Whether the Alabama Supreme Court's reversal of a lower court's order granting a deed to the Archers violates their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment

No question identified. : First Question 1. Does the teversal of the ORDER of Sept. 1, 2021, [without due process], that granted Lewis Archer and his family the deed to their home of 30 years violate Mr. Archer’s right to due process of law under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Second Question 2. Does the reversal of the ORDER of Sept. 1, 2021, {without due process], that granted Lewis Archer and his family the deed to their home of 30 years violate Mr. , Archer’s right to equal protection of the laws under the equal protection of the laws clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? i Third Question 3. Does the Alabama Supreme Court setting aside Alabama Code §12-3-10 concerning the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals not having original jurisdiction over matters in excess of $50,000, such as the Archers’ home which was transferred to JPM Dream Homes LLC. for $150,000, violate Mr. Archer’s right to due process of law under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Fourth Question 4, Does the Alabama Supreme Court setting aside | Alabama Code §12-3-10 that states that The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals does not have original jurisdiction over matters in excess $50,000, such as the Archer’s home which was transferred to JPM Dream Homes LLC. for $150,000, violate the equal protection of laws clause under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution . of the United States of America? ii Fifth Question 5. Does the Alabama Supreme Court setting aside Alabama Code §12-2-7(6) concerning transferring cases in excess of $50,000 to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for jurisdiction to exist, such as the Archer’s home which was | transferred to JPM Dream Homes LLC. For $150,000, violate Mr. Archer’s right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Sixth Question 6. Does the Alabama Supreme Court setting aside Alabama Code §12-2-7(6) concerning transferring cases in excess of $50,000 to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for jurisdiction to exist, such as the Archer’s home which was transferred to JPM Dream Homes LLC. For $150,000, violate Mr. Archer’s right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? iii Seventh Question 7. Does the fact that there is “no defense for Federal Mitigation wrongdoing by lenders in non-judicial State court” while such defense naturally exists in federal court, violate the Equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Eight Question 8. Does the fact that there is “no defense for Federal Mitigation wrongdoing by lenders in non-judicial State court” while such defense naturally exists in federal court, violate the Federal “Supremacy Clause” in the Second paragraph of Article VI of the US Constitution? Ninth Question 9. Since a lender can stretch its RESPA abuse such as Dual-Tracking over many months or years to use up the victim’s three-year Statute of Limitation Period, in this case 19 months of dual-Tracking followed by a non-judicial state court procedure stretched for 2 years, should iv Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitation be applied in RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act) cases? PREAMBLE TO THE NINE QUESTIONS After reviewing this Court’s Case No. 20-1525, Lewis Archer, Petitioner v. America's First Federal Credit Union: reviewing also, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s Case No. 19-15182, Lewis Archer and Shearie Archer v. America’s First Federal Credit Union; reviewing also, The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama’s Case also, a Magistrate Judges Report from that U.S. District Court; reviewing also The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals Case No. 2180136, The Mobile, Alabama Circuit Court issued a valid ORDER on Sept. 1, 2021 that interpreted its own Ju