1) Is the Sixth Circuit's holding in Martinez v. United States , that
the 25 page limit under Local Rule 7.1 applies to §2255 Motions,
inconsistent "Vith Rule 2(b), which places no page limits on §2255
motions (or 2254 motions);

2) Can the Government contravene 2255 Rules 4(b) & 5(b), which
directs that,it must file an answer addressing all allegations in
the §2255 motion, when directed to do so by the district court if
the motion is not summarily dismissed, by filing a "pre-answer"
motion to strike the §2255 motion for excess pages that the district
court took no issue with in it's preliminary review;

3) Does a district court's preliminary review of §2255 or §2254
motions exceeding a local rule page limit and order directing the
respondant to file an answer, implicity grant permission to exceed
such page limits;

4)- Does a district court abuse its discretion in granting a motion
to strike §2255 motion for excessive pages without also determining
whether such an action is in the interest of justice and does not
undermine the principle of this court that the purpose of a civil
pleading is to facilitate a ^proper decision on the merits .

Is the Sixth Circuit's holding in-Martinez v. United States, that the 25 page limit under Local Rule 7.1 applies to §2255 Motions, inconsistant with Rule 2(b), which places no page limits on §2255 motions (or 2254 motions)?