Whether Appellees' refusal to serve Petitioner with summons and petition after passage of two years' and seven months divest the district court of personal jurisdiction, venue and subject-matter jurisdiction over petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Appellees’ refusal to serve Petitioner with summons and petition after passage of two years' and seven months divest the district court of personal jurisdiction, venue and subject-matter jurisdiction over petitioner especially, where as here, petitioner never waived jurisdictional defects and never voluntarily appeared, thus rendered district court's orders, adjudications and decrees void Ab ; Initio due to lack of personal and subject-matters jurisdiction. Whether Fed. Rule 8(a) and civil RICO Statutes required petitioner in her Initial Complaint to allege and prove that Appellees had been convicted of RICO violations before petitioner could move forward with her mail fraud and wire fraud claims. Did the U.S. District Court violate Fed. R. Civ. Procs., Rule 8(a) when it heightened R. 8(a) standard requiring petitioner to prove each element in her Initial Complaint before she could move forward otherewise authorizing the use of the doctrine of sua sponte, although Rule 8(a), plain and : simple statement of facts putting the party on notice of claims and what to defend against was clearly . setforth in complaints. Does an appellate court have review jurisdiction under Section 1447 contrary to district court dismissal of supplemental joined claims for redress under Section 1367(a) and (c). Whether petitioner is entitled to make discovery without court interference to prove her Complaint claims, especially, where as here, petitioner has never been allowed discovery and the proof remains in custody and control of the Whether an appellate court has a duty to review an inferior court's order for plain error without being requested to do so by pro se appellant. Whether initial filing of a Fed. Rule Civ. Proc., Rule 65(d)(2) Application for Restraining Order and Injunction is automatic the moment the application is filed and binds not only the party defendants, (Questions Presented Continued) but also those identified with them in interest, in “privity” with them, represented by them, or subject to their control for ten (10) days automatically. Whether the district court abused its discretion requiring a heightened diversity of citizenship standard on petitioner civil RICO complaint when the court dismissed the civil RICO complaint due to a lack of complete diversity and subject matter jurisdiction averring that all the party defendants’ must be of the same diversity before the court has jurisdiction; Or, is this heightened standard contrary to RICO statutes and is plain or reversable error. . ii.