Is it legally sound to hold de facto segregated evidentiary hearings?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is it legally sound, to hold de facto segregated evidentiary hearings, although the dejure Jim Crow laws, which enabled and legalized segregation within the court of law was abolished and outlawed along with discrimination in any public accomodation in 1965; by the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 2. Should a party to a case, be allowed to have two separate segregated evidentiary hearings, when the doctrine of res judicata prevents a litigant from getting another day in court after the first suit is concluded, by giving a different reason than he gave in the first for recovery of damages for the same invasion of his right? 3. Is it fundamentally fair to reenact the 1865-1866 Black codes which were laws passed after the American Civil War, to deny African (Black) Americans freedom, which included the right to equal treatment under the law in the . Twentieth Century? 4. Is White Supremacy allowed within the courts of law, as long as it takes place under a legal regime that is superficially raceneutral? 5. Whether an appeals court is bound by its prior decision, if the facts in the case remain the same? : 6. Whether the appeals court should ignore the collateral attack from the trial court, when it attempted to impeach the validity and binding force of the appeals court, by refusing to adhere to the remand to give C. B. an evidentiary hearing on her motion? 7. Whether a contract is binding when party was provided opioid and benzodiazepine narcotics including Narcan, for three days concurrently, ; against their will, then again less than an hour before allegedly signing? THIS IS HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION I AM INQUIRING ABOUT THAT MUST BE HEARD BY A HIGHER COURT 1