Did the court below fail to use an appropriate standard of review when granting all the dismissal motions without recognizing the petitioner's evidence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. DID THE COURT BELOW FAIL TO USE AN ‘APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF REVIEW WHEN GRANTING ALL THE DISMISSAL MOTIONS WITHOUT RECOGNIZING THE PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE? Il. DID THE COURT BELOW BY FAILING TO '. GRANT THE PETITIONER.A TRIAL CREATE A SERIERS OF REVERSABLE ERRORS AS . THE UNITED STATES .SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED ITS MOTION TO DISMISS AS A DEFENDANT WHILE ELECTING TO NOT INTERVENE AS A QUI TAM PLAINTIFF? Ill. DID THE DISTRICT COURT DENY THE , , PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT CREATE A REVERSABLE ERROR? | IV. DID THE DISTRICT COURT MAKE A REVERSABLE ERROR BY ALLOWING A VIOLATION OF THE STATE’S LAW THAT , STRICTLY PROHIBITED THE S.C. STATE'S INSURANCE FUND ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT A PRIVATE BUSINESS'S ‘INDIVIDUAL OWNER? (RICHARDSON, JR) wl y ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED V. DID THE DISTRICT COURT CREATE A REVERSABLE ERROR CHANGING THE NAME OF RICHARDSON TO RICHARDSON, SR. WHO WAS DECEASED 9 YEAR PRIOR TO “AT ALL TIMES PERTINENT TO THE CASE”? VI. DID THE DISTRICT COURT CREATE A REVERSABLE ERROR TO GRANT DEFENDANT CHENEGA SECURITY AND THORPE FIRST MOTION TO DISMISS BY SUBSITUTING THE SECOND MOTION TO : : DISMISS USING THE ROSEBORO ORDER WARNING OF THE SECOND ON THE FIRST ONE FILED (7) MONTHS EARLIER W/O THE , ; ROSEBORO ORDER NOTICE TO PRO SE? © VII. DOES THE DISTRICT COURT CREATE A : REVERSABLE ERROR WITH USE OF A ; FEDERAL EMPLOYED GHOSTWRITER ATTORNEY BETWEEN CHAMBERS IN THIS DISTRICT COURTS IN-HOUSE SECRETELY ; ASSIGNED TO ALL PRO SE CASES? __. Vill. DID THE DISTRICT’ COURT GRANT : MOTIONS TO DISMISS IGNORING THE VALUE AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ! THE PETITIONER FILED UNDISPUTED ! PHOTO AND A FLETC INVESTIGATION . REPORT CAUSE A REVERSABLE ERROR? \ yo iy QUESTIONS PRESENTED . IX. DID THE DISTRICT COURT CREATE A REVERSABLE ERROR TO IGNORE THE . EVIDENCE THAT THE UNITED STATES PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT WAS USED TO CREATE A UNLAWFUL VAULE . . . CONVERTED INTO A PRIVATE DEFENDANT BENEFIT AND PROFITS? X. DID THE DISTRICT COURT CREATE A REVERSABLE ERROR TO IGNORE THE UNITED STATES CONTRACT TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVES TESTIMONY THAT . . THE PETITIONER WAS “WRONGED . METHODICALLY’ — WHILE THE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED TO ADMIT THIS EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD; THEN IT DENIED TO REMAND FOR A TRIAL? XI. DID THE DISTRICT COURT CREATE A REVERSABLE ERROR IN FAILING TO. PROTECT THE PETITONER FROM _ -RETALLIATION AS THE ORIGINAL WHISTLEBLOWER? iv _