Larisa Dirkzwager v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company

Whether the Judge’s error in miscalculation of the Plaintiffs Response deadline negates his dispositive Order and thereby logically and legally renders the mistakenly disregarded motion as timely filed; therefore rendering the Response eligible for consideration by higher courts in appellant procedures.

Whether the clear error and stare decisis ruling, where the court completely disregarded the United State Supreme Court precedent on jurisdictional infringement and is in direct conflict with the decisions of another Courts of Appeals, warrants the automatic ruling of “reverse and remand”, and possible writ of mandamus.

Whether the highest court of the land, in its role as a federal judiciary supervisor, is allowed to review “local” rules, procedures, and other legislative constructs such as “Corporate personhood,” “but for” standards, quasi-court procedures, alternative dispute resolution mandatory requirements and etc. for their compliance with the equal protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and possible endangerment to our democracy,

Whether protections of Forced Arbitration Bill (H.R.4445) should be validated and extended to various alternative dispute resolution quasi-court procedures that jeopardize our democracy in effort to defend the Seventh Amendment to United States Constitution