Petitioner, Johnny E. McMahon, has been collaterally attacking subject-matter jurisdiction since 2011. However, this is the first time this Honorable Court has been presented with this meritorious claim.

Both the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to conduct a de novo review to certify the question of jurisdiction or fraud upon the court pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)(d)(3).

The questions presented in this case are:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying Petitioner a second or successive petition in failing to review the State of Nevada Clark County District Attorneys Office statutory requirement following the law to both timely and legally obtain subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute McMahon of a crime depriving McMahon of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying Petitioner a second or successive petition in failing to review the Las Vegas Justice Court State of Nevada statutory error in obtaining subject-matter jurisdiction to even hear the case depriving McMahon of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law?

3. Whether review of subject-matter jurisdiction in a collateral attack be latched, time barred, or procedurally defaulted by respondents?

4. Whether the August 10, 2021 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erroneously apply the opinion of United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Case number 2:11-cv-00016-APO-CWH decided on September 28, 2011 deny Petitioners First Amendment Right of redress of grievances to file a Motion

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying a second or successive petition on the petitioner's claims of due-process, equal-protection, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel, prosecutorial-misconduct, extrinsic-fraud, right-to-fair-trial, right-to-fair-appeal, procedural-due-process, evidentiary-hearing