Did the panel err, violate statute or the public trust, when they failed to State their reasoning for deciding they had no jurisdiction?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Forthright observance of rights presupposes their forthright definition. Judges must make clear and understandable the reasons for deciding as they do. Statute calls for the judge to ‘sate his reasons'. Chavez-meza v. U.S. (2018). 1) Did the panel err, violate statute or the public trust, when they failed to State their reasoning for deciding they had no jurisdiction? The 'Motion To Set Aside A Void Judgment’ under F.R.Crim.Proc. Rules was a ‘direct attack' by definition. Black's Law Dict., llth Ed,p.576. It is not possible to "undermine a judgment",that is void: A ‘collateral attack’. 2) Was the trial court in error by asserting that said motion, attacking a void judgment,was a ‘collateral attack',and/or when the court refused to pass on the issues of the judgment being void and/or denial of due process? Restated: Was the ORDER, ECF 114, a final order which was appealable? Whereas: Proceedings are irregular or due process was denied the accused, which goes to the jurisdiction of the court, and renders the cause coram non judice; as the court is enjoined by the law for its exercise of , jurisdiction because it is a fundamental principle that trial and imprisonment i4 be lawful: 3) Is a jeopardy terminated by irregular proceedings or the court's loss of jurisdiction, where it is bound to adopt certain rules in its proceedings, : but disregards those rules? The Double jeopardy Clause and the Due Process Clause are in the same 5th Amendment and in the same sentence. Relation is inferred. 4) What is the relation of these two clauses per the Rules of Construction? Page i