Did the Mississippi Supreme Court refuse to apply the mandatory language in the use of the word of shall in Mississippi Code of Ann § 11-1-17 in violation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1654, in violation of pro se petitioner first; sixth and fourteenth amendment of United State Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. DID THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT REFUSE TO APPLY THE MANDATORY LANGUAGE IN THE USE OF THE WORD OF SHALL IN MISSISSIPPI CODE OF ANN § 11-1-17_ IN : VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C.A. § 1654, IN VIOLATION . OF PRO SE PETITIONER FIRST; SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF UNITED STATE . CONSTITUTION. 2. THE CHANCERY COURT DENIED THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN CIVIL ACTION AND TO BE TREATED THE SAME OTHER APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF WHO HAVE COME BEFORE THE CHANCERY COURT ON A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT IN. VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C.A. § 1654. AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SIX AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 3. THE CHANCERY COURT ERRED CITING BAKER & McKENZIE LLP V. EVENS 123 So. 3d 387 IS NOT ONE DIGEST KEY IN THAT CASE THAT ADDRESS A RULE MOTION AND IT STATES COMPLAINTS FILED IN OTHER STATES UNDER DIFFERENT LEGAL CLAIMS NOT COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. 4. THE CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ERRED IN } NOT GRANTING PLAINTIFF MOTION TO STRIKE | ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES UNDER : MRCP. 12(f). ii 5. THE CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ERRED IN NOT GRANTING PLAINTIFF SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER MRCP. 12(f). | | |