1. Whether the District of Columbia court violates the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment 's right to a jury trial by 'resuscitating ' a facially void eviction complaint —filed in violation of a mandatory jurisdictional condition precedent (D.C. Code §161501 (c)(l ))—through the use of interlocutory 'Bell Hearings' and 'Protective Orders' that compel financial payments into a court registry while simultaneously denying the tenant 's right to a jury trial based on a shifting, orally-amended rent amount that was never verified under penalty of perjury.

2. Whether the court proceeded without any basis of authority to refuse to dismiss an unconstitutional exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction in violation of a jurisdictional condition precedent such that a filing contrary to D.C. Code § 16-1501 (c)(l) seeking "back rent" for periods of non registration is void ab initio.

3. Does the Appellate and Superior court's interpretation of its eviction rules render hearings fundamentally unfair under the Due Process Clause and the Seventh Amendment by sustaining an eviction proceeding through 'Bell Hearings' and mandatory 'Protective Orders' when the underlying verified complaint contains irreconcilable sworn contradictions —specifically claiming a rent amount ($772.00) that conflicts with the property 's official regulatory registration ($818.00) —thereby shifting the burden of'curing' a potentially perjurious or void filing from the Plaintiff who is noncompliant with D.C. Code § 16-1501 (c)(l ) "A person aggrieved shall not file a comp laint seeking restitution of p ossession pursuant to this section without a valid rental registration or claim of exemption pursuant to § 42-3502.05.. " - to the Tenant through forced registry payments in defiance of the mandatory 'shall dismiss' directive of D.C. Code § 16-1 501(d).

4. Whether, under SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), the judiciary may transforma "suit at common law" overrent and possession into an administrative compliance exercise by allowing a landlord to orally "amend" a sworn, contradictory rent claim ($772 vs. $818 vs. [where the judge acts as a regulator determining what the "correct" rent is] $550)to avoid dismissal and create a "Jurisdictional Trap" shifiting "moving target" of the rent amount during void proceedings -- ratherthana neutral arbiter deciding the validity of the l sworn, yet inaccurate, initial filing.

Whether District of Columbia courts violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial by resurrecting a facially void eviction complaint filed in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions through interlocutory Bell Hearings and Protective Orders that compel financial payments while denying jury trial based on unverified and contradictory rent amounts