Did Respondent Bank Of America present any court case that would have allowed for a full due process to be fullfilled with the case at hand of Wessley J Gunchick Petitioner versus Bank of America Respondent?

Did the cases presented by Respondent Bank Of America to wit, Nash versus Mercedes Benz and Hess versus Hartford Life meet the standards of juris prudence with the case at hand Wessley J Gunchick Petitioner versus Bank Of America Respondent?

Was Respondent Bank Of America indeed arbitrary and capricious by not fulifilling the rules and bylaws set forth by The Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974; as amended /ERISA?

Did the court rule (Fed R APP P34 (a)(2)(c) prematurely and in jest with the presentation by Respondent Bank Of America of the court cases Hess versus Hartford Life; Nash versus Mercedes Benz which were representative with the case at hand of Wessley J Gunchick Petitioner versus Bank Of America Respondent ?

Didn't both cases submitted before the court by Respondent Bank Of America of Nash versus Mercedes Benz and Hess versus Hartford Life, whereby both Nash And Hess respectively have employment contracts and agreements with their respective employers of Mercedes Benz and Hartford Life ?

Didn't same said Respondent Bank Of America have full knowledge that Petitioner Wessley J Gunchick had no such employment contract nor agreement with same said Respondent of Bank Of America ?

Wasn't Respondent Bank Of America Blatantly and openly failing to follow the rules and bylaws set forth by The Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974;as amended ?

With the recent Appelant Court ruling that was in favor of Respondent Bank Of America(See Appendix A), doesn't such a ruling by the court present itself to the public who are/will be pension particapants at risk / at the mercy of their respective employer who then can conjur and concoct a "witches bre" of a repective pension plan that favors their respective employer all under the guise of pure greed ?

Does Petitioner Wessley J Gunchick have the due process right for judicial review with the dispute against Respondent Bank Of America, to wit, failure of their discretionary authority to correctly attain correct pension benfits rightly due Petitioner under The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended;(ERISA),502(A),29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(b) ?

Question not identified