1. Should the Defendants' documented admissions to speeding, as direct evidence, have not been reviewed by a jury, per Constitution Amendment VII, and due process?

2. Should material evidence produced to the district court by the Plaintiff, with standing, be omitted in error by the clerk, from the district court's facts reviewed for a judgment, as a matter of law, with genuine disputes unresolved?

3. Should the extraneous influence of the clerk's mistakes; oversights and omissions, which concealed the Plaintiff's material evidence submitted to the district court, be allowed to contribute to influencing judgment in this case, as deprivation of the Plaintiff's rights, per 42 U.S.C. Chap 21 § 1983 and by strict scrutiny?

4. Did the district court properly not certify the Plaintiff's Constitutional question per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5.1?

5. Did the district court properly deny the Plaintiff an opportunity for a trial with a jury's review of the facts and material evidence of the case?

6. Was the district court's fact finding proper to overlook the previous review and resolution of the Plaintiff's responses to the Defendants' Requests for Admissions on August 24, 2020 [Doc. 95, 96, 97], as the Defendants' failed to move regarding the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's responses, Rule 36(a)(6), as procedural missteps?

7. Should misconduct that excites prejudice, confusion, and misleading representation be acceptable throughout the civil process?

Should the Defendants' documented admissions to speeding be reviewed by a jury, per Constitution Amendment VII, and due process?