Whether 12 U.S.C. §3410(d) and (e) unconstitutionally restrict judicial review and appeal rights in financial record disclosure cases

1. Should the district court have held an evidentiary hearing to address Petitioners’ allegations that pieces of paper purporting to be summonses lacked the essential attributes justifying characterization as summonses? 2. Did the Notice of Agreed Order filed in the district court on May 23, 2024, preserve the petitioners' right of appeal when it stated that the Movants agree to the order in form and reserve the right to ask the Court to reconsider its rulings and/or appeal the substance of the rulings? 3. Did the district court, the petitioners, and the respondent consider the Decision of the district court to be final within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. §3410(d) when that Court issued an unopposed stay to its ruling until the Fifth Circuit decides Petitioners’ appeal of that ruling? 4. Are the forty-one (41) States’ Constit-ution Open Court Provisions (App.22-36) “laws of the several states [that] shall be regarded as rules of decision” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1652 tantamount to an amendment of the United States Constitution, given that they typically provide, as is the case under Tex. Const. Art. I, § 13 (App.33-34), that “[a]ll courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law” and given further that it requires only 38 States to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, or if not tantamount to an amendment, laws that should be given considerable weight by this Court in this matter? ii 5. Are thirty-four (34) States’ Constitution Inalienable Rights Provisions (App.37-47) that typically provide, as is the case under Texas Const. Art. I, § 19 (App.46), that [n]o citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land. (App.46) “laws of the several states [that] shall be regarded as rules of decision” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1652, and this Court should give that considerable weight in this matter? 6. Does 12 U.S.C. §3410(d) withdraw from judicial cognizance a right of appeal from a clearly erroneous ruling by a district court which, from its nature, is an inherent procedural element of a suit at the common law, and violate Article III of the United States Constitution that “[t]he judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity” when it states that “[a] court ruling denying a motion or application under this section shall not be deemed a final order and no interlocutory appeal may be taken therefrom by the customer” to a Federal appellate court? 7. Does 12 U.S.C. §3410(e) withdraw from judicial cognizance a matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law and violate Article III of the United States Constitution that “[t]he judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity” when it says “[t]he challenge procedures of this title constitute the sole judicial remedy available to a customer to oppose disclosure of financial records pursuant to this title”? 8. Are 12 U.S.C. §3410(d) and (e) plainly unconstitutional under Article III of the United States Constitution that “[t]he judicial power shall iii extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity” by declaring the District Court ruling “not final” and denying the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal, given that Congress cannot override the inherent equitable power, indeed obligation, of the courts, to perform the functions inherent in the judicial institution? 9. Does 12 U.S.C. §3410(d) denying an appeal conflict with the mandate in 28 U.S.C. § 1652 that the “laws of the several states … shall be regarded as rules of decision” where most State Constitutional provisions provide that all courts shall be open, that every person shall have remedy by due course of law for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, and no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any man