I. Because Rule 23 is mandatory as held in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, et al., were the Class Members' rights of due process under the fourteenth amendment violated when the Court intentionally failed and refused to comply with Rule 23 which mandates "At an early practicable time after a person sues... the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action:" where:
[i] the disputed, undeclared, statutory law pled that Massachusetts statute requires non-Massachusetts resident motor vehicle owners to maintain Massachusetts Compulsory Insurance which includes Personal Injury Protection provisions as part of their policy of liability insurance when their vehicles are operated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and
[ii] the disputed, undeclared, statutory law represents the rights, duties, status and other legal obligations of everyone; and
[iii] the Court held that this law has been declared; yet
[iv] failed and refused to say what that law is (and refused to order the insurers to say what that law is) depriving Class Members of their rights to "protections" of the statute and their policies of liability insurance?

II. Does it violate due process when a judge adjudicates a Class Action in which she and the Defendants in the Class Action are accused of conspiring to suppress a declaration of law in a prior law suit?

Whether a district court violates Rule 23 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to certify a class action and determine class members' rights under Massachusetts compulsory insurance law, and whether due process is violated when a judge adjudicates a class action while accused of conspiring with defendants to suppress a declaration of law