Did the United States court of appeals affirm a decision that exceeds their authority and lacks subject matter jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The following un-disputed facts in this case presents the grounds on which the petitioner frames his . question to the court. : On 7/8/16 & 7/11/16 the petitioner met with respondent’s attorney JOHN HERRING and he stated to petitioner that this case will not end on the merits and that the respondent will only pay cost and nothing else. In mediation on 8/2/16, the respondent and their attorney JOHN HERRING made the following unlawful threats, thru a mediator, coercing the petitioner into signing a mediation agreement for cost only;(1) that petitioner had taken proprietary information from the respondent without consent and that they can sue petitioner’s employer Bartos Industries; (2) that the petitioner had also used proprietary information from his employer Bartos Industries in his motion for summary judgment; (8) that petitioner can be black listed in the industry. (1) Did the United States court of appeals affirm a decision that exceeds their authority and lacks subject matter jurisdiction by suspending sec. tion 31.03 of the Texas penal code, the Hobbs Act, the FLSA and grants the respondent and . their attorneys immunity against prosecution by holding that un-lawful threats of retaliation, . an in terrorem tactic as stated in Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 2"4 at (144), are protected by mediation confidentiality and n QUESTIONS PRESENTED continued attorney client privilege which infringes on petitioner’s constitutional right to access to the courts, due process and the equal protection : clause? (2) Did the United States court of appeals affirm a decision that infringed on petitioner’s constitu: : tional rights to due process and equal treatment of the law, by refusing to render a decision in a non-final order denying plaintiffs motion for reconsideration to strike respondent’s answer pleading where the lower court deviated from the established principles of law by: (1) not following the doctrine of stare decisis and by incorrectly applying the tolling provisions of Rule 12(a)(4)(A) to rule 81; (2) by acting in excess of its jurisdiction by allowing respondent’s affirmative defense claim of be a “non-traditional engineering firm,” which is strictly prohibited by the Texas Engineering Practice Act; (3) and by applying the “plausibility standard” pursuant to Bell Altlantic Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and clarified in Ascroft v. Iqbal, 1298.Ct. 1937 (2009), to petitioner’s complaint and amended complaint and failing to apply the same standard to respondent’s answer pleadings? (Please note that the review of this question is based on this court’s finding upon review of the merits that the mediation agreement and final judgment was obtained by fraud, see previous question).