Whether or not the Sixth Circuit erred in determining that relevant and material facts given by ONE Party only [Respondents], are sufficient for a State or Federal court to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction; and to determine the outcome of a particular case; or

Whether in so doing, the Sixth Circuit repeated the pattern begun in state court, by again "pretermitting" the relevant and material facts, which contradicts the "true intention" of a contract, an FDIC Bank's Duty to Inform and NOT conceal their "alleged mistake", the Duty of Impartial Due Process, RULE 60 Motions, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and "sovereign immunity" for Judicial Defendants; all of which have contributed to Petitioners' injuries; or

Does Due Process require the "conflicting evidence of ALL Parties be acknowledged openly, fairly without bias, and "legally considered" without "pretermitting" Petitioners' FACTS... which will prove their allegations of fraudulent Breach of Contract by an FDIC Bank and fraud-upon-the-court by Judicial Defendants acting as individuals, under "color of law"?

Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in determining that facts from one party are sufficient to determine subject matter jurisdiction and case outcome