Whether the United States District Court violated the claimant's inalienable rights to due process and equal protection under the law within the meaning of the Ten Commandments of the Holy Bible

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | eas Ahe VS Divtacf Court Coveled Claimant's unaly'enchle Bitty ishts to Due process ond equal protection of the law Wrikin the Meahing oF the Ten Commandment of dhe Holy Gible 2 Meu can the unified Shetes Disdacs TJusle foceed 7 4: a without Complying with Merbury Vo Madison £ US 137? f eawe low can dhe United States Diskeiel Fudse dignvy ine conplain} withoud brirarg the cleimanf de the right cout ments mondeted by penne Xe Vo Neff 95 us 733, 94 L-£e 565? unvbed totes Diedricf Tudor fous no) rrande fot» Hos con oh w fthe adjudged decision of She LU preme Courd of the sorted Gtades Of Bradley Vi fisher, Fo us 333 (870,351, 352 7 Uniked Gtetes Digteicf Judge be asarut Ar's aon dudes G . celjon of the PLR applies do a Privede Citicen ad Sait en ae Slots of pecer veel the fomily ef Nation, ede ? sted Court roperly dlenies Delilioner's Filing in a ecadance a oh casas ot Nevada 23 US 6 Bell BS(/867(P3US HI) ccf Ceued properly danicd Petibvonerte ry'shf to Bue process Hes fhe Be tee tbe eo by galing Jo comply eaithy Bitpie VY, Mede BAe dus Zac TBS SDS ad SIH (ex, 1776) 2 ne US. Dishricl coud held his och of offre ina geod falth cad BeS io de public policy e ; ¢ Dithesed Coord Applied Phe proper sladute da Hs fives Citi ne ab N Vonal of the United Slates of Anaerica rn the family of Nariens’ ' uv ay Hat dhe US Disfe'ef Cert Complied with HIK 152 oF gue 19332 Civil procedure lay? Has He US rytecef Court comp) with federal Rufe of Civ! f SN x