Whether the civil enforcement system should be modified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW x 1. “Whether the civil enforcement system should be modified. nation-wide to integrate an educational option (with limitations for repeat offenders and retention of checks on citizen abuse) that would substantially dampen the effects of discrimination and arbitrary taxation, educate the public, and improve police-community relations and the public's perception of the police, and information sharing, in order to comport with Equal Protection and Due . Process and the compelling, common sense, interest in information sharing between the public and the police...” Kallas v. Fiala, 591 Fed. Appx. 30 (2d Cir. 2015), No. 14-310, 2015 WL 399127 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015) SUMMARY ORDER, reh* denied, No. 13 Civ. 8816 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2014), cert. denied, pet. . for cert. at (i). . 2. Whether “...the statutes are also . Unconstitutional under Equal Protection and Due Process because they do not integrate an objective progressive (sliding scale) fine schedule, thereby having the effect of disproportionately burdening minorities (who are proven, as a populace, to be less able to pay fines) and suppressing their upward mobility despite same being purportedly a key component of the American way of life. Thus, another problem with the "broken windows" view, other than that it also incorrectly presumes (at least until recently?) that enforcement is even-handed at this threshold, is not in its principle or that it apparently _ has the effect of lowering over-all crime but in its ‘ effect on minorities who are paying an unfairly disproportionate share of the cost and remaining (i) oppressed with this oppression playing a substantial . inexorable role in ensuing events leading to "burned down buildings." Kallas v. Fiala, Id., pet. for cert. at 4. : 3. Whether the court erred in not granting de jure relief for questions presented 1. And 2. (above) and the closely relevant supplemental substantive issues and remedies contained in the Complaint as well as others developed during the course of the litigation and brought in this second petition for certiorari specifically described and explained by Petitioner in a clear and unequivocal way that virtually all literate American citizens would understand (without specific codified citations) and all continued to be proven by ensuing events where molehills (ie. minor routine traffic stops) turn into mountains (homicides of fellow American citizens) noting “ [w]hether it matters that Petitioner's positions on these issues have been . proven by ensuing events including, but not limited . to, the civil unrest stemming from the homicide of an 2 American citizen during his arrest for selling loose : | cigarettes, the tackling of a pregnant American citizen for interfering with the arrest of her son over a civil marijuana possession charge, the homicide of an American citizen stemming from an arrest over a pocket knife and, less on point but still relevant, the murder of an American citizen stemming from a traffic stop (where there is virtually always a law somewhere in the civil traffic code that a police officer can cite in order to stop a motor vehicle) (?) where these incidents involved the enforcement of low threshold offenses that caused, or resulted in, many subsequent high threshold offenses (ie. civilian assaults, and even assassinations, of police officers) . triggered, in no small part, by the underlying public (ii) , ee . dissatisfaction with the current system for the enforcement of civil, or low threshold, offenses SO (because the public is aware of the per se Unconstitutionally pervasive level of discrimination at this threshold?), and continued spill-over therefrom can be more than reasonably be presumed and there are many more similar incidents that do not get national publicity but nonetheless exacerbate this national problem.” Kallas v. Fiala, Id., pet. for cert. at G) Gi). 4. Whether the court erred in in its determination that Article III precluded the