These following questions of Certiorari mostly contain three main unconstitutional
scenarios, of which, require judicial clarity, and httpefully, 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
unconstitutional.

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 ?

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; ofmayhapsty 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?

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