Sara Ann Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc., et al.

v 1. Whether the Third Circuit and District Court are acting in opposition to long standing, controlling law and % in splitting from other Circuits by refusing to follow the directives established and implemented by this Court in its Oscanyan ruling when a representing attorney concedes in open court as a judicial admission that the contract connecting the parties was corrupt in itself containing intentional misrepresentations of essential terms. Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 US 261 (1880); 28 USC 2072; 28 USC 1367.

1. Whether a district court may refuse to consider state law principles governing contract formation in deciding whether such an agreement exists as prescribed in 28 USC 1652 and by this Court in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995).

2. Whether a district court may refuse to issue an executed order granting or denying summary judgment on the issue of contract validity as prescribed in statute 28 USC § 56(a), thus challenging this Court’s Power to Prescribe under 28 USC 2072 in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995).

3. Whether a Court of Appeals adjudicating a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) is authorized to fabricate the existence of executed orders - including an order on summary judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 56(a) - in its rulings that neither appear on the record on appeal nor on the district court civil docket kept by the clerk as prescribed under the Fed Rules of Civ Procedure 79 and FRAP 10(a)l-3.

4. Whether the district court’s refusal to follow the binding directives of this Court in 28 USC 56(a) and 28 USC 1652 constitutes fraud on the court under Federal -V. Rule Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). ■<