Whether the district court and appeals court properly addressed the constitutionality of the Wall Street Reform Act

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.)Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a), may apply because neither the W.D.N.Y. federal district court, nor the U.S. C.A. 2dCir. certified to the U.S. Attorney general the fact that the constitutionality of an Act of congress was drawn into question. 2.)Specifically, regarding the Wall Street Reform Act 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536? 3.)Why did WDNY chief judge Frank P. Geraci Jr., ruled sua sponte after approving the in forma pauperis motion? 4.) Why did the U.S.C.A. 2d Cir. once again, cite the case Neitzke v. Williams, 490 (1989) and also rule, "because it ‘lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Then further cite 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)? 5.)Why has the WDNY court ignored 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 c,e,g,j, and n? 6.) Why is this pro se federal civil right's being further violated by chief judge Frank P. Geraci Jr., and the U.S. C.A. 2d Cir.? }