Should a litigant be denied access to civil courts over monetary restrictions?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED These following questions of Certiorari mostly contain three main unconstitutional scenarios, of which, require judicial clarity, and hopefully, virtuous & equitable justice for the People of America, and therefore our posterity; being denied access to civil courts over monetary restrictions is unconstitutional; being denied counsel to properly defend & pursue justice for citizens in civil matters is unconstitutional; and lastly, denying a sick, or injured person counsel is Pp tution 1. Should a litigant be denied access to the civil courts; whom has been approved to proceed via Fee Waiver; over a $500 bond; and would thusly restrict all access to the courts for citizens on Fee Waivers; which would then be tantamount to the very unconstitutional Poll Tax 7 2. Should an appeal, in state court, be justifiably denied because of a mix-up in the mail; when the opposing party received their copies; but, the court did not? 3. Is the state not providing counsel! to its citizens, in civil matters, an inaction in direct violation of the concept & duty of the government to guarantee the civil rights of its citizens; for, most Pro Se litigants would not be allowed to represent another citizen; for the very same reasons, that, they should not be allowed to represent themselves, if, they choose not to proceed Pro Se? 4. Should not an injured litigant, or, a litigant with reasonable health disparities be provided counsel by the state? 5. Should not a litigant be provided counsel, that, whom has had their case graduated to a higher court; of mayhapsly a federal courtroom; and/or the supreme court; due to the complexity of the procedures, number of statues, and the need to guarantee the rights of the citizens, preserve American ideals, and the to ensure the virtue of justice? 6. Should a litigant who was a resident of the State of Nevada at the time, that, the matter transpired; not be privy to the the laws, statues, & rights contained therein, of the State of Nevada, in any following civil action; and thusly, the petitioner would not be liable to pay the $500 bond for “out of state” claimants? 7. Should the courts keep using linguistic slurs such as “pauper” & “indigent” to describe litigants whom are proceeding via Fee Waiver, when an atmosphere of unbiased& virtuous justice must be maintained?