Whether the Pennsylvania Board of Pharmacy violated the Fair Notice/Warning Rule and the Equal Protection Clause in revoking the plaintiff's pharmacist license

QUESTIONS PRESENTED An important function of the Supreme Court is to resolve disagreements among lower courts about specific legal questions, especially with respect to conflicting decisions in other courts, such as: 1. On what grounds may the Pennsylvania Board of Pharmacy (PA BOP) deny an appeal of a hearing in support of reinstatement of a license when they revoked the Plaintiff's pharmacist license without her knowledge and in violation of the “Fair Notice/Wamning Rule”? 2. If the hearing is denied, how can a court accurately assess the claims in the appeal requested? 3. Did the appellate ruling, denying the request for a hearing, ignore the standard established in Carl Olsen vs. Eric Holder by the United States Supreme Court over the same question? 4. Did the PA BOP violated the Equal Protection Clause by revoking the Plaintiff's pharmacist license when they revoked the license of one pharmacist, who is an Asian female of Vietnamese descent, while taking no actions against others, pharmacists (Steven Goloff and Daniel Geiger) and technicians (James Barnes and Albert Buck), each white male, who confessed their own “crime” (guilty by admission) at the Plaintiff's trial, even confessing they violated the same pharmacy law of which the Plaintiff was convicted? Did the PA BOP violate that same pharmacist’s equal protection clause when they made an agreement prior to the Plaintiff's trial to not revoke one of those pharmacists’ license for his own crimes in retum for testimony against the Plaintiff? Did the PA BOP violate that same pharmacist’s equal protection clause when their own direct representatives committed perjuries against the Plaintiff at her criminal trial? The PA BOP claims that they revoked the Plaintiff's license because of the conviction, but their own actions showed they acted deceitfully to ensure that conviction.