Did the Mississippi Supreme Court break state law when it would not apply the mandatory language in the use of the word 'shall' in Mississippi Code of Ann § 11-1-17 in violation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1654, in violation of pro se petitioner's First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW DID THE MISSISSIPPI SUPRME COURT BREAK STATE LAW WHEN IT WOULD NOT APPLY THE MANDATORY LANGUAGE IN THE USE OF THE WORD OF SHALL IN ; MISSISSIPPI CODE OF ANN & 11-1-17 IN VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C.A. & 1654, IN VIOLATION OF PRO SE PETITIONER FIRST, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMEND OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITITUTION. 2 THE CHANCERY COURT DENIED THE APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN CIVIL ACTION AND TO BE TREATED THE SAME OTHER APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF WHO HAVE COME BEFORE THE CHANCERY COURT OM DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN VIOLATION OF 28 & U.S.C.A. & 1654. AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SIX AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 3 THE CHANCERY COURT ERRED CITING BAKER & McENZIE LLP V. EVENS, 123 So. 3d 387 IS NOT ONE DIGEST KEY IN THAT CASE THAT ADDRESS A RULE 12(f) MOTION AND {T STATES COMPLAINTS FILED IN OTHER STATES UNDER DIFFERENT LEGAL CLAIMS NOT COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. 4 THE CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ERRED IN NOT GRANTING PLAINTIFF MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENDSES UNDER MRCP. 12(f). i} 5 THE CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ERRED IN NOT GRANTING PLAINTIFF SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER MRCP 12(f).