Whether the use of peremptory challenges removing available potential jurors of both the same race and same gender (White Men, White Women, also Black Men) from the jury pool, and selecting 6 jurors with 5 having the same race and same gender (5 Black Women), violates the Fifth Amendment through the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This extreme violative case significantly challenges multiple Constitutional and Federal laws. On appeal, Petitioner presented trial court reversable offenses willfully made by those in law detailed in briefs, court transcript, and filings. Opinion omitting Constitutional and Federal violations removing the essence of appeal, consequently conflicting with laws denying Petitioner her born Constitutional rights. The level of willful collaborative efforts surpassing intent to deny Petitioners rights demonstrate Civil Rights Act of 1964 violations based on race, gender, and pro se. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the use of peremptory challenges removing available potential jurors of both the same race and same gender (White Men, White Women, also Black Men) from the jury pool, and selecting 6 jurors with 5 having the same race and same gender (5 Black Women), violates the Fifth Amendment through the Equal Protection . Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Whether this conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Batson v. Kentucky and J.E.B. v. Alabama? 2. Whether trial judge err selecting three jurors (#13, #17, #18 per court transcript) not asked any examining questions, not involved in voir dire, jury selection process and appearing in transcript after trial judge selected jurors deprives Petitioner her born constitutional rights to the 5 Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the 14" Amendment? Whether trial attorneys being officers of the court, obligated to promote justice, uphold the law, and their Constitutional Oath, not objecting to wellknown jurors not questioned during jury selection and selected as jurors should be held accountable for harm? 3. Significance with daily public safety stairway use nationwide, preventing injuries, and building codes. This liability case involves only two-steps constructed each by the Respondents. A Respondent confessed to State and National code violations (color contrast — riser heights — pattern — handrail), admitted repairing steps and detailed how. Whether both bonded steps and both contractors should have been equally heard at trial to compare, measure, and consider National/State Builder code violations and liability to prove negligence and causation? Whether trial judge abused discretion removing one of the only two steps causing a massive domino effect removal of Petitioners crucial evidence, depriving Due Process under the 5 and 14" @ @ Amendment? Whether a porch/stoop is considered a step if bonded to another step creating stairway? 4. Whether Appellate Court opinion leaving out, swaying, and navigating from the nature of Petitioners appeal, ignoring trial court Constitutional and Federal offenses, conflict with 18 U.S.C. 1001 wiilful concealment, with intent to mislead, design to induce belief in the falsity, the 5" Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the 14 Amendment, The Color of Law Title 18, and U.S Department of Justice 910? 5. Whether the willful combination of errors and increasing collaborative efforts from those in law, educated in law-knowing the law, surpassing their intent to deny my born Constitutional rights to Due Process and Substantive Due Process demonstrate and challenges THE COLOR OF LAW by collaborating, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 — based on my race — gender — pro se, RACIAL SEGREGATION from systematic separation of Blacks/other minorities in receiving harmful, disproportionate, and violative court errors and rulings gone unchecked, another form of SLAVERY — deprivation of rights (free but not free). MODERN SLAVERY severe exploitation of others for personal gains, also Crimes Against Humanity — causing minority citizens in court great harm and disparities? 6. Whether Pro se cases are harmed on appeal when trial attorney did not zealously represent nor protect case? If pro se do not have protective rights under the law from attorneys’ errors or judicial hostility, an authoritative decision from