1. Whether the related-case. OPINION -decision. DCNJ 13;19-cv- 059451. [DKT. 611. which is boldly "absent adequate remedy of law." per judicial law requirement is extraordinary circumstance in abuse of discretion, and grave miscarriage ofjustice ; and whether, that judgement is thereby, void as a matter of law.

To Note :
(Wherein, (no form of) "curative amendment remedy was ever provided on a Motion to Dismiss. Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal in failure to state a claim. " (starting page 10 of a uniform-Opinion, with a remand reconsideration), per related- case, f3:19-cv-059451 ').

2. Whether, the Rule 60(d)(1). independent-action, no-time limitation, savings-clause provision, can be iurisdictionallv brought to the trial court, as specially enjoined by law, for due-relief to "cure" a Judgement "absent adequate remedy of (judicial) law."(per it's related-case. r3:19-cv-059451): whereby, discovery to the Opinion-Omission, was after-timelines in Matter of Right Rule 4a. and Permission to Appeal Rule 5a: and whereby, adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or any other court .

3. Whether, the US. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will "certify " questions of law to the US. Supreme Court: whereto: "A district court must provide curative amendment, leave to amend, or Opinion -statements in reasons amendment would be futile, upon ANY. Motion to Dismiss. Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal in failure to state a claim: [.Phillips v. County of Allegheny], et. al; And whether, the court 's omission to provide that judicial requirement is extraordinary circumstance in abuse of discretion and grave miscarriage of j ustice; wherein, thereby, the judgement is void as matter of law, \Barrett 1: rWrieht&Miller 1; \Allcock) : \Jaffe 1: \Beggarly) ; \Mitchell\

4. Whether, DCNJ Freda L. Wolfson. now Partner Lowenstein Sandler. LLP, will comply to enter amicus curiae brief, in 'considerable help to this Court. ' in support of the plaintiff per granting certiorari .

5. Whether, the Deference (by the Judges and Courts) to 'Cure ' this judicial-wrongdoing, has eone too far toward this Pro Se Plaintiff, her cases, and her earnest attempts toward appropriate, adequate due-relief.

To Note :
(Whereby, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs appeal [24-1080], in a final summary sentence, that stated:
"Accordingly ; the District Court did not 'abuse its discretion ' in declining to grant relief on Russomcmno' s Rule 60(d) motion ").
(The Third Circuit Appeals Court could easily construe. that plaintiffs 'appeal petition statements ' were not pertaining to any "abuse of discretion " uvon the District Courts "denial by Jurisdiction" for plaintiffs Rule 60(d¥lf action, but rather, for:
the "abuse of discretion " upon the related-casQ, r3:19-cv-059451 . for its Judgment-Qpinion.fD

Whether the district court's judgment is void due to abuse of discretion and miscarriage of justice,