Does the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause vindicate third-party privacy rights in State class action proceedings?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Transacting up to 50 kilograms results in prison for up to 5 years and a fine of up to $250,000. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). There are likely over 425,000 cannabis employees in 41 States and U.S. Territories within licensed marijuana facilities engaging in ‘prohibited acts’ violating this Federal statute. Here, this petition arrives to this Good Court, likely as alluded to in the dissent in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. __, 1389 S.Ct. 1748, 1752 (2019) pitting the greed of an unscrupulous plaintiffs lawyer and client who lied to gain employment against the unrecognized plight of likely 425,000 cannabis employees nationwide presented by a licensed cannabis facility and its hearing-impaired lawyer who were sanctioned $10,000 for upholding the privacy rights of third-party cannabis workers while Congress has yet to decriminalize their legal trade under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause vindicate third-party privacy rights in State class action proceedings and prevent the State, like California, from creating regulatory judicial schemes touting civil litigation efficiency in favor of the class action plaintiffs bar when, in practice during COVID social distancing protocols, the programs actually violate third-party privacy, attorney-client confidentiality, and the preservation of attorney ethics and the integrity of the judicial system? 2. Did a California Court violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when over a privacy objection it issued $10,000 in discovery sanctions and compelled disclosure of the class list of third ii party employees who earn a living wage in a licensed dispensary transacting in marijuana, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, and a prohibited act subjecting these third-party employees to imprisonment and monetary fine under 21 U.S.C. § 841? 3. Has a State of California trial court, the Los Angeles Superior Court, created a regulatory scheme, the Complex Civil Litigation Program, that in the name of efficiency violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and sanctions a defendant seeking to uphold privacy, attorney-client confidentiality, and preservation of attorney ethics and the integrity of the judicial system? More specifically, the structural court-filing process where a plaintiff simply identifies a complex case divests due process of the defendant to exit the regulatory scheme of a plaintiffcontrolled complex court to address privacy objections, attorney-client privilege, and barratry committed by plaintiffs? 4. Do mandatory social distancing COVID-19 protocols for remote videoconferencing with imperfect audio subject to Internet instability, sometimes without images, and lack of in-person dialogue violate the procedural due process of hearing-impaired participants, here, petitioner’s counsel, who understood at the first instance the trial judge was willing to mediate discovery objections—but never did and without the mandated ‘meet and confer process’ under discovery statutes? 5. Do the circumstances depicted in this petition, State class action abuse, a flawed trial court efficiency program, disconnect between the now retired jurist and petitioner’s hearing impaired attorney, with COVID protocols demonstrate a Fourteenth Amendment due iii process clause violation, particularly, where, as here, the California courts indicated the third-party cannabis employee privacy objection was ‘particularly meritless— turning a blind eye to the obvious fact the class action defendant is a cannabis facility confronted with Congress unable to reconcile the Federal and State tension with the Controlled Substance Act?