I WHAT LAWS OF CINIL COURT JURIS dICTION E OD SHN PE HE MT T V T I RECIEVED?

2 WHY WERE tHE dEFENDANTS bARELY QUESTIONED CONCERNINg MY COMPLAINT?

3. WHy iS THE JUdGEMENT, " JUdGEMENT FOR ThE ANCE OF EVIdENCE WHICH SUPPORTED MY CIAIMS?

5.WHY did THE MUNICIPAL COURT PURPOSELY gIVE THE dEFENOANTS: THE UPPER HANd iN A E B w CLAIM'S IMPORTANCE?

NOW I'AM AUTOMATICALLY THRUST iNTO A NEGATIVE POSITION ON THE BOARd SO TO SPEAK, CHESS SURROUNd iNG MY ClAiM; IN WHiCH NOw I WEAR, ANd CARRY THE BA GGAGE ASSOCIATED WITHiT. LiGHT OF THE FACT, I NEVER ORdERED 6, IN A SPLIT LEVEL KITCHEN; WHy HASN'T THiS FUNdAMENAL QUESTIONING 1 EVER bEEN RAISEd bYTHE COURT; WhO SPENT MOST OF THE TiME bAdgeRiNg ME IN QUESTIONS IN dEFENSE FOR THE dEFEdANTS?

Why IS THE "STRIKINg CC Rule 1001 AN APPEAL" ALLOWEd TO bE USEd S LiBRALLY; So SURROUNdING ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OF FAILURE To SERVICE A COMPIAINT WHEN LEGALLY

2. WHy WAS MY APPEAL STRICKEN WITh NO NOTICE OF INTENTOR ACTION. RULE 100I (A)() S

3.I F STATES WITHIN I's CONTEXT ThAT Rule 1001 Would bE ApplicabLE 3H ACTION bEING APPEALEd INITIALLY COMMENSEd IN THE COURT OF WHy would My COMMON PIEAS; LIMITEd REPRESENTATiON PROKEEP QUESTIONWHERE His FRUSTRATION AbOUT iT would CAUSE HIM NOT TO WANT TO HANDLE MY CASE ANYMORE?

SYSTEM GET REVERSEd IN ERROR by THE SUPERIOR COURT?: AN INTERPRETOTION dIFFERENT THAN THE ACCOUNT IN THE RECORDS? THE BREACH OF CONTRACT PHYSICAL EVIdENCE STILL EXIST, AS THE STATE MY KITChEN WAS LEFT IN WHENTHE CONTRACTOR'S WALKEd OFF- THE JOB.

WHY HAS THE SUPERIOR COURT'S 2. StATEMENTS OF THE RECORD'S HISTORy BEEN SEQUENTIAL ORDER OF THE THE OCCURENCES? IHAd NOT APPEALED FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PIEAS My bECAUSE I NEVER GOT THERE, StRIcKENEd ThRU PRAECIPE. HAVING WAS I RESTRAINEd IN To WHY 3. SO MUCh TO HAVE THE MUNICIPAL JUdqEMENT APPEALEd, bUT INC

What laws of Gwil Court jurisdiction were applied in this Municipal Court; why were the defendants barely questioned concerning my complaint; why did the defendant not have to answer my complaint; why is the judgment 'judgment for the defendants' when the preponderance of evidence supported my claims; why did the Municipal Court give the defendants the upper hand in a 'reverse' thereby negating my claims' importance; in light of the fact I never ordered a split-level kitchen, why hasn't this fundamental questioning ever been raised by the Court