Should respondents be criminally and civilly liable for hate crime(s), false imprisonment, racial discrimination, persecution, emotional distress, and misconduct after intentionally conspiring to commit several misdeeds against Petitioner that violated her body and civil liberties, in the absence of proper investigation, without adequate legal justification, representation, restitution or trial, when individuals who are charged with committing acts of violence against others are awarded a public defender and entitled to trial by jury.

Furthermore, it is justifiable for the Court to hold Petitioner to the same statutory and legal standards as attorneys, entities, and other individuals who have not been dehumanized and excessively drugged antipsycliotics against her over the course of two years (which permanently rendered her mentally incapacitated), in addition to the added threats of revictimization by both officers of the law and court, void of legal representation.

Finally, it is defensible for the Court of Appeals to dismiss Petitioner's true and valid claims of bestial cruelty against her based-on "jurisdiction" when there were not jurisdictional defects in her appeal, absent of the Third Circuit properly addressing the issues of dismissal of her complaint at level of the District Court when events that led up to her claims were so egregious they required attention and deserved proper review and action.

Should respondents be criminally and civilly liable for hate-crime, false-imprisonment, racial-discrimination, persecution, emotional-distress, misconduct