Whether 42 U.S.C. Sections 1985(2),(3) and a new Rooker-Feldman exception that exists also under Lance v. Dennis are jurisdictional exceptions to the Cross-Appeal Rules and may be added as another theory of Rooker-Feldman exceptions to that portion of the Judgment, in favor of Petitioner Pro Se?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. Sections1985(2),(3) and a new Rooker-Feldman exception that exists also under Lance v. Dennis are jurisdictional exceptions to the Cross-Appeal Rules and may be added as another theory of RookerFeldman exceptions to that portion of the Judgment, in favor of Petitioner Pro Se? 2. Whether the Third Panel of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, may own their own initiative, excuse the respondents’ failure to file a notice of cross appeal based on an alternative jurisdictional argument that the Ninth Circuit en banc court had already rejected, convert the summary judgment on the RICO merits for respondents to a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and not rule on Petitioner Pro Se’ appeal including adding a new Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional exception to the parallel-action exception, her jurisdictional unlabeled civil rights 1985(2),(3) claimse by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1343(c)(1), contention that these changes in law under Kemp v. Unitied States cannot be consistenly applied with circuit precedent and so is an exceptional circumstance to reverse the adverse judgments agaist under Rule 60(b) her to reopen her case. 1