Whether petitioner had standing to assert the due process rights of the decedent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Lisa Fisher’s involvement in this case was for the sole purpose of assisting her great aunt, Alice Shaw-Baker. Alice Shaw-Baker was a woman dedicated to her community, church, and animal welfare. However, Petitioner’s effort to protect her great aunt led from a conservatorship to help her with her daily living to litigation, both as representative and attorney, where both Alice Shaw-Baker’s and Petitioner’s constitutional rights were and continue to be violated. As set forth in these questions presented, the issues raised are at the forefront of the public debate regarding Elder Abuse and demonstrate how the fight against Elder Abuse may put individual fiduciaries in peril of sanctions both formal and in the loss of compensation: 1. Did petitioner, in her capacity as conservator, have Standing to assert the Due Process rights of the decedent when she had knowledge that an underlying will was revoked and/or the will required Reformation to ensure that her desires to benefit Animal Charities was preserved? 2. Did petitioner receive the process due her under the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution where she was subjected to unfair and biased proceedings where the court was engaged in ex parte communications with respondents, subjected to “independent investigation” by the judge of purported facts without judicial notice or being allowed to object or rebut said evidence, threatened with contempt proceedings and sanctions in the amount of $100.00 per day, deprived of notice of a “secret meeting” by the trial judge with the respondents, subjected to ii exorbitant sanctions causing her to lose her local counsel, referred to the South Carolina Disciplinary Commission 6 days after filing of the application for filing this petition, subjected to unnoticed Complaint to the Bar referencing investigation into purported wrongdoing in California due to petitioner’s wins/losses in the California Appellate Courts, and ultimately sanctioned by the South Carolina Supreme Court which claimed that she “has certainly engaged in abusive litigation tactics that amount to sanctionable conduct” without any further description? 3. Did the refusal to grant petitioner any mandatory reasonable compensation amount to a Takings under the Fifth Amendment, amount to an unlawful sanction, and deprive petitioner of Equal protection as it treated her differently than all other professionals assigned in the Conservatorship proceeding?