◆ SpookStack

on as to jurisdiction amount, unless it appears to a legal cer- tainty that the true claim falls below the $50,000 threshold. Super Sack Mig.Corp.vs.Chose Pockaging Corp.,57 F 3d 1054(Fed. Cir.1995), Rule 12(b)(1),motion motion granted where actual controversy had been removed and the remaining issues had been rendered moot.Scheuer vs.Rhodes, 416 US -232,94 S Ct 1683,40 L Ed 2d 90(174); Murphy vs.United States,45 F 3d 520(1st Cir. 1995),cert.denied,_ US__,115 S Ct 2581,132 L Ed 2d 831(1995); Licata vs.United States,Postal Service,33 F 3d 259(3d Cir.1994), In evaluating whether subject matter jurisdiction exists,the court construes the complaint liberally and accepts all uncon- troverted,well-pleaded federal allegations as true.But all is absence from the four(4) bias,racially,Prejudice and Wanton or- ders issued by Appellee judge ,Stiehl herein and the other thr- ee(3) Civil Rights Complaints filed by Appellant.Deliberate failure to follow the Federal Rules Civil and Appellate Proce- durals.See Valhal Corp.vs.Sullivan Assocs.,Iinc.,48 F 3d 760, (3d Cir.1995),observing that the threshold necessary to with- stand Rule 12(b)(1) scrutiny is* lower than that necessary to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). 3-REMEDY: Generally court will permit a party to amend unl- ess is clear that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be truth- fully averred.Leaf vs.Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 979 F 2d 589, at 595(7th Cir.1993),Leave to amend defective allegations of subject matter jurisdiction should be freely given. 4.EXTRINSIC MATERIALS: The parties may produce affidavits and other materials to support their positions on subject mat- -~28-