Did the construal by the Seventh Circuit amount to a mis-construal in presuming the petition for en banc rehearing was a motion to recall the mandate?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED e (1) Did the “construal” by United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit in their ORDER of January 10, 2022 amount to a mis-construal by them in presuming the Petition For En Banc Panel Rehearing by Appellants, Leona and James Stack was a “motion to recall” court’s MANDATE of December 27, 2021? @ (2) Did the ORDER of December 16, 2021 by United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit, in its quick response to Appellants’ Petition for Panel Rehearing of December 11, 2021 provide reasonable explanation for its DENIAL? e (3) Did the FINAL JUDGMENT of November 30, 2021 by United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit, which AFFIRMED the November 29, 2021 ORDER by that court of the decision by the lower United States District Court For Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, provide opportunity for oral argument by Appellants, Leona and James Stack? e (4) Did the November 29, 2021 ORDER by United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit, by their “affirmation”, sustain the decision of the lower District Court while disregarding triable facts and evidence given them, and that were previously presented via Appellants’ Response to Appellees’ Brief (September 8,2021), Appellants’ Rule 10 The Record on Appeal (May 12, 2021) and, Plaintiffs‘ Appeal {April 8, 2021)? e (5) Did the OPINION AND ORDER of March 25, 2021 by United States District Court For Northern Indiana, South Bend Division relating to Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment of July 2, 2020 contain triable facts and evidence overlooked, misapprehended, or otherwise ruled inadmissable by the Magistrate Judge? e (6) Did “outside influences" prevail in the March 25, 2021 OPINION AND ORDER by United States District Court For Northern Indiana, South Bend Division apparent "reversal", without prior notification to Plaintiffs Leona and James Stack, of Magistrate Judge's thirty-seven previous day ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, AND WITH REFERENCE TO CONDUCT OF TRIAL? e (7) Did the fact that no request for "remand" back to Superior Court of St. Joseph County of State of Indiana was made within the "legal system" which may have played a role in allowing for ease of replacement of lawsuit originating attorney who ultimately abandoned our case, and for an expeditious settlement of original 1 $125,000 demand? an @ (8) Dida concerted effort by legal representatives of a "society of common ideological and academic affiliated” personalities exist as to avoid our cause and to deny us “due process”, especially after the first two of the eleven we'd unsuccessfully contacted had voluntarily withdrawn, thereby contributing to the "special challenges” facing Claimants, Plaintiffs, Appellants, and current Petitioners, Leona and James Stack as they proceed pro se? et . eo Toe ut " Dot . . '’ . ~ ta * . . : “2 a.