Whether the district and appellate courts have jurisdiction over a person if the person lacks capacity to be sued under FRCP 17(b)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the district and appellate courts claiming jurisdiction under ERISA over a private inter vivos trust creates conflict between Article VI of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment and State : probate codes. Whether the district and appellate . courts have jurisdiction over a person if the person lacks capacity to be sued under FRCP 17(b). Whether the district court claiming jurisdiction based on comity deprives the parties of due process before a court of competent jurisdiction. Whether the Ninth Circuit decision conflicts with IRS codes and jurisdiction. 2. Whether under the Fifth Amendment’s property due process clause, a district and appellate court must provide the beneficiary of a valid irrevocable ; inter vivos trust, testamentary trust or will with due process before taking the beneficiary's property. 3. Whether the Tenth Amendment confers to the States the ability to establish their own probate laws to determine what makes a Trust Valid. Whether behavior of a licensee passes through personal liability | to the trustee of an irrevocable inter vivos trust. 4. Whether the Tenth Amendment confers to the States the exclusive right, because there is no federal licensing of attorneys, accountants, doctors, fiduciaries and others who provide services to trustees, to legislate and enforce their own laws regarding the qualifications and behavior of persons who are licensed by the State. Whether State probate law allows licensees to perform the tasks of a trustee of a inter vivos or testamentary trust, without the licensees personal liability passing to the trust, trustee or beneficiary, provided ii , the licensee is not named as the trustee in the trust : instrument. 5. Whether the Tenth Amendment gives a State the exclusive right to legislate and enforce its own governmental laws regarding what types of documents can be recorded by a County Recorder and whether the State has the constitutional right to consider those recorded documents to lack legal sufficiency or correctness when used as evidence in a legal proceeding. ; 6. Whether the Tenth Amendment prohibits a district court from invalidating the settlor’s transfer of property into a private trust, when that transfer is valid under a State’s probate law. 7. Whether under the Ninth Circuit’s Jn re Levander decision conflicts with FRCP 60(b) amended ’ 1946, FRCP59(e) and FRCP 6(b) for establishing the Statute of Limitations. ill . LIST OF PROCEDINGS BELOW 1. Southern District of New York case no. 1:12-civ1693. Erickson Productions Inc. & Jim Erickson v Atherton Trust. March 12, 2012. Dismissed for personal jurisdiction. 2. California Central District case no. 2:13-cv-07160. Erickson Productions Inc. & Jim Erickson v Kraig Rudinger Kast. Filed September 27, 2013, transferred November 22, 2013 to CAND. 8. California Northern District, San Jose case no. 5:13-cv-05472. Erickson Productions Inc. & Jim Erickson v. Kraig Rudinger Kast. Trial with Judgment. April 15, 2015. Judgment Entered August 18, 2015. 4. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case no. 1516801. Erickson Productions Inc. & Jim Erickson v. Kraig Rudinger Kast Appeal. September 10, ; 2015. 5. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 1717157. Erickson Productions Inc. v. Kraig Rudinger Kast et al. Appeal of 5:13-cv-05472 Motion to Amend. October 17, 2017. 6. California Northern District, San Jose case no. 5:13-cv-05472. Order Denying Motion to Assign. November 9, 2018 . 7. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. case no. 15-16801. Hrickson Productions Inc. & Jim Erickson v. Kraig Rudinger Kast vacate and remand to USDC-CAND Oakland case no. 4:13-cv-05472. April , 16, 2019. iv 8. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Case no. 17-17157. Erickson Productions Inc. & Jim Erickson v. Kraig Rudinger Kast. District court order : regarding motion to amend affirmed. May 1, 2019. 9. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case no. 1717157. Erickson Productions Inc. & Jim Erickson v. Kr