Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court of Delaware was aware that Petitioner paid for the transfer of transcripts and the Court’s non-action and dismissal constitutes exaction, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 2. Whether the lower Court rulings are bills of attainder or ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts in violation of the Contract Clause of the Constitution and must be overruled. 3. Whether the Supreme Court of Delaware summarily failing to accommodate 71year old, disabled, female inventor/citizen’s urgent need to undergo medical treatment for a head injury and eye surgery with no concern for the health and safety of a citizen encroaches on a citizen’s fundamental rights in violation of Public Interest/Welfare Clause, Art. I, §8 of the U.S. Constitution and Substantive Due Process of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. 4, Whether the discrimination against 71-year old, disabled, female inventor/citizen of color by the Supreme Court of Delaware and the lower Superior Court by denying her fundamental rights to medical care for a head injury/concussion and sanctioning her $80K for her inability to attend a hearing, after she had informed the Court prior to the hearing that she could not attend due to a concussion, verified by her neurosurgeon and CEO of Stanford Hospital, is gross enough and equivalent to confiscation of her property and subject under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to challenge and annulment. 5. Whether the Supreme Court of Delaware and the lower Superior Court violated 42U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act in discriminating against 71-year old, disabled, ! female inventor/citizen of color by denying her fundamental rights to medical care ‘ for a head injury/concussion and sanctioning her $80K after she had informed the ' Court prior to a hearing that she could not attend due to a concussion, verified by | her neurosurgeon and CEO of Stanford Hospital. | | 6. Whether the lower Courts are permitted to aid and abet the theft and unlawful holding of a CLIENT’s monies in a CLIENT IOLTA account for 6 years by an : attorney engaged in vexatious no-claim lawfare for 5 years against a defenseless : citizen, a 71-year old, disabled, female inventor, rendered defenseless by serial ; lawfare from the courts themselves. ' 7. Whether the Supreme Court of Delaware and the lower Superior Court violated | the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in holding a hearing without 71year old, disabled, female inventor/citizen, even though she had informed the : u Court prior to the hearing that she could not attend due to a concussion and was undergoing medical treatment for a head injury, verified by her neurosurgeon and CEO of Stanford Hospital, denying her the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 8. Whether the Supreme Court of Delaware had a duty to refer to the Police and FBI to investigate the Plaintiffs overt offenses and lower Court Judge for aiding and abetting Plaintiffs overt offenses, when there was no jurisdiction on a no-claim case by Plaintiff, who never entered into a ‘Proposed Distribution’ contract with the owner of a Corporation he sued, which was no contract at all, and perpetrated the fraud for 4 years by keeping the owner, a 71-year old, disabled, female inventor/citizen gagged, and not referring to law enforcement makes the Supreme Court of Delaware complicit in the crime. 9. Whether the lower Courts not reporting the oppressive conduct as dominion and control in conversion by an attorney of a citizen’s financial properties in a manner ~ inconsistent with the property holder’s rights makes both the attorney and the Courts liable to the property holder for the conversion of the property holder’s property, based on the legal and fiduciary duties that the attorney and Courts owe to the property holder. 10.Whether the lower Courts’ acts of adjudicat