Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in determining that facts from one party are sufficient to determine subject matter jurisdiction and case outcome

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether or not the Sixth Circuit erred in determining that relevant and material facts given by ONE Party only [Respondents], are sufficient for a State or Federal court 1) to determine ifit has subject matter jurisdiction; and... 2.) to determine the outcome of a particular case; or Whether in so doing, the Sixth Circuit repeated the pattern begun in state court, by again “pretermitting”the relevant and material facts, which contradicts the "true intention" of a contract, an FDIC Bank's Duty to Inform and NOT conceal their “alleged mistakes’, the Duty of Impartial Due Process, RULE 60 Motions, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and “sovereign immunity’ for Judicial Defendants; all of which have contributed to Petitioners’ injuries; or Does Due Process require the "conflicting evidence" of ALL Parties be acknowledged openly, fairly without bias, and “legally considered’ without “pretermitting’ Petitioners’ FACTS 1... which will prove their allegations of fraudulent Breach of Contract by an FDIC Bank and by Judicial Defendants acting as individuals, under “color of law”? 1 Petitioners’ use of “FACTS” as opposed to “facts”, hereinafter refer to the “FACTS surrounding Reliant’s alleged-mistake’ ii . :