Did the United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit deny Ms. Ash of her 14th amendment right of due process

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Question One Did the United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit deny Ms. Ash of her 14" amendment right of due process when she/he has a conflict of interest with knowledge of the severity of the crime in progress (see 18 U.S.C.242) Does the eleventh amendment apply when officer of the court have violated 28 U.S.C 455 and the court ' has refused to provide any declaratory relief when the courts have full knowledge of pro se Ash's name being placed on the terrorist watchlist ( see 31.U.S.C 3729), non-consensual human trafficking (see18U.S.C.1581) efforts with intentions to kill, maim, intimidate and silence the whistleblowing efforts attempted by Ms. Ash Answer Yes Question Two Did the United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit err in not granting Ms. Ash a jury's prudential exception. (See U.S.C 1291, 1292) in order to avoid having to consider the following which would require an alternative set of congressional hearings to address the illegal placement on a terrorist watchlist (see 18 U.S.C 1001) with sole intention to force non-consensual research of central intelligence programs (see 16 CFR1028.116) while utilizing military grade weaponry, toxins, torture techniques, human trafficking, gangstalking, targeted kill training in partnership with united states military, intelligence agencies, law enforcement, hospitals and civilian contract perpetrators whom are paid for the harassment services. Answer Yes Question Three Did the United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit purposely dismiss responsibility for the State of Minnesota for the implementation, facilitation, publication, perpetuation of a central intelligence research experiment in hopes that Ms. Ash would not survive. Answer Yes Question 4 Did the united States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit Court allow the State of Minnesota To continue to violate the fair housing act (See Alexandria v Fairfax, 95 U.S. 774(1878)) by interfering with all housing efforts via phone and computer hacking (See stat 609.87-93), for both home and business, to then redirect Ms. Ash to extremely unsafe living and operating environments to then facilitate the same electromagnetic torture, audio and video harassment and gangstalking protocol. Answer Yes Question 5 Is pro se Ash’s forced participation of electromagnetic torture and gangstalking implemented to force submission to illegal research and psychological torture being preformed to benefit the facilitators profit from the dark web. While in violation of the } fair housing act and the 4th Amendment which states, ”a person has a right to be safe in their home or business.” These illegal programs are used to silence a WHISTLEBLOWERS and others our government sees as a threat. Yes Question 6 Did the United States Court of Appeals err in denial allowing the State of Minnesota to | continue to participate in the direct violation of pro se Ash’s civil rights (see 18 U.S.C | 242) by interference and harassment at pro se Ash’s place of business, her car and her , home residence with weapons of electromagnetic tortue, illegal audio, video harassment | and electronic hacking of both phone and computer while utilizing the same participants } from partnering participating states while in violation of The VAWA Act to include WI, NC, ND, CO, 1A, MS, MO and IL to further perpetuate retaliation and inhumane while publicizing and recruiting civilian participation. Yes