Forthright observance of rights presupposes their forthright definition. Judges must make clear and understandable the reasons for deciding as they do. Statute calls for the judge to 'sate his reasons'. Chavez-meza v. U.S. (2018).

1) Did the panel err, violate statute or the public trust, when they failed to State their reasoning for deciding they had no jurisdiction?

2) Was the trial court in error by asserting that said motion, attacking a collateral attack' ,and/or when the court refused to pass void judgment,was a the issues of the judgment being void and/or denial of due process? on Restated: Was the ORDER, ECF 114, a final order which was appealable?

3) Is a jeopardy terminated by irregular proceedings or the court's loss of jurisdiction, where it is bound to adopt certain rules in its proceedings, but disregards those rules?

4) What is the relation of these two clauses per the Rules of Construction?

Did the panel err, violate statute or the public trust, when they failed to State their reasoning for deciding they had no jurisdiction?