Whether a pro se party can be characterized as vexatious and deprived of equal access to courts, equal protection, and property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Amendments V and XIV provide equal access to courts, equal protection of law and sanctity of property, including bankruptcy distributions, for all litigants. Is a pro se party to be characterized with impugnity and impertinently, scurrilously and inaccurately as vexatious, and deprived of or otherwise to forfeit these protections. Petitioner also questions whether: 2. adversarial evidentiary hearings were necessary on Class when warrantholders were excluded from the Class and settlement funds, and are now time barred. 3. class representation was adequate given Respondents excluded warrantholders as Class Members and warrants as covered securities. 4. expert review of FRCP 23 notice was necessary given warrantholders exclusion. 5. negotiations were arm’s length and settlement adequate when evidence suggests collusion in reaching a settlement and disproportionate Lead Counsel benefit. 6. FRCP 23(e) reasonableness, fairness and adequacy tests were fully satisfied by the settlement agreement, and public policy compromised or unsatisfied. 7. the claims process set a proper cost basis for stock and warrants distributed from the GM bankruptcy estate. 8. courts below awarded excessive fees and expense reimbursement. i}