Whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to order relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 59(e), and whether such actions violate fundamental constitutional rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION I: Whether a federal court has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction under the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(2) or any other federal law to “Order, Adjudge, Decree” | or “Affirm” that a ten-months-after post-judgment motion pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(4) for “Relief from a Judgment or Order” is a “Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment” pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e), and whether in so doing the inferior courts deprived Petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights. QUESTION Hl: Whether it is a violation of Muslim Petitioner’s First Amendment Freedoms of Religion when the inferior courts “Order, Adjudge, Decree” or “Affirm” that Petitioner’s references and expression of his belief in the sacred teachings of Islam on sexual intercourse virginity, chastity, and purity until after marriage are “Scatological” meaning “Excrements, Feces, Cacas, Poop, Shit”, “Exotic”, “Vulgar”, “crude”, “obscene”, “inappropriate”, “salacious”, “indefensible”, “foul”, “Profane”, “Misconduct”, and “Frivolous.” QUESTION III: Whether it is violation of Muslim Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights when federal Judges who are Subject Judges in Petitioner’s complaints of Judicial Misconduct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§351-364 extrajudicially enlist third parties for an endeavor to surreptitiously make “Physical Contact with”, kidnap, ambush, murder, and/or assassinate Petitioner in response to the said Judicial Misconduct Complaints. i LIST OF ALL