What laws of Gwil Court jurisdiction were applied in this Municipal Court; why were the defendants barely questioned concerning my complaint; why did the defendant not have to answer my complaint; why is the judgment 'judgment for the defendants' when the preponderance of evidence supported my claims; why did the Municipal Court give the defendants the upper hand in a 'reverse' thereby negating my claims' importance; in light of the fact I never ordered a split-level kitchen, why hasn't this fundamental questioning ever been raised by the Court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 4, WHAT Laws OF Gwil CourkT Juris diction WERE APPLied IN THis Manic Fal Cou RT; 7 To ARRIVE AT THe Sudg emMENT Recieved ¢ 2 WHy WERE the dé Fendants barely Quest loned CONCERNING WY ComPLar aT? — BWHY did tHe derendast NOT HAYE To ANSWER AY COomPLainT @ . | 4. WHY 1S THe SudgemenT, « Judge MENT For THE | defendests” WHEN © Uwe THe PrePowderance of EVIA ENCE AN ick Su PPoated MY Claims ? 2 ly S Way did THE nunicife Cone In per Gwe THE Je rendanis: THE UPPER nnd iN A WARA ING, “UN REVERSE; THERE bY NEGATING . MY CLANS IMPORTANCE 2 Now Dan Aulom . MaTically THRust into A NEGATIVE Pasitren ON THE CHESS Boned Soto SPEAK . SuRROUNA ING NY Claim; IN W HieH Now . WEAR, ANd carry TRE oA GGAGE ASSOC ATED witH it | oe 'b. CIN Light oF THE FAT, I NeVERK ordered | ”~A sPit Level Kiteren; why Kasn’T THis Fund AMENAL. Questioning EVER been Raised © by THE CouRtl; Who SPENT NosT oF THE THM E | badgering, ME IN QUESTIONS IN AETENSE For | THE defedants ? . | , QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Count OF Common Pleas.‘ . EARING “onTHeE MATTER. }) Why ts : Rule. oot nee PreomuGated Local ALLowed ts SIRENS AN APPEAL” SueRou nd ING ANY Ea So Eibraly; OF Failure To Service A Complaint WHEN LEGALLY STRIKING AN AppeAalc a, WHy WAS My APPEAL STRIicKEN with NO NOTICE OF | NTENT oR, ACTION. 3 LT — Rule toot cada) sTates with (Nits ConTexT Thal Rule (0o| would be Npplica ble iF ThE AxcVi on lb Ing APPEAL EA pwiTiaLly COMMENSEA (N THE Cour’! oF COMMON PIEAS; Why would My Limcved REPRE SENTATION Peobono ATT on wey Kee? Sucson IN i) To A Pe WHERE tes FRUSTRATION About tT would Wand Le Nyy CASE pny more L QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . SUPER OR Couet |, How Had my initially submitted Complaint” Recoeded IN the Municifal Couels E-File SYSTEM GET ReEVERSEd (N ERROR. by THe AIFFERENT THAN THE AccousT iN THE Records? The Breach of GosTeracl Physic a Evidence § STiLL Exist; AS THE STATE My KITChEN | Wes CeEET IN WHEN THE Conteacter’s WALIi¢ed OFF THE Job. 2. WHy_HAs THE Superior CoukTs stale. nets oF THE Record’s His Tory bpEGEN manipulated To State oTHER TWHKAN THE SEQUENTiaL ORdER OF THE OCCURENCES? THaAd NOT appealed Faom THe CourRT oF Common PIEAS because TL NEVER AT THERE, My . AppeAL From Mante pal was Strick ENEd Threw PRAEGIPE. was & ReSstaained IN HAUING To ° ‘eter So Much to MAVE THE Mante(pal CouR Judge MENT APPEAL EA, buT 1 NCournged RARE So oOWRRAS THE Gommdn PledS Court teneing ON +RE MATTER OPIN LON Wan AN Opinion udgeweNT be AP ented