This writ certainly raises the questions of Personal jurisdiction versus forum non conveniens, venue, transfer and sovereign immunity In Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno this Court sets forth the modern-day test for forum non-conveniens analysis in federal courts. The test asks whether a court can dismiss the lawsuit in favor of another forum, and if such forum exists, then courts should weigh a variety of private and public interest factors to determine whether the case should be dismissed. Forum non conveniens says that an appropriate forum, even though competent under the law-may divest itself of jurisdiction if, for the conveniens of the litigants, the witnesses, or the public, it appears that the action should proceed in another forum where the action might originally have been brought, here, the Western District Court of Michigan.

1. The first question presented is whether the district court made clear error in dismissing the complaint for want or lack of personal jurisdiction rather than because of forum non conveniens or venue for this matter, because, in the case at bar, the Western District Court of Michigan does have both personal and subject matter jurisdictions. Fed. R. Civ. P. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1)

2. The second question presented is whether on principles governing federal courts, the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction on certiorari where, as here, the judgment in the Western Michigan Ingham County Circuit Court obtained through proven fraudulent and unethical means by the respondent law school caused direct, specific, and concrete injury to the student petitioning for review, (App. If Bill of Complaint), as well as to the co-respondent/defendant federal agency, here, the Department of Education and requisites of controversy were met.

3. The third question presented is whether on principles governing federal courts there exists an available alternative forum for the action as adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other state or federal court because of the initial unethically hence fraudulently obtained judgment in the Ingham County Circuit Court, App If, which lead to all the following corrupted federal courts judgments, which on principles of federal laws, the Supreme Court should declare void ab-initio, because it was obtained in violation of petitioner's Fundamental Constitutional Rights to Freedom of Speech, 1st Amendment, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, to Equal Protection, Due Process (procedural and substantive), the Code for Judicial Conduct, as well as Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

4. The fourth question presented is whether respondent law school, as a private entity, performs a traditional, exclusive public function, i.e. educating or training lawyers and future judges for both federal, state, and local courts, qualifies as a state actor in this limited circumstance and hence is subject to constitutional liability.

Personal-jurisdiction-versus-forum-non-conveniens