If beneficiaries of the United States Constitution have the right to prosecute in their own name under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution protected by 42 USC § 1981 and in accordance with the 7%, 9%, and 10% Amendments and evenly applied through the 14 Amendment, then any judges/justices who are clearly ignoring or encroaching upon these rights according to the supreme laws of the land are committing treason for any blockage, suppression, undo-influence, or coercion not fulfilling their oath of office?

No question identified. : | 4 L PRESENTED 1. If beneficiaries of the United States Constitution have the right to prosecute in their own name under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution protected by 42 USC § 1981 and in accordance with the 7%, 9%, and 10% Amendments and evenly applied through the 14 Amendment, then any judges/justices who are clearly ignoring or encroaching upon these rights according to the supreme laws of the land are committing treason for any blockage, suppression, undo-influence, or coercion not fulfilling their oath of office? ; . All judges/justices in petitioner’s case have violated 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES, § 2383. Rebellion or * insurrection “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof (emphasis added), or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” 2. If Americans have the right to access their courts to prosecute on their own behalf under the constitution and law already established by 42 usc § 1981 ! for fraud, then would a dignissal without discovery or jury deliberation violate pro se litigant’s constitutional guarantees? 3. If petitioner is a beneficiary of the United States Constitution and the constitution being a binding legal contract, then paying $400 to the district court for a case that is free with no cost, is a contract with considerations between the court and the pro se ditigant? If the pro se litigant paid fora venue to conduct a trial by jury and verdict then the court has a duty to provide a venue as a matter of right and contractual obligation? , 4. Are justices violating 18 USC CH.115 in its entirety when dismissing a case prior to jury verdict when |the laws and rights of the pro se litigant are clearly written in plain English, unambiguous, or capricious? 5. If the Fourteenth Amendmen provides equal protection at law and the right to . sue protected by 42 USC § 1981, then a dismissal by a district court judge to , be a neutral arbitrator of facts, oversee discovery and testimony, and allow a jury to render a verdict Wiolates petitioner's rights when her pre~paid case is dismissed without mpletion of a jury trial? t t t 1$ of a) pe | : i i 1