When Pro Se Indigent parties lack meaningful access, procedurally and meritoriously, does this constitute lack of due process and equal protections under the US Constitution Amendments Four, Five and Fourteen?

Questions Presented ; Issue 1: When Pro Se Indigent parties lack meaningful access, procedurally and meritoriously, does this constitute lack of due process and equal protections under the US Constitution Amendments Four, Five and Fourteen? Does the significant level of financial incentives provided to the Texas Judicial System through partisan campaign contributions, or even the appearance of such, undermine the credibility and justice available for just cause against government and big business parties, especially for minority and pro se litigants? Issue 2: Does a state Supreme Court have a duty to review lower court’s order which is directly contrary to law and shows clear error? Does denial of review constitute lack of due process and equal protections under the US Constitution Amendments Four, Five and Fourteen? When case law is clear, Governmental immunity is not applicable for proprietary actions or intentional torts, such actions are contrary to the purpose of the state, to act in the best interest of residents, how can immunity apply? Did Fifth Court of Appeals and Texas Supreme Court have ministerial duty to determine trial court orders issued during statutorily required stay are a legal nullity? Did Texas Supreme Court have ministerial duty to correct COA . order demanding payment for appeal from party with unchallenged affidavit of inability to pay on file? Issue 3: When a government entity conspires to violate state and federal laws issuing illegal contract for illegal purpose, retaliates against a whistleblower violating whistleblowers constitutional rights of freedom of speech, due process and freedom of religion, how can government immunity or a plea to jurisdiction stand to avoid accountability and deny justice and equity? Issue 4: Is Governmental immunity applicable even when state and federal statutes provide waiver and venue for relief? Issue 5: If the government entity failed to show it owed no duty as a matter of law, when fact issues exist, must it be resolved by the fact finder, the jury? Issue 6: Does a government entity have a ministerial duty, a proprietary function, to enforce contract terms with good-faith effort? Page 2 of 70 . Issue 7: Should Petitioner be allowed to amend for relief under Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act? Appellant would not have been harmed BUT FOR the illegal contract and amendment is allowed up to seven days prior to trial without judicial approval per state law. Page 3 of 70