Did the Supreme Court of California violate murder victim Henry Chow's and his children's Fourteenth Amendment rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 2 1. Did the Supreme Court of California violate murder victim Henry Chow’s and 3 his children their Fourteenth Amendment rights of “life, liberty, and property”, 4 and equal protection under the Constitution by supporting Justices Perluss, 5 Segal, and Feuer in their violation of Article 6, Clause 2 of Constitution in their 6 denial of Henry Chow’s rights to life and bodily autonomy by advocating the 7 right to euthanasia under Medicare and depriving us of Survivorship rights, on 8 page 10 /first paragraph]: “...Defendant’s treatment of Decedent constituted 9 ‘intentional murder’ as opposed to negligence, whether conduct of Defendant’s 10 staff caused Decedent's death,...and taking Decedent off the ventilator are 11 irrelevant...” ? 12 2. Did California’s highest court participate in Domestic Terrorism pursuant to 18 13 USC §2331(6) by upholding the Lower Courts’ orders legalizing Henry’s forced 14 death by deliberately unplugging his life support for 21 hours by Defendants 15 Verity Health Systems of California and its employees, Leyba, Lopez,Vue, and 16 Markovic for Lower Courts claimed Defendants had legal right within medical 17 practice to “taking Decedent off the ventilator” constitutes “acts dangerous to 18 human life” meet domestic terrorism definition of “(5) the term “domestic 19 terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that 20 are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) 21 appear to be intended? 22 8. Did Supreme Court of California commit seditious conspiracy in violation of 18 23 U.S. Code § 2384 in gratifying Orders to legalize Henry Chow’s euthanasia, since 24 Opinion [Page 10] states: “intentional murder’ as opposed to negligence, whether 25 conduct of Defendant's staff caused Decedent's death, and ... taking Decedent off 26 the ventilator are irrelevant” and dismissed Verity Health Systems of California 27 in flagrant violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulations § 482.12 that holds 28 “governing body” legally responsible? PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI JN FORMA PAUPERIS2 } : 1