Whether the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial protects against biased and corrupt judges

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In 2010, the Defendant and 2 Plaintiffs purchased a house to rehabilitate. During the project by the Gay Defendant and the 2 Heterosexual Plaintiffs (also sisters), the Gay Defendant retaliated against one of the Plaintiffs (also known as the Petitioner) by withdrawing $600 from the joint account because the Heterosexual Plaintiff rejected the Gay Defendant’s unwanted sexual advances after the Plaintiff told her that she was going to use the $600 to buy the stucco _ materials. The SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THIS RETALIATORY ACT caused the Plaintiff to withdraw from the project. The following year, the Gay Defendant tricked the Co-Plaintiff into unknowingly signing over 26% of her share to the Gay Defendant. When Plaintiff found out and told Co-Plaintiff that she had actually signed a deed, the Co-Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in 2013 alleging fraud in a real estate transaction against Co-Plaintiff, Plaintiff was included “for partition purposes only,” because she owned 1/3"4 of the house. In response, the Defendant committed perjury in the Defendant’s Answer by stating that: 1) it was Co-Plaintiff, not her, who withdrew the $600, and 2) that it was Co-Plaintiff who went to the Defendant and knowingly and voluntarily deeded over her 26% of her share in the property. Because clear and ' convincing evidence reveals that the Defendant committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PERJURY in her Defendant’s Amended Original Answer, Special Exceptions and Counterclaim, the following Issues are presented to the Court. Constitutional Issues Presented Regarding Discrimination: 1. Whether the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial, in and of itself, | protects a party against BIASED and CORRUPT JUDGES, as this Amendment to the Constitution was designed to do. 2. Whether a “Partnership Agreement” created the morning of the first day of trial, in order to create a “Wrongful Withdrawal from a Partnership” definition, whereby the only way the withdrawal is not wrongful, is if the “undertaking is complete,” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 3. Whether the Defendant’s creation of a “Wrongful Withdrawal from a Partnership” Definition that provides “No-Way-Out” for Plaintiff, “NoMatter-What” the Defendant did to her, i.e., Retaliated against Plaintiff because Plaintiff rejected her unwanted sexual advances, AS APPLIED, violates the Plaintiffs CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 1B 4. Whether the Appellate Court’s use of the standard “REGARDLESS” OF WHAT PROMPTED THE SIGNING OF THE DEED, when the issue before the court was that the Defendant misrepresented to Co-Plaintiff what she was actually signing when the Defendant defrauded her into signing a deed. 5. Whether an E-mail which states an Intention to send an E-mail to the Defendant’s family members, without evidence of the ACTUAL E-MAIL EVER BEING SENT OUT, is Defamation. 6. Whether a Plaintiff's E-mail to Co-Plaintiff stating that the Defendant “stole $600” is Defamation because it is not true and based on the technicality that it is common knowledge that you can’t steal from a joint account for which you are a Co-Owner. 7. Whether a Judge who has been put on notice by a Defendant who admits during testimony that the Plaintiff has “a history of psychological illness” can ignore a Plaintiffs (who alleges sexual harassment and retaliation) mental health status, as factors to consider regarding whether the Plaintiff wrongfully withdrew from a project and, more importantly, the Defendant’s retaliatory acts. 8. Whether an Openly Gay Judge can legally protect a Gay Defendant who has knowingly committed OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PERJURY and. FRAUD UPON THE COURT because that Gay Defendant is a member of the . same protected class. : 9. Whether an Openly Gay Judge’s disparity in treatment to the benefit of the Gay Defendant erodes the fair and balanced decision-making process that courts should strive to protect. 10.Whether a court should recognize sexual harassment and retaliation when a perpetra