Is the statutory law prohibiting the arbitrary selected litigants petition to court discriminatory under Be & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB (2002) 536 U.S. 516, 53 and constitutionally overbroad under Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 105 S. Ct. 2794, 86 L. Ed. 2d 394 (1985)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Be & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB (2002) 586 U.S. 516, 53, this Court held, that “The First Amendment provides, in relevant part, that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” We have recognized this right to petition as one of “the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights,” Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217, 222 (1967), and have explained that the right is implied by “the very idea of a government, republican in form,” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552 (1876). ...We based our interpretation in part on the principle that we would not “lightly impute to Congress an intent to invade . . . freedoms” protected by the Bill of Rights, such as the right to petition. Id., at 138.” Is the statutory law prohibiting the arbitrary selected litigants petition to court discriminatory under Be & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB (2002) 536 U.S. 516, 53 and constitutionally overbroad under Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 105 S. Ct. 2794, 86 L. Ed. 2d 394 (1985)? United States Courts entered incompatible decisions on application of California Vexatious Litigant Statue and prefilling order under California Code of Civil Procedure CCP § 391.7 to the same defendant who is proclaimed as Vexatious Litigant by Superior Court in the family law case. It has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with Court of Appeal and ii ‘ 4 } Superior Court decisions on the same matter; as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power to settle: is application of Vexatious Litigant Statue under CCP391 proper: to represented by an attorney Plaintiff, who is proclaimed as vexatious litigant? to In Pro Per Defendant the family law case?, if any sanctions , against poor in pro per litigant under CCP391.7 is proper in the light of this court decisions in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983)? This Court recognizes that the access to court is a fundamental right to liberty within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, but it is declined to arbitrary chosen In Pro Per litigants in California courts by application of the controversial, broadly defined and unrestrained Statutory Law of Vexatious Litigant; In this Court supervisory powers is to review and protect this essential rights to all individuals, including Petitioner to this Court. —$—$< $ — — ¢