Whether various State and Federal Courts have inconsistently applied the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 by denying litigants a jury trial when issues of fact are raised regarding aircraft parts replacement or airworthiness information

This Petition asks the Court to consider the following questions: 1. Have various State and Federal Courts, when asked to apply The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, 1 inconsistently legislated from the bench by denying litigants a right to a jury trial once an initial determination has been made that an issue of fact has been created by the replacement of parts with new? 2. Have various State Federal Courts, when asked to apply The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, inconsistently denied litigants a right to jury trial once there has been an issue of fact created by evidence r c o n tin uin g airw o rthin ess o f an aircraft has bee n knowingly withheld by a manufacturer? 3. Is there a split amongst the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and State Appellate Courts in the application of the Rolling Provision and Knowing Misrepresentation Provision of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 such that some deny a litigant the right to a jury trial once an issue of fact is raised by evidence thus denying these litigants procedural and substantive due process? 4. Is there a denial of procedural and substantive Due Process when a Court in interpreting the application of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 decides 1. The General Aviation Revitalization Act, Pub. L. No. 103298, 108 Stat. 155, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, note. ii that there is a right of a defendant not to stand trial when Congress after considering such a right did not include it in the statute? Petitioners respectfully answer each of the foregoing