Whether the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision to continue the enforcement of a fraudulent and pretentious state harassment restraining order to an imposture for 50 years without reviewing her acts of frauds; her lack of judicial jurisdiction, her manipulative . . police evidences, her police and in court perjured testimonies; and her conspiracies with police officers, prosecutors, judges, sheriffs, and Minnesota attorney generals, in . enforcing the HROs had deprive the Petitioner of His Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to an infinite and unreasonable seizure, and a deprivation of the Petitioner's procedure due process and equal protection rights

Questions Presented 1. Whether the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision to continue the enforcement of a fraudulent and pretentious state harassment restraining order to an imposture for 50 years without reviewing her acts of frauds; her lack of judicial jurisdiction, her manipulative . . police evidences, her police and in court perjured testimonies; and her conspiracies with police officers, prosecutors, judges, sheriffs, and Minnesota attorney generals, in . enforcing the HROs had deprive the Petitioner of His Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to an infinite and unreasonable seizure, and a deprivation of the Petitioner’s procedure due process and equal protection rights. 2. Whether Petitioner continues to be deprive of his statutory and procedure due process rights to be heard only on the evidences in the case was due to Petitioner’s Pro-Se status. ii