Should this court review this case because all citizens of our country must have the freedom to find their own individual way of accessing the constitutional right of personal liberty

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . Should this court review this case because all citizens of our country must have the freedom to find their own individual way of accessing the constitutional right of personal liberty. In this case, petitioner believed she needed to bring the truth to the court to stop the harm of the liability she had become to many attorneys, as an SSI recipient. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Equal Protection Clause allows a person who believes their constitutional rights have been violated to petition our courts for an extraordinary writ. The California Constitution Equal Protection Article I Section 1 is established to be basically the same as the Federal Constitution it states the following; “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these. are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” How does the April 10, 2019 order by the California Supreme Court summarily denying review of a denial of a peremptory writ of mandate by the : lower court and a fee waiver submitted to its court for a polygraph in the same order not violate the : constitutional right of personal liberty for all citizens of our country who are of a class specification such as an SSI recipient, who often suffer discrimination in their community making it difficult for them to be believed, many unable to afford or obtain an attorney? ul In this court’s case it emphasized how each generation will discover their own way of accessing the protection of our constitution, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (26 June 2003) Justice Kennedy opinioned the following; “That the Framers had not drafted the document of . our constitution in specific terms, because they did not claim to know “the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities,” but were themselves open—as the Court needed to be—to new arguments and experiences.” They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.” ii II. QUESTION TWO Petitioner has learned about the history of this court and about the right of equal protection by listening to the biographies of this court’s justices namely, Justice Louis Brandies, Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Robert Jackson, Justice William Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens, this to include the current justice Steven Breyer’s audio book which he narrates himself, “Active Liberty”, Justice Breyer emphasizes the constitution as a document which prevents too much concentrated power. This question was submitted to the California Supreme Court, for the cases brought to this writ, §254279 and E071535. It is brought to this court in context: US Supreme Court Justice, Justice Louis Brandeis, explained to our country long ago the value of the right of personal privacy. It is in his writings which may be found by an attorney in the Harvard Law Review or in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928). (Brandeis, J., dissenting) “The right to privacy has been called "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” __ , The violation of the right of privacy is painful, and it affects almost every aspect of one’s life. In petitioner’s case it affected her right to petition the courts of her state. This court has a responsibility to all citizens of our ; country when one considers each day as of late the news and the internet is encouraging us to include our children to believe it is right and we will get attention if we get something on someone, so they may lose. iv The right of personal privacy can be found in many of this court’s cases, yet the issue always seems to supersede the precious right, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 11