Should the Supreme Court provide guidance on mandatory accommodation of judicial discretion to ensure fair hearings for pro se litigants and clarify its decisions on due process violations when judicial discretion is used in error?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Summary, should the Supreme Court issue guidance to state courts on unaddressed, mandatory accommodation to judicial discretion to provide fair hearing to all litigants and clarify its decisions in Bronson v. Schulten,104 U. S. 410, (1881) versus Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 .(1944) so that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when judicial discretion is used in error and a state court does not void a pro se litigant’s or any litigant’s procedural errors when the litigant has clearly presented the facts in evidence of manifest fraud on the court? Specifically, I. Did the Bankruptcy Court; The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel; and the 10‘ Circuit Court of Appeals error in not using their judicial discretion to void two procedural errors made by Petitioner? Il. Were the Bankruptcy Court; The Bankruptcy ii Appellate Panel; and the 10‘ Circuit Court of Appeals in error in not reviewing the substantive arguments made by Petitioner as to, why based on the facts of this case that the normal procedural rules for dismissal should not have been followed? III. Should the Supreme Court issue or remand to the lower courts instructions to provide guidance on mandatory accommodations related to judicial discretion in cases of false testimony, vindictive accusations, proceedings that require a technical response and other instances of where pro se litigants are placed at an unfair advantage in litigation based upon their financial resources to hire legal representation?