WHETHER ... RESPECT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT JUDGE'S
- - WHOSE MEMBERS TAKE THE SAME OATH AS THE U.S. CONGRESS THAT UPHOLD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §453 - - REQUIRES NO LESS WHY THE COURT JUDGE'S MAKE AND USE RULING TO DENY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHEN THE POWER UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IT FOLLOWS THAT THIS POWER IS NO LIMITED?

WHETHER ... BETWEEN THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS VIOLATION, CONSTITUTION STATUTORY PROVISION AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION WHICH OF THESE THREE LAWS THE JUSTICE'S AND JUDGE'S MUST OBEY FIRST AND PROTECT THE MOST?

WHETHER ... BETWEEN THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS VIOLATION AND THE COURT'S JURISDICTION RULES, WHICH OF THESE TWO LAWS THE JUSTICE'S AND JUDGE'S SHALL FOLLOW OR GO BOUND FIRST TO CORRECT THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONS AMENDMENTS VIOLATION OR THE RULE OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION?

WHETHER ... CONVICTION JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLAIN ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. HOW OR WHY SUCCESSIVE MOTION OR ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1996 LAW BAR PETITIONER'S CLAIM FROM THE COURT?

WHETHER ... CONVICTION OF CRIME NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT BY THE GRAND JURY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLAIN ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, HOW OR WHY SUCCESSIVE MOTION OR ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1996 LAW BAR THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM FROM THE COURT?

WHETHER ... CONVICTION FOR A CRIME IN THE INDICTMENT BY THE COURT WITHOUT ANY EXISTING EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. HOW OR WHY SUCCESSIVE MOTION OR ANTI-TERRORISM ACT 1996 LAW BAR THE PETITIONER CLAIM FROM THE COURT?

WHETHER ... THE QUESTIONS IN THE FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH QUESTION IS A VOID JUDGMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT FIVE AND FOURTEEN(1) AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, §9; 15(A); AND 16(A); HOW AND WHY THE STATE COURT'S SANCTION AND BAR THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM FROM THE STATE COURTS?

WHETHER ... THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT'S UNDER THEIR OWN JURISDICTION THAT SHALL NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICITON TO MAKE THEIR OWN LAW OR RULE OR FOLLOW ANY OTHER LAWS TO DENY A UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE OR AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. HOW OR WHY THE COURT'S TODAY IN THE COUNTRY USING RULE AND LAWS THAT OVERRULE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BY DENTAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS VIOLATION CLAIMS LIKE IN THIS CASE?

whether-court-judges-uphold-constitution