I ASKED THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER:

1). WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS CRAFTED BY THE MAY 1, 2021 AMENDMENT OF MCR 6.502(D) BY THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT WORTHY OF REMEDY. (p.I4).

2). WHETHER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN CASTRO v UNITED STATES, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) APPLIES TO MICHIGAN'S PRO PER LITIGANTS, (p.14).

3). WHETHER THE 1997 JURY INACCURACIES WITHIN THE JULY 2, 2022 TRANSCRIPT WORTHY OF REMEDY (APPENDIX (H)) (p.14).

4). WHETHER THE AUGUST 9, 2022 TRANSCRIPT INSTRUCTION (APPENDIX (I)) (p.14).

5). WHETHER THE MOTION IS SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE OR WHETHER THE MOTION FALLS UNDER THE FIRST MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNDER MAGWOOD v PATTERSON, 561 U.S. 320, 341-342 (2010) STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE SECOND IN TIME STANDARD OF REVIEW (p.14).

Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's failure to apply the May 1, 2021 amendment to MCR 6.502(D) and the Castro v. United States holding constitutes a remedy-worthy issue for pro se litigants