriately too high, for this particular case, which is a non-monetary federal rulemaking case, challenging the Revised Common Rule rulemaking ’ s failure to enact more protective federal rules to protect citizens from non-consensual human experimentation, and also where Petitioners ’ “ Claim 1 ” involves a violation of procedural rights by the rulemaking?