Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in Steele vs Saib conflicts with Supreme Court precedents on due process notice requirements for property seizure and sale

No question identified. : Questions In the ruling of MENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS, Appellant v. Richard C. ADAMS, the Supreme Court of the United States held that knowledge of a pending sale, or posting and publishing does not meet the due process requirements under the 14th Amendment of notice. Chief Justice Marshal held that notice by publication is not reasonably calculated to inform interested parties who can be notified by more effective means such as personal service or mailed notice. The Court Held: The manner of notice provided to appellant did not meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Does the decision of the Chief Justice Marshal in this case conflict with the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in the case of Steele vs Saib No. 23-CV-0887 decisioned May 7, 2025 when the Court of Appeals held that publication of notice in a newspaper of an execution sale of her real estate was upholding the Petitioner ’s due process rights as it related to her life, liberty and property protection. In the ruling of the District of Columbia Court Appeals in the case of Steward v Moskowitz, the Court held that publication of notice of an execution sale was not upholding the due process rights of the Appellant and reversed the sale. Does the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in the case of Steele vs Saib No. 23-CV-0887 decisioned May 7, 2025 where the Court decided that that the only notice of the execution sale of my property to me as Appellant was the publication of notice in a newspaper. Does the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in the case of Steele vs Saib conflict with the DC Court of Appeals decision in the Steward v Moskowitz case? Does the decision of the Court of Appeals case of Steele vs Saib No. 23-CV-0887 conflict with the Supreme Court due process analysis in the cases of Mennonite Board of Missions v Richard C. Adams; and the Supreme Court decision in the Case of MULLANE v. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO. et al The DC Court of Appeals decided in the case of Steele vs Saib that the legal statutory requirements of personal service of the writ were not due to me. Would the court, please accept my writ of certiorari and decide if decision Qf ppeals ln my case conflicts with of D. C. Court of Appeals decision in the Steward v Moskowitz; the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mennonite Board of Missions v Richard the Supreme Court d“ in the CaseTf MU.LANE v. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO et al with respect to upholding my due process rights and the protection of life, liberty and property. If a Federal Agent of the US Marshal Service falsely certifies on a federal government legal document, the USM-285 Process Recmpt and Return Form, that personal service was fectuated on me, the Pefitioner, on the same day of the public CIOn ° my real estate in order to dispossess me of my real auSf fl T d C°Urt °rdered execution sale he set aside and q et title because my due process rights of Constitutional notice and statutoiy notice of the court ’s order to seize and sell « Were Vi0,ated With respect to the '■ul ings of D C. Court of Appeals decision in the Steward v Moskowitz; the upreme Court Case of Mennonite Board of Missions v “1J“'d CAdams; and Supreme Court case of MULLANE v. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO. et al the tt X °f dr PrOCeSS ri§htS of Constitu tional Notice relied on he affected party not being served actual notice of court decisions when their name is known and their place of residence is known, or easily ascertainable as in the case of the life h^ ” °uder ‘° a™id V‘°,ating the due process n'8hts of sflb 23 CV^vT^ PT0'™' D°eS 4e CaSe °f Steele vs Saib 23-CV-0887 decisioned May 7,2025 where the Court of Appeals determined that the Petitioner was not due actual notice of the date, time and location of the sale of her real estate, and that the Petitioner was not due actual personal service of the writ of execution of the court order t