Whether a Rule 42 consolidation can deprive a party of a substantive right—the right to an appeal from a final judgment—when the Rules Enabling Act prohibits the federal rules from abridging or modifying a party's rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a Rule 42 consolidation can deprive a party of a substantive right—the right to an appeal from a final judgment—when the Rules Enabling Act prohibits the federal rules from abridging or modifying a party’s rights. 2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding the denial of a pro se litigant’s right to selfrepresentation and to testify at trial as the type of due process constitutional rights errors in . which the harmless error standard could apply. 3. Whether a verdict winner must file a timely motion for a new trial after entry of judgment in order to raise new-trial arguments and preserve a challenge on appeal, after both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) before submission of the case to the jury, but only the opposing party renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury’s verdict, and was granted JMOL and a conditional new trial, but the original prevailing ; party was denied a new trial under Rule 59.