Does the targeting of a specific child, mother, father, and Jewish family and manipulating government authority to harm the well-adjusted child (with arbitrary discrimination and falsified canards) satisfy the standard for a criminal act laid out by this Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the targeting of a specific child, mother, father, and Jewish family and manipulating government authority to harm the well-adjusted child (with arbitrary discrimination and falsified canards) satisfy the standard for a criminal act laid out by this Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio? Page | i 2. Did the lower court violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment with false prohibited government speech of demonic possessions that incited imminent lawless action to harm a discrete minority child? Do the arbitrary administrative orders of the lower court interfere with the mother, father, Filipino family, and the minor child’s right for them to enjoy a relationship with each other? 3. Does the association between convicted offender Julia Butler and Thomas Cole, Andraya Mimms, and the 23-member group of persons associated together for the purpose of engaging in a common course of family abduction and fraud on the United States Courts constitute racketeering as held by this Supreme Court in United States v. Turkette? 4. Does the inveigling of a child (under the age of 18-years) from her home in Georgia and creating a scam to force her into the totalitarian control of a convicted person in Ohio through coercion and ifraud (over the parents’ objections and without their consent) for the purpose of engaging the child in immoral practices, illicit conduct, and training her to hate her mother, father, Filipino family and Jewish religion, violates the Mann Act and 18 USC 1201? Do the unlawful actions run afoul of this ; Supreme Court precedence, in Caminette v United States? 5. In accordance with the Supreme Court's precedence in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, ; where this Court held that a grandmother has a Constitutional right to live with her grandchild, are the arbitrary discriminatory administrative orders of the lower court (that seeks to deprive a child of the nurturing love and neurological attachments of her mother, father, Filipino family, and Jewish religion) constitutional? | 6. Do the arbitrary restrictions of the lower court to deprive parents and child of rights under the color of law infringe on protected liberties? Do the arbitrary actions by the lower court offends the sanctity of family established in Duchesne v. Sugarman and do these actions violate U.S. criminal code (42 USC 200idd) for Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment? ; 7. Are the liberties that the lower court denied to the parents, child, and Filipino family, fundamental rights? Do the arbitrary rules advance a compelling State interest? If so, | i did the State of Georgia demonstrate concrete quantitative metrics, independent judgment, and objective legal standards that shows its compliance with strict scrutiny guidelines and least restrictive alternative means analyses, as required by the Constitution? Do the arbitrary restrictions implement the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest? Page | ii 8. Do juvenile courts have jurisdiction of person over 60-year-old adults? Can they hold vexatious litigations in United States courts for the purpose of delegitimizing the Constitution of the United States and can juvenile court judges use their public servant position to politic a fraud through U.S. courts, for the purpose of legitimizing a scam? | |