Am I a second-class citizen?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. “Am I a secondclass citizen? 2. Are subjections of pro se party to , . i : ; government's’ willful discriminatory behavior , ; ° “Constitutional”? : 3. Is judiciary's belittling, railroading and demonizing of pro se party for over three decades in . light of judiciary's absolute presumptions favoring : ; : government in totality, is discriminating behavior in , violations of “Constitutional Law provisions and . : fundamental obligations of the mandate “EQUALITY BEFORE LAW”? ; 4. Is "Using authority for willfully : ; intruding on the rights of private property owners, especially those representing themselves in the courts and state agencies is gross abuse of governmental power in violations of “Constitutional Law provisions : . ; and. fundamental obligations of the mandate ; EQUALITY BEFORE LAW”? ; ‘ 5. Is judiciary empowered to nullify the V ; and XIV amendments only for class of pro se parties and confer upon class of pro se parties second class citizenship? 6. The question is whether the governing So authorities under the sight of the judiciary can indefinitely hold property owners as hostages for prohibiting the subdivision of their property in guise of public interest by resorting to willful violations of the statutory, constitutional and decisional laws? : 7. Under illegal government’s subjections can the pro se parties be afforded “Equal Justice ; ; under the Law” in light of pro se parties’ ; cases/pleadings continually treated for thirty-four W years as typical cases on non-application of mind at the hands of the judiciary? : 8. IN LIGHT OF NEARLY FOUR DECADES : OF WILLFULLY HOLDING PRO SE PARTIES ON THE . GROUND TO WILLFULLY PROHIBIT SUBDIVISION . OF THE LOT IN VIOLATIONS OF THEIR RIGHTS ORDAINED BY A COURT OF LAW, CAN PRO SE PARTIES UNEQUIVOCALLY BE RECOGNIZED AS . EQUAL FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS AS ; ; BESTOWED BY THE CONSTITUTION UPON OTHERS? : 9. IN LIGHT OF NEARLY FOUR DECADES OF GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED ' OPPRESSION ON PRO SE PARTIES IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL . . GOVERNANCE, CAN THEY UNEQUIVOCALLY BE MADE WHOLE UNDER THE MANDATE OF “EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW? : 10. In light of nearly four decades of government-imposed oppression on pro se parties in , guise of American Constitutional Form of governess, the question arises whether Judiciary’s continuing actions for over three decades of holding of ; government actors’ lies as credible evidence and : disparaging pro se parties’ credible and truthful ; evidence comport with the “Law of the Land”. ; 11. In light of pro se party’s continuing oppression, and continuing marginalization by the . judiciary for over three decades, the question arises whether it was/is mandatory for the government (especially the judiciary) to adhere to “strict : . neutrality and impartiality” to comport with the “Law of the Land”. : iv : 12. In light of government’s continuing discriminatory behavior for nearly four decades, the question arises whether the pro se parties’ rights, ; which were ripened into a judgment order of Dec. 16, . ; 1983, must be stripped under guise of the “Law of the ; Land” to ensure that the pro se parties have no protection and must be crucified for claiming that they had rights. 13. In light of government’s willful illegal continuing obstructionisms for nearly four decades, the question arises whether pro se parties were maliciously subjected to enforcement by NJDEPDivision of Land Use Regulations and government’s willful violations of N.J.S.A. 13:9B-4d (1), Appellate Division decisions, N.J. Supreme Court decisions and : ; U. S. Supreme Court decisions governing this matter : __ for extortions, robbery and non-possessory. exactions of private property under color of right and under guise of the “Law of Land”. 14. The question arises whether "Over three ; decades of pro se parties' continuing treatments by . the _ judiciary, in light of "TWISTED INTERPRETATION" of con