Whether the Delaware Superior Court erred in asserting jurisdiction over a claim that exceeded the statute of limitations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether it is a violation under the Constitution 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law Clauses that the Delaware Superior Court erred in asserting that the court had jurisdiction as “the claims were subject to the 20-year common law limitations period because the declaration was a recorded instrument under seal” in December 1991 while this action was first commenced in 2018 grossly exceeded the statute of limitation by 2 years, that the court’s decision should have been reversed and vacated since the Statute of limitation was time barred? And, 2. Whether the Del. Court of Common Pleas on appeal had ever obtained jurisdiction to review this claim since the controlling contract (“the declaration” dated 1991) under seal expired on December 18, 2011 and the Delaware Law does not permit the extension of the statute of limitations for breach of contract as this violates the stare decisis. of the state’s mirror image law, and if in fact all ; claims including any judgment for legal fees are null and void? 3. Whether it is a violation under the Constitution Due Process Clause that a state’s trial Court ac. ceptance of an amended complaint on appeal that changed the subject matter contract “the RMC IT Declaration” and to uphold jurisdictional defects : of facts and issues presented incorrectly by a Plaintiff and not provide a written decision on the review of the issues and facts for the defendant to oppose before and/or after trial? : ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued 4. Whether the court erred in asserting that Federal ; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was not violated since a third-party was involved to collect the alleged debt and the verification requirements to protect consumers against fraud was not obtained? ; iti :