1. This Petition presents a Federal Question that could have and harmonize conflicting decisions in the Federal Circuit Courts and could establish precedential value whether Federal Rule Civil Procedure 5.1(b) requires the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) to certify to the appropriate attorney general that an Act of congress (AEDPA) the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act has been called into question and presents an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, violations of the vagueness Doctrine, and shall be served on the Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5616, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20530-0001?

2. This Petition presents a Federal Question and could have precedential value in the Court determining whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose "Equivalent Due Process Limits " on Court Jurisdiction?

3. This Petition also presents a Federal Question whether Federal Rule Civil Procedure 5.1(b) requires the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) to certify to the appropriate attorney general that an Act of congress the Fifth and Fourteenth has been called into question whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee equivalent Due process of law and shall be served on the Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5616, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20530-0001?

4. This Petition presents a Federal Question and Plaintiffs-Petitioners wish to be more fully informed whether a Trial Court Judge 's 'mistake ' is reviewable through a Writ of Certiorari pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1)?

5. This Petition presents a Federal Question where another Appellate Court could reach a different conclusion on the same issue where the Trial Court Judge 's 'mistake ' of requiring Plaintiffs-Petitioners to establish "Elements of Monell v. Department of Soc. Sues., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) liability regarding a policy violation, a policy maker, and violation of constitutional amendment creates a genuine issue of material fact legally relevant to Court GRANTING F.R.C.P. 56(c) Motions for Summary Judgment in Defendants-Respondents favor without consideration of F.R.C.P. Subdivision 56(e)(3), F.R.C.P. 56(b), and Inverse Condemnation Claim "Strict Liability provisions of," 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. The ACT, 86 Stat. 816, (1982) ed. and Supp.II?

6. Whether a question presenting an important public interest involving violations of the Federal (EPA) Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act by the City of Clarksdale / Clarksdale Public Works; and Clarksdale Public Utilities at the time of the filing as alleged in Plaintiff 's complaint Doc. [1] qualify for Court GRANTING a Writ of Certiorari to prohibit further health exposures to the Plaintiffs and the general public?

7. Whether another Appellate Court could reach a different conclusion on the same issue where the Trial Court GRANTED City of Clarksdale / Clarksdale Public Works "Untimely Surreolv Dispositive " F.R.C.P. 56(c) Doc. [187

whether-federal-rule-civil-procedure-5.1(b)-requires-court-certification-of-unconstitutional-act