1. Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by misapplying the domestic relations exception, where the plaintiff does not seek a custody determination but alleges independent constitutional violations, including due process violations, fraud on courts refusing her right to petitioner, |

2. Whether federal courts may decline jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, including deprivation of fundamental parental rights and family integrity, solely because the underlying facts arise in custody-related context of a neglected child in irreparrable risk of danger.

3. Whether federal courts may dismiss claims alleging fraud on the court and retaliatory interference with constitutional rights where documentary evidence in the record is alleged

~ to contradict material misrepresentations, Lawyer lying about a Federal crime.

4. The court mischaracterized Appellant’s federal civil-rights claims as a domestic relations matter, despite allegations that Appellant’s constitutional parental rights were violated; I am requesting my rights for Respondents fraud in Courts in NY, fraud of $6,000k on divorce propriety, and litigant’s constitutional parental right, disobeying Custody apostiled and filed by Respondent Gerard; Parental rights are considered fundamental liberty interests protected

| by the Due Process Clause, under the Fourteenth Amendment;

S. The Court failed to address federal statutes including 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal-question jurisdiction), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 (violation of familial integrity- Petitioner has

. the Legal Custody of the child apostiled in NY), 1985(3), and 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (civil RICO), and witness-protection violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1512.

6. Equal Protection (Discrimination): Whether differential treatment of a pro se litigant by court personnel, including restrictions not imposed on other litigants, constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and repeated procedural , irregularities, including misdirected court correspondence, lack of notice, and inconsistent court procedures, deprive a litigant of a fair proceeding in violation of the Due Process Clause. Constitutes judicial failure to ensure fair proceedings.

7. whether actions by court personnel, acting under color of state law, that interfere with a litigant’s access to proceedings and ability to present her case constitute a deprivation of

Question 1

Whether the Government’s threat and consequence of Life Incarceration Without

the Eligibility to be Granted Parole for refusal to not self-incriminate, create a

compulsion in a prison setting, that constitute atypical and significant hardships in

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life, in violation of the Fifth Amendment

and precedent set by this United States Supreme Court.

Question 2

Whether the Decision and Application of the Turner Analysis, that is used to override

the Protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and validate violations of

Constitutional Rights, is an adequate Analysis to fairly and properly evaluate the | validation of violations of Constitutional Rights, and is not in itself, a violation of the

Constitution’s Protection of Substantive Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment

I

access to his child’s medical records acts under color of state law for purposes of

42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the denial was made solely pursuant to Ohio Revised

Code § 3109.042 — directly conflicting with Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457

U.S. 922 (1982). . II. Whether the district court’s holding creates an unconstitutional catch-22

denying any judicial forum for fundamental parental rights, violating Boddie v.

Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971).

Ill. Whether Ohio’s categorical exclusion of unmarried fathers from their |

children’s medical records — without notice, hearing, or individualized determination — violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses under

Stanley v. Illinois, Troxel v. Granville, and Caban v. Mohammed.

_ TV. Whether HIPAA, 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(g), which grants both parents the right

to access a minor child’s medical records absent a court order, preempts Ohio

Revised Code § 3109.042 as applied by private hospitals to deny unmarried

fathers access to their children’s medical records. |

V. Whether government-created poverty — _ resulting from a government-admitted wrongful license suspension that eliminated Petitioner’s

income — can bar access to federal appellate courts when the fees owed arise from

cases challenging that same government error, in violation of Boddie v.

| Connecticut and Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956).

ISSUE 1 Whether the Confrontation Clause permits a surrogate expert witness, acting solely as a “technical reviewer” who did not participate in the underlying forensic testing, to testify to an absent analyst’s forensic findings and conclusions as the basis for his opinion.

ISSUE 2 Whether a jurisdictional element satisfied by a de minimis connection to interstate commerce, such as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)’s requirement that a prohibited person possess a firearm “in or affecting commerce,” is sufficient to bring a purely local, non-economic criminal offense within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause.

1