Whether the sanctity of the express and unambiguous written intent, terms, and conditions of an Act of Congress are inviolate

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Ifthe sanctity of the express and unambiguous written intent, terms, and conditions of an Act of } Congress are inviolate, like the express and unam: | biguous written intent, terms, and conditions of a | wholly integrated revocable living (inter vivos) Trust Agreement that is inextricably intertwined with the Settlor’s First Amendment thereto, the Confirmation | thereof, and the Second Amendment thereto, and that | became irrevocable when the Settlor diedon November | : 28, 1993, did the court below exercise judicial or quasijudicial authority that is unauthorized by law under } AMG Capital Mgmt, LLC v. FTC, __ U.S. __, 141 | S. Ct. 1341 (Apr. 22, 2021); McGirt v. Oklahoma, U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (Jul, 2020); and Jennings v. Rodriguez, __ U.S. __, 188 S. Ct. 830 (2018), by affirming the district court’s interpretation thereof and amendment thereto? II. If the court below incorrectly applied a summary | judgment standard of review to affirm the summary | judgment cross-motion and the respondent attorneys made fabricated evidence, attorney spoliation of admissible evidence, and attorney potential witness tampering , during the proceedings, was the affirmance of the judgment procured by fraud-on-the-court required to be set aside or vacated? III. Ifthe court affirmed the inapplicable collateral estoppel dismissal of the subsequent case (“Lipin IT’) that was commenced pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1)(3) to set aside or vacate the : judgment filed in the prior case (“Lipin I’), is the judgment in the subsequent case (“Lipin IT’) also void and required to be set aside or vacated? ii | ;