Lack-of-standing-is-a-jurisdictional-defect

No question identified. : : SIRE MiMm aco eae 4. WACK OF STANDING IS A JURIS BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND SIXTH CIRCUIT PANEL: UACK OF POWER TO DECREE IS AUSO A JURISDICTIONAL! DEFECT. THE PANEL! DECISION CONFLICTS WITH MICHIGAN LAW AND WITH A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. CONSIDERATION BY THE FULL) COURT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO SECURE AND MAINTAIN UNIFORMITY OF THE COURT'S DECISION. Plaintiff Uamb answens yes The Defendant's did not answer 2, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PANEL! CONFLICTS WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, § 2 AND UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WHERE THE FACTUAL PREDICATE OF PUAINTIFF'S LAMB'S ENTIRE COMPLIAINT FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS RESOLVING THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY IN A CONCRETE WAY, THUS, THE CASE IS NOT RIPE, CREATING A JURISDICTIONAL! DEFECT. Plaintiff answens yes, ; the Defendants did not answer 3. ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS DECEIVED THE DISTRICT COURT INTO RULLING THAT THE DEFENDANTS RENDERED LICENSED TREATMENT ONLY RESERVED BY PHYSICANS, COMMITTING A FRAUD UPON THE COURT OR AT THE VERY UEAST, PERJURY, WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT'S RUL'ING IS VOID AB INITIO AS DIRECTED BY UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, 98 US 61 (1878), HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO, 322 US 238 (4944) AND DEMJANIJUK V. PETROVSKY, 10 F3D 338 (1993). THE PANEL! CONFLICTS WITH THESE CASES. Plaintiff Uamb answers yes, The Defendants did not answer. + m4 TABLE OF CONTENT Opinion below, af Jurisdiction. | .2 Constitutional and statutory previsions. involved, 3