Does patently unequal, disparate state administration of the Rule of Law and failure to provide state remedy in strict accordance with the Texas Constitution violate the Equal Protection Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | 1) Does patently unequal, disparate state administration of the Rule of Law and failure to provide state remedy in strict accordance with the Texas Constitution, specifically Article V, Section 10 and Article I, Sections 15 and 29, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? 2) Can state court judges refuse to comply with U.S. CONST. . ArT. VI, § 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) by conducting further proceedings and render judgments after a case has been officially removed to federal court? 3) Is the application and enforcement of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 in any way contingent upon race, ethnicity, or color of one’s skin and is it contingent, as the U.S. District court ruled, upon whether an issue of racial inequality is present, notwithstanding the salient fact there are no qualifying words of phrases whatsoever in § 1443 indicating this? 4) Can the lower federal courts refuse to comply with the jurisdictional instructions of the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically those promulgated in Chicot County v. Sherwood, ii 148 U.S. 529, 13 S. Ct. 695 (1893) and Hyde et al. v. Stone, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 170 (1857)? 5) Can federal courts shirk their duty and authority to correct (nullify) a coram non judice (absolutely void) state court judgement, specifically delineated in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 696, 206 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2020), while the litigation is in federal court under federal statutory jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 or 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)? 6) Did the Fifth Circuit err when it egregiously fined (sanctioned) an indigent pro se litigant for exercising his federal statutory right to appeal, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), to protect and preserve his constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial by jury after it was illegally foreclosed by the State of Texas and subsequently ignored by the U.S. District Court? 7) Did the Fifth Circuit err when it granted Respondent’s dubious, eleventh hour new counsel’s motion to dismiss? 8) Did the Fifth Circuit err when it egregiously ignored the U.S. Supreme Court declaration promulgated in Aailroad iii = J Company v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5 (1881) that a litigant should not have to carry the heavy burden of simultaneous litigation in both state and federal forums, especially in light of the salient fact the litigant is pro se (without counsel). iv