Is an order punishing a citizen's exercise of guaranteed constitutional freedoms patently unconstitutional and void, subject to mandatory relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioners invoke the protections of the First Amendment core right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances including the natural Court access right to pursue an appeal in the Federal Courts, the Fifth Amendment core right of the people to NOT “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) right to relief from a void judgment. After the District Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed Petitioners RICO claims, expressly refusing to award sanctions, Petitioners filed a Rule 59 Motion which greatly offended the District Court, resulting directly in the punitive post-judgment award of $10,500 past attorney’s fees incurred as monetary sanctions under the Court’s inherent powers, and $140,000 conditional future appellate attorney’s fees “in the event of an appeal by any party”. This Petition challenges as _ patently unconstitutional and void the award of $140,000 conditional future appellate attorney’s fees in the event of an appeal by any party as fundamental error, ie. the District Court’s complete and total lack of subject matter jurisdiction to fetter Petitioner’s First Amendment freedom to petition the government through appeal. Petitioners demonstrated conclusively to the District Court and Court of Appeals that the District Courts’ Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 future conditional sanctions are not supported by any Federal law, chills Petitioners’ exercise of the freedom to petition the ii government through appeal and is therefore patently unconstitutional and void but the Court did not address these arguments. 1. Is an order punishing a citizen’s exercise of guaranteed constitutional freedoms patently unconstitutional and void, subject to mandatory relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? 2. Does the District Court’s imposition of $140,000 sanctions in the event of an appeal by any party, abridge Petitioners’ First and Fifth Amendment guaranteed freedoms to access the Courts and to NOT be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law? iii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES 1. 17-1029 Valentina Sheshtawy et al. vs J. Cary Gray, et al. In the United States Supreme Court--Status Closed