Is the statutory law taking of a person's property arbitrary, too broad and discriminatory under Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) and void under Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct at 1158?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (Rule 14.1(a)) In Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct. at 1158 this Court held that “The state, . . had destroyed the plaintiffs property interest . . . by failing to convene a hearing within the time mandated by the same statute that had created the interest. . . .” In Green v. Lindsay 456 U.S. 444 (1982), ("Green") this Court . stated "By failing to afford adequate notice of the proceedings before issuing final orders of eviction, the State deprived them of property without due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment." This Court went on to state that eviction is a "significant interest in property, and indeed, of the right to continued residence ..." And that the "sufficiency of the notice must be tested with reference to its ability to inform" of the pendency of proceedings that affect their interests. Pp. 450. . 451. Green v. Lindsey, supra, 456 US 444, holding that those orders would be in violation of due process and equal protection of the law. In Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the court stated that "the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the United States, as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States, from depriving any person without "due process of law." This Court "determined that individual whose property interests are at stake are entitled to ‘notice and an opportunity to be heard." Citing United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43,48 (1993). Is the statutory law taking of a person’s property arbitrary, too broad and discriminatory under Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) and void under Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct at 1158? co « « . XN United States Courts entered incompatible decisions on the application of California enforcement statutes under Civil Code of Procedure § 128(a)(4) and Family Law Code §§ 290 and 291. It has used California Statutes in a way that violates the California Constitution and calls for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power to settle: is application of Civil Code of Procedure § 128 and Family Law Codes §§ 290 and 291 proper without affording due process and equal protection of the law? And any sanctions against a pro se litigant who requested a family law code §2030 hearing to ensure equal rights and to have her claims adjudicated under family law code §2120-2129 is proper under Civil Code of ; Procedure Section 128.5 in light of Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct. . at 1158? This Court recognizes that it is a fundamental right to notice and a right to . be heard at a meaningful time and place within the meaning of the Due Process | Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment before being deprived of a property interest, but it is declined to arbitrary government action in California courts by application of the controversial, broadly defined and unrestrained statutory enforcement and sanction laws; In this Court supervisory powers is to review and protect this essential rights to all individuals, including Petitioner to this Court.