(1) Whether a motion to vacate the court of appeals Judgment pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6), 60(d) and 28 USC 144 is proper when the
court of appeals defies its decision in Inform Inc, v. Google LLC. et, al (11th Cir. Aug
26, 2022) on the court 's connotation of a "shotgun pleading " but affirmed the district
court 's decision to dismiss petitioner 's case citing a "shotgun pleading " when
petitioner 's clarified allegations along with documented evidence were pled in (3)
lower courts previous to the Court of Appeals and clearly detailed respondents '
twice 'willful ' violation of petitioner 's 'Automatic Stay ', and respondents filing then
prevailing in an eviction lawsuit entirely during an open federal housing
'retaliation ' investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development while using illicit business names to do so, constitutes complicit bias
and "extraordinary circumstances ".

(2) Whether acts carried out by respondents to evict a fifty-eight-year-old tenant
comprised of employing an illegal business names to twice petition and lift her
bankruptcy 'Automatic Stay ' to 'pursue ' eviction, file an unlawful detainer lawsuit,
and granted an 'Unlawful Detainer and Writ of Possession Order ' also under the
disguise of unlawful business designations during an open federal housing
investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development are considered 'willful acts of malice ' and whether the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development can be held liable for 'gross
negligence ' exclusive any effort to 'proactively adhere and apply ' all federal and
state housing laws to guard a tenant upon 'notification ' from that tenant of landlord
retaliatory acts and eviction after a tenant has filed a federal housing complaint but
also during an open federal housing investigation and are violations of
the 4th Amendment (U.S. Const, amend. IV), considered negligence, 'fraud on the
court ' and violation of the, 5th Amendment (U.S. Const, amend. V)., 11 USC
362(a)(3), 11 USC 362(k)(l), Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 USC 3610(e)(1), 42 USC
3613 Section 813(c)(l)(2), 24 CFR 100.400(c)(5)(6), 24 CFR 100.6.00(a)(2)(i)(b), 24
CFR 103.500(a)(b), 24 CFR 115.2049b)(l)(i), and the Uniform Residential Landlord
and Tenant Act Section 35-9A-142.

(3) Whether the lower court(s) abused its discretion on decisions in favor of the
respondents, demonstrated "grave injustice " and (complicit) judicial bias prior to
petitioner 's eviction date and federal housing investigation closure date by denying
petitioner relief permissible under "Due Process " (U.S. Const, amend. XIV), 42 USC
3610(e)(1),

Whether a motion to vacate the court of appeals judgment is proper when the court of appeals defied its prior decision on the definition of a 'shotgun pleading' but affirmed the dismissal citing that same deficient pleading standard