Did the appellant's amended complaint ECF 43 present substantial 'well pleaded facts,' as to plausibly state a claim and support the claim to overcome motion to dismiss proceedings with reverence to all alleged claims?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED |, DID THE APPELLANT'S AMENDED COMPLAINT ECF 43 PreseyT suB~ STANTIAL “WELL PLEADED FACTS,” AS TO PLIMWLY STATE & CLAM AND SUPPORT THE CLM TO OVERCOME MOTION TO DisMiss PROCEEDINGS WITH REVERENCE TO ALL ALLEGED CLMNS% . 1 THE PLM WTIEFS) KPPELLAWT'S AMENDED COMPLAINT PROVIDED AT DOCKET ENTRY ECF 43, DiD THE CONCATENATION OF WORDS, keTS, AUD FACTS ESTAGLISH THE EMBODIMENT OF CIVIL RICO CLHUS ALD CIVIL Rice CONSPIRKEY CLAMS? 3. IN GPFACT DID THE DISTRICT COURT MUD US~ COURT OP APPEALS DEVE THE PLANTIPE THE CONSTITUTION AL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY VIEWING THE PATS, STMEMENTS, AD ALLEGATIONS Lay THE UGHT MOST" PVORMSLE TO THE DEFaDAWT / APPELLEES? 4. IW EFFECT DID THE U.S. CouRT OF APPEALS UPHOLD THE DECISLOW OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS A-MATTER OF RECOURSE 1) THE CERTIFIED ORDER ISSUED IN LIEU oF MANDATE, THEY DEPRIVING, THE PLMINTIFE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO Du PROCESS he LAW t 5. i) EPPECT DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS EPPECTUMLLY BAR ALL REMEDIES OF LAW IU THIS ACTION, BY ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE WITHOUT THE ALLOWADCE POC PRUPER MV PEALS \ G. DIDTHEADEFENDAWT'S) MPPELLEE'S PHLURE TO DELIVER MOTION I DISMISS PETITION DEPQVE THEITLAASTIFED APPELLANT OFTHE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE. TIMELY OBTECTOW)S” 1) BRFECT DiD THE DISTRI COURT AMD THE UWITED STATRS COURT OF APPEALS APPLY IFHIGHE STANDARD" OFSCOUTINY 7 THE PLMANTIFES COMPLAINT THAN) THAT PERMISS|BLE UNPE? ‘THE FeEDRUME RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE? FP DID THE TI MAmeRs OPPoSiTW IO MOTION TO DISMISS MUD IPPLEMENTAL MEMORAMIDUM IN SUPPORT PROVIDE SUBSTRUTIAL “WELL ~ PLEAD > Bets 7 OvRRCoME THE MOTIOW TD DISMIS _ Z J 1? _V-DID THE APPRILANT Resear issues AS A MATTER OF LAW! | WHICH REQUIRE DE Kovn REVIEW ON APPEM 2 To . _ 6. KEW IS LD a om APPEL PAY | v — EN | 2 Ag LH : REVIENY ON APPEAL ; a a