Does the violation of a fundamental constitutional right constitute grounds for the Supreme Court to review and reverse a judgment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | 1 (a) Do the values of the constitution really hold true, or are they only good on paper? that is, in practical terms, does the violation of a fundamental constitutional right (after the | entire appeal process has been exhausted), like the right to be heard, constitute sufficient | grounds for the Highest Court of Appeals to review and reverse a judgement; or the rights | promised to the citizens by the constitution are only good on paper? | 1 — (b) If no court has ever made a finding of fact that a person has ever committed any — illegal action, even less convicted him of any crime; can a state forbid him without due | process of law from any contact with his wife and any access to his house or any of his property therein? For example, I was never given any notice that any court would hear any request to curtail any of my freedoms and rights, I was never allowed to speak, present any evidence or defend myself in any way. Under such circumstances, can a state curtail any of my freedoms or rights, if I have never been found to have committed any illegal action? 1—(c) Under the UMDA shall a court dissolve a marriage, as soon as one or both parties ask it so (as it seems to be frequently the case), or only if it finds the marriage irretrievably broken? 1 (d) Did the Montana Supreme Court interprete Rule 60 of Civ. Proc. correctly, when it considered that I was precluded of any relief under subsection (b)(6), if I had ever sought relief based on any other completely different facts or circumstances under any of the other subsections of the rule? Or, as it is generally understood, the availability of relief for some facts and circumstances under any of the first five subsections, does not exclude relief under subsection (b)(6) for different facts and circumstances. | | 2 What constitutes substantial evidence to establish judicial bias? | | | : | a) Is it an inappropriate judicial conduct to allow one of the party's attorney to write up, from beginning to end, the court's judgement and neglect to review it for possible errors before signing it off? | b) Does the misrepresentation of the District Court's record or a key witness' testimony (as compared with the actual court hearing's transcript) constitute evidence of judicial bias? c) Does the misrepresentation by an appelate court of one of the party's argument (as contained in his appelate brief), constitute evidence of judicial bias? 3 How can the courts better protect a mentally-ill person against dures and . malevolent manipulation? a) In cases where there is evidence of dures, what actions shall the courts take to protect | the constitutional rights of a mentally-ill person, who, for example, may allege to seek , divorce, but is not even able to accurately state the reasons of the marital break-down? | b) Under what conditions shall the courts reconsider wether a mentally-ill person's legal counsel can continue being trusted to represent in good faith his mentally-ill client? For | example, does it constitute sufficient evidence to revoke the power of legal representation of | a legal counsel, if he induces his mentally-ill client to commit perjury making false | allegations of abuse to explain the reasons that led to her mental disorder and her attempt | . | of suicide? | c) If the courts have a special obligation to care for and protect the rights of mentally-ill | litigants, under what circumstances may the negligence of a different party to the case release the court from such obligation (see Section XI-7.6)? | | | 4 , . | | d) Under the UMDA, can the courts dissolve a marriage, if one of the parties is against the dissolution and the other is mentally ill, there is evidence she is under dures and she is incapable of producing an accurate answer to the question of the marital breakdown? | 4 What are the responsibilities and obligations of the courts to protect and | observe the constitutional right of disabled people for equal access to the law and