Where "life, liberty & property" are fundamental rights equally protected, does a 'decision' with no opinion or legal authority depriving a person of property violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Where foreign corporations claims are barred by 'door-closing' statutes, does maintaining a "cause of action" or "affirmative defense" violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Where Respondent's claims are barred by the 'door-closing' statute, did the court's failure to enforce the statute and barring Petitioner's claims in favor of Respondent violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Where a decision has no facts, evidence or conclusions of law, is that decision sufficient to establish res judicata when there is no evidence claims were adjudicated "on the merit."

Where Respondent's foreclosure deed was unexecuted and unrecorded, did the court acquire jurisdiction over Respondent's ejectment claims or Petitioner's complaint to intervene to establish a court of "competent jurisdiction."

Where Petitioner was not a party to the ejectment action, does a dismissal as intervenor "trigger" res judicata to bar claims as successor pursuant to Rule 25(c) and Rule 17(a).

Where Petitioner's claims were adjudicated "on the merits" pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), did the courts affirmance of those void orders violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Where a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate void orders is filed as an independent action, can that action be barred by res judicata and dismissed with prejudice without establishing the validity of the orders to be vacated.

Where Respondent did not have a writ of possession or court order, did Respondent's entry and taking of the property constitute criminal trespass and theft of property.

Where Respondent failed to establish standing as the assignee of the mortgage in 2009, does Respondent have a right to proceed as successor in interest to bar Petitioner's recovery of the property.

Where Respondent did not prove authority to conduct a foreclosure sale, is the foreclosure deed "valid" because it was not "declared" void.

Where Respondent's claims were dismissed, can Respondent claim ownership of the property through the foreclosure sale by the order "dismissing" its claims.

Where Respondent's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), did that dismissal render the foreclosure sale invalid, and the foreclosure deed void ab intitio.

Where Petitioner's transfer of interest complied with Rule 25(c) and Rule 17(a), did the denial of the a right to proceed as successor in title constitute a denial of due process of the law.

Where Petitioner was the legal title holder of record pursuant to Rule 25(c), was she the legal owner with legal possession of the property by the dismissal of Respondent's ejectment claims.

Where Respondents claims were dismissed, does Rule 25(c) preclude relitigating those "dismissed claims" in a "separate action" as "affirmative defenses" to bar Petitioner's claims as successor in title.

Where Respondent did not prove legal title or a "right to possession" in 2009, does Respondent have a "right" to bar Petitioner's claims to recover stolen property.

Where Respondent's claims were dismissed by Rule 41(a)(2), does the court have jurisdiction of those "dismissed claims" to bar Petitioner's claims to recover the property.

Where

Whether a decision with no opinion or legal authority depriving a person of property violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments