Whether the District Court review of the facial sufficiency of 42 USC § 1983 and § 1985 complaint below ignored the requirements of FRCP Rule 12(c)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The questions presented for review are: 1. Whether the District Court review of the facial sufficiency of 42 USC § 1983 and § 1985 complaint below, Respondent’s failure to state a claim within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § . 1291 ignored the requirements of FRCP Rule 12(c )‘holding that “judgment will be granted if the pleadings demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a : matter of law.” [See Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6the Cir.1999). —immediately appealable collateral order; resulting in the failure to dismiss the case for the lack of both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12b(6)(1)(2)]. . 2. Whether the Third Circuit Court’s review of the facial sufficiency of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g) of the Fair Debt Collection Act complaint below ignored enforcing verification of the requirements of full disclosure, pursuant to Title 9 § 1,4. (False Claims), [ UCC 3309(a)(1)(2), “If the NOTE was sold or transferred, the BANK lost its right to foreclosure.!”} 3. Whether the Third Circuit Court review of the facial sufficiency of U.S. a CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1, § 10 complaint below ignored requirement of lower os ~ court demand payment of debts-at-law with silver and/or gold, when Congress suspended ARTICLE 1 § 10—due to U.S. Bankruptcy—and replaced it with “credit” and ; “Promissory Notes,” pursuant to HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 failed to honor Secured Party : Mortgage settlements.{ P.L. 73-10(48) Stat 112-113, U.C.C. 3-603, 3-604][See MA YARD MEHL v. JOHN H. NORTON, No. 31,338...] , * 4. Whether the District Court in the complaint below ignored Secured Party’s Affidavit of i Default and Dishonor against Respondent and denied, [Dailey v. R. & J. Commercial Contracting, 2002 WL 484988, at*3 (S.D. Ohio 2002)(error for clerk to enter requested judgment involving punitive damages).] q . . . . . iii