1) The defendant received Court Summons via U.S.Marshats,pursuant to
FRCP (Federal Rules of CMI Procedure) Rule 4 (c)(3), the plaintiff case
was granted by court, under In Forma Pauperis, Title 28 U.S.C. Section
1916, why is the court claiming, the plaintiff did not server the defendant,
when the Summons was served by U.S.Marshal, pursuant to rule 55?

2) Why is the court not granting default judgement to the plaintiff, the
defendants) fail to respond or appear to court, when evidentfs) has been
proven?

3) Pursuant to Fair Debt collection Practices (FDCPA), the plaintiff has
proven this act from the defendants) applying two debt(s) to the credit
bureau 's of the same account from two different agencies. This act raised
the plaintiff debt ratio too high for law enforcement employment and/or
maintain Top security clearance. Evident^) has been proven, and daim(s)
for relief, why the court did not grant plaintiff enforcement?

4) If the court believes the case has no subject matter personal jurisdiction,
why did formal employer, Department of Homeland Securky/TSA/Office of
Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Services revoke his security
clearance and put on Indefinite Suspension, after the defendants) raised
garnishment from wages not true, causing bankruptcies and not able to
pay common bins?

5) Why is the court belief that the plaintiff does not have subject matter
personal jurisd iction, when the plaintiff has proven wife evidenced) of
federal(s) laws have been violated, from fraudulent documents) of salary,
not coming from agency, per policy and procedure?

6) The defendants) can apply one account wife two different debts to the
plaintiffs credit report, which was brought to fee attention of the plaintiff
from creditor, when applying for a law enforcement job?

7) WHEN FEDERAL LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND PROVEN, THE
STATE AND/OR THE DEFENDANT MUST ENFORCE THE FEDERAL
LAWS FIRST?

Whether the court erred in finding that the plaintiff did not properly serve the defendant despite service by U.S. Marshals