Is a state anti-SLAPP restriction seeking dismissal within 60 days of the filing of claims (ignoring later legal actions) unconstitutional when the claims are baseless and the whistleblower is being retaliated against by abuse of process and suffering violations of constitutional rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Issue 1: Is a state anti-Slapp restriction seeking dismissal within 60 days of the filing of claims (ignoring later legal actions) unconstitutional when the claims are baseless and the whistleblower is being retaliated against by abuse of process and ; suffering violations of constitutional rights? Issue 2: When the state Supreme Court refuses to perform duty by denial of review of a lower court’s order which is directly contrary to law and shows clear error, does this constitute lack of substantive due process and equal protections under the US Constitution Amendments Four, Five and Fourteen? .. Issue 3: The Texas Supreme Court failed to perform duty to review and correct clear errors by the court of appeals failure to review de novo and making conclusions based on the flawed premise that a valid and enforceable contract exists and that Petitioner had access to and used POE’s “trade secrets”, facts hotly disputed and yet to be determined by a jury, adopting Respondent POE’s conclusory and unsubstantiated claims while ignoring relevant facts and denying Petitioners : ability to set hearings for pleadings and be heard. Issue 4: The Texas Supreme Court failed to perform duty to review when the court of appeals erred in finding the motion to dismiss under TCPA is untimely, when one day late due to e-filing technical difficulty raised to the trial court 20 minute hearing for eight (8) outstanding motions which POE dominated, reflected in the record, when further record was prevented by order of trial court and during statutorily required stay. Good Cause existed to grant Petitioner's request and Texas courts have abused discretion and failed to perform duty. Issue 5: The Texas Supreme Court failed to perform duty to review when the court of appeals erred in asserting the Act includes requirements and limitations which in fact it does not to deny relief on the merits when motion to dismiss under TCPA was timely due to over 35 legal actions which triggered new 60 day deadline, additionally new legal actions violating Petitioners constitutional rights have occurred during statutorily required stay. : Issue 6: The Texas Supreme Court failed to perform duty to review when the court sa of appeals erred in asserting that Petitioner did not file motions to dismiss the legal : actions as dozens of Petitioners motions contents request the court deny POE’s requests and provide relief while asserting violation of constitutional rights. Page 2 of 58 Issue 7: The Texas Supreme Court failed to perform duty to review when the court of appeals refused to perform ministerial duty to find orders issued during statutorily required stay are null and void in accordance with statute and not dependent on timeliness of motion which preceded the issuance of those orders. Such circular reasoning would establish a new and erroneous precedent, which is reversible error. Page 3 of 58