1. Whether the Federalism structure of government prevented the District Court from assuming subject-matter jurisdiction over a real property res for purposes of determining its boundary lines where that same issue was already being adjudicated in a state court having jurisdiction over the same res.

2. Whether the courts below had the authority to ignore or overrule this Court's precedent requiring attorneys to prove that authority by which they claim to represent purported parties in federal courts.

3. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3) authorized the courts below to avoid (a) performing a traditional Article III injury-in-fact analysis, (b) applying the presumption against their jurisdiction; and (c) considering Congress divestiture of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1359.

4. Whether the senior judge who decided this action was an independent judge within the meaning of Article III where he had to be periodically delegated and assigned by other judges to exercise federal judicial power.

Whether the Federalism structure of government prevented the District Court from assuming subject-matter jurisdiction over a real property res for purposes of determining its boundary lines