1. Whether the District Court review of the facial sufficiency of 42 USC § 1983 and § 1985 complaint below, Respondent's failure to state a claim within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ignored the requirements of FRCP Rule 12(c) holding that "judgment will be granted if the pleadings demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." [See Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6the Cir.1999). —immediately appealable collateral order; resulting in the failure to dismiss the case for the lack of both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12b(6)(l)(2)].

2. Whether the Third Circuit Court's review of the facial sufficiency of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g) of the Fair Debt Collection Act complaint below ignored enforcing verification of the requirements of full disclosure, pursuant to Title 9 § 1,4. (False Claims), [UCC 3-309(a)(l)(2), "If the NOTE was sold or transferred, the BANK lost its right to foreclosure.!"]

3. Whether the Third Circuit Court review of the facial sufficiency of U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1, § 10 complaint below ignored requirement of lower court demand payment of debts-at-law with silver and/or gold, when Congress suspended ARTICLE 1 § 10—due to U.S. Bankruptcy —and replaced it with "credit" and "Promissory Notes," pursuant to FUR-192 of June 5,1933 failed to honor Secured Party Mortgage settlements^ P.L. 73-10(48) Stat 112-113, U.C.C. 3-603, 3-604][See MAYARD MEHL v. JOHNH. NORTON, No. 31,338...]

4. Whether the District Court in the complaint below ignored Secured Party's Affidavit of Default and Dishonor against Respondent and denied, [Dailey v. R. &J. Commercial Contracting, 2002 WL 484988, at* 3 (S.D. Ohio 2002)(error for clerk to enter requested judgment involving punitive damages).]

Whether the District Court review of the facial sufficiency of 42 USC § 1983 and § 1985 complaint below ignored the requirements of FRCP Rule 12(c)