Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; (1) DO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS UNDER FORTBEND COUNTY, TEXAS v. DAVIS, 139 S.Ct. 1843(U.S.2019) AND HALL v. HALL, 138 S.Ct. 1118, 200 L.Ed.2d. 399, 86 U.S.L.W. 4159(U.S.2018) APPLY TO THE STATES BY THE PETITIONER(S) 5TH. AND 14TH. AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS IT PERTAINS TO THE. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE 14th. : AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CLAUSE AS IT PERTAINS TO PROCEDURAL PROCESSING RULES AND ORDERS THAT TRIGGER A JUDGMENT RELATED TO THE TORRENCE RULING AND THE DEFAULTS SUBJUDICE ARGUED COMING FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA CASES INVOLVED? . (2) bo THE PRESENCE OF JUDGE KAYE HEARN FROM THE S.c. SUPREME COURT SITTING UPON THESE CASES PRODUCE A. CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURAL ERROR PURSUANT TO WILLIAMS v. PENNSYLVANIA, 136 S.Ct. . 1899, 195 L.Ed.2d. 132, 84 U.S.L.W. 4359(U.S.2016) WHERE SHE IS A DEFENDANT IN THE RELATED CASES THAT ARE SOUGHT 28 U.S.C. § 1407 TRANSFER INVOLVING THE FIDUCIARY HEIR CRAWFORD WHERE WE ARE ; SOUGHT TAG ALONG CASES PRODUCING A POTENTIAL FOR BIAS THAT RISES TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL VOIDING THE STATE COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRONG TO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION? (3) DO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS UNDER BETTERMAN v. MONTANA, 136 S.Ct. 1609, 194 L.Ed.2d. 723 ; II ; (U.S.2016), UNDER MONTGOMERY v. LOUISIANA, 136 $.ct. 718, 193 : L.Ed.2d. 599, 84 U.S.L.W. 4064(U.S.2016), UNDER NELSON v. COLORADO, 137 S.Ct. 1249, 197 L.Ed.2d. 611, 85 U.S.L.W. 4205 (U.S.2017), AND UNDER WEARRY v. CAIN, 136 S.Ct. 1002, 194 ' L.ga.2d. 78 (U.S.2016) APPLY TO THE CRAWFORD “CASE PRODUCING EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES “WHERE THE OTHER INMATES, NAMELY THE PETITIONERS AND THE OTHERS, BEING DETRIMENTALLY RELIANT UPON THAT , CASE PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)(b) OF ADA, ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIMS OF NON PARTY RES JUDICATA AND OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DUE . TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA CONCEALING, SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE . OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE’ IN THE FORM OF DNA EVIDENCE AND SLED INVESTIGATIVE FILE IN THE CRAWFORD CASE, ALSO BLOCKING CRAWFORD, . A MEMBER OF THE SOLE CORPORATION, FROM FILING FOR POST CONVICTION ; RELIEF BEHIND’ RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL HATRED FOR OVER (16) YEARS WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL ORDER DETERMINING WHY AND THE LEGAL ISSUES ARGUED WITHIN ALL THESE CASES ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AND OR IDENTICAL, AND THE S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTACKED OUR DUE PROCESS PROCEEDINGS DUE TO WE BEING DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO CRAWFORD AIDING HIM TO OBTAIN THE EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE BY RIGHTS . PROTECTED UNDER THE EQUAL: PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CLAUSE AND 42 : U.S.C. § 12203(a)(b) OF ADA? ; (4) DID THE PETITIONER(S) MEET THE CRITERION FOR. ESTABLISHING 28 U.S.C. § 1407 AND 1455(c) TRANSFER DUE TO THE DEFAULT BASED UPON THE PROCEDURAL PROCESSING RULE RELIED UPON, MULTI-DISTRICT SOUGHT LITIGATION, THE LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED AND ; Ps . . III THE SEEKING TRANSFER TO THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AS TAG ALONG CASES UNDER MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION RULES, AND DID THE S.C. SUPREME COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION VIOLATING DUE PROCESS BY THE DENYING OF McQUILLA THIS RIGHT WITH THE OTHER INMATES INVOLVED? (5) BY THE RECENT AND PAST RULINGS COMING OUT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SINCE 2016, DEMONSTRATING THAT THE . UNITED STATES v. COTTON CASE OF 2002 Is VAGUE, DID THE STATE . COURTS ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION BY ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF FATAL DEFECTS IN CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS UNDER THE STATUTORY/ LEGISLATIVE PRONG TO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WHEN DUE PROCESS LAW : REQUIRED THAT SUCH ISSUES BE ADJUDICATED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS/ © CONSTITUTIONAL PRONG TO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION? 7 . . : (6) DID THE S.C. SUPREME COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN _ ACTS OF FRAUD UPON. THE COURT FRAUDULENTLY ASSERTING NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED IN THESE CASES INVOLVED, FRAUDULENTLY ASSERTING THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES BEING ARGUED IN ACTS OF MACHINATION WHEN THE ISSUES PRESENTED TO: THIS COURT ARE CLEAR, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE IN THE CHRISTOPHER