1. Should the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have accepted a corrected notice of appeal, which involved failure of Nanette Abao to sign a notice of appeal, that was "corrected promptly [ See Appx. E, page 14,25,28^1 after being called to the attention of [ the ] party", See Appx. A, page 5 ,Under Fed. R. Civ. in the November 7, 2022 Order P. 11(a); The decision in conflict with Becker v.Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (S. Ct. 2001) (Which involved failure to sign a notice of appeal, the»_ Supreme Court noted Rule 11 provides "omission of the signature" may be "corrected promptly after 1being called to the attention of the attorney or party." id. at 764)?

2. Is the continued withholding of material evidence, by the Michigan Court of Appeals Clerk, after request and payment for copies, a violation of 14th Amendment right to due process, under Brady_v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (S. Ct. 1963) where the evidence "might affect the outcome of the suit under [ Hague Conv. Art. 12 "settled environment" ] governing law." Anderson v. liberty [Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, at 248 (S. Ct. 1986). Materiality of evidence, Complaint raised to Chief Clerk, 0 See Appx. F. ^age 1 - 5 ]?

3. Should the petition under ICARA be granted for the return of the Filipino child Z.C. to his mother and brother Z.C.2 in the Philippines, with the Sixth Circuit Court's conclusion " that the ^District Court erred in sua sponte raising [ affirmative defenses ] to conclude that Cunningham had failed to state a claim of relief" under 28 USC 1915 (e) (2). Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,216 (2007); after taking "judicial notice of portions of transcripts from [ Cunningham's 3 state criminal trial for forcibly kidnapping his son." page i; Transcripts detailing the knowing and intentional removal of birth certificate evidence to be offered in present or future official proceeding, from the Sheriff vault by the Quinns, at the ~direction of Proseoutor Sadler, used in an illegal international adoption of the child, without notice of pendency of proceedings to mother or father, nor consent; concealed by willfully false testimony under oath concerning a material matter, by Paul Quinn, Det. Mitchell, and Det. Erickson, in denial of due process and equal protection of law, in an'.'unsettled environment".See Appx. A, page 3, Hague Conv. Art. 12 .See Appx. A,

Should the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have accepted a corrected notice of appeal involving failure to sign, in conflict with Becker v. Montgomery?