Whether NCCOA and NCSC improperly denied appellant's motions and orders, and whether the orders violate constitutional rights and state appellate rules

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether NCCOA and NCSC — Improperly Deny Appellant’s Motions for R. 33 Notice of Representation and is of National Interests to Litigation 2. Whether NCCOA and NCSC. — Improperly Deny Appellant’s R. 38 Motion for Party Substitution and is of National Interests to Litigation 3. Whether NCCOA and NCSC Improperly Deny Appellant’s Motion for and is of National Interests to Litigation 4. Whether NCCOA and NCSC -— Improperly Grant Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Without Providing an Analysis or Opinion or Determine the Merits or Material Facts and Violates at Least the 14" Amendment Due process, and U.S. Code. 1983 and is of National Interests to Litigation . 5... Whether NCCOA and NCSC’s Orders Violate Constitutional Rights and N.C. Appellate Rules by N.C. G.S. § 7A-30 or § 7A-31 for Affirming or Dissenting Opinions or no opinions and is of National Interests to Litigation . iii PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS Kathy R. Allen is the Petitioner and filed the WCSC 2018 lawsuit for her mother’s N.C. estate property after the State Employees Credit Union filed a foreclosure action. Arthur L. Allen [sic deceased] is Respondent I and Petitioner’s oldest sibling who was the personal collector for her mother’s estate and ‘Will’ but himself passed in late 2020. His wife Mary Flager Allen is supposedly his estate’s personal collector). Anthony A. Klish is Respondent 2 and was ALA’s (Respondent 1) ’ lawyer in the estate and later the WCSC 2018 case. State Employees Credit Union/ (SECU) C/O Cathleen M. Plaut is the mortgage lender for the N.C. estate property who filed a foreclosure action. William D. Harazin, PLLC is the Wake County Super. Ct. Guardian Ad Litem and his law office is who notified the Petitioner (by N.C.G.S. -§ 45.21-16 (as an heir) of the N.C. foreclosure. . iv RELATED CASES AND HEARINGS Wake County Superior Court (WCSC), North Carolina Court of Appeals (NCCOA), North Carolina Supreme Court (NCSC)) Wake County Superior Court Raleigh, North Carolina #18-CV-13119. Kathy R. Allen v. Arthur L. Allen, Anthony A. Klish, State Employees Credit Union (SEC), and William D. Harazin (Guardian ad litem) and four Defendants lawsuit filed October 26, 2018. Judgment entered o/a June 5, 2019. Wake County Superior Court Raleigh, North Carolina #18-CV-13119 Kathy R. Allen v. Arthur L. Allen, Anthony A. Klish, State Employees Credit Union (SEC), and William D. Harazin (Guardian ad litem). Motion for reconsideration (MFR) filed o/a June 26, 20219 for the o/a June 5, 2019 Orders. Judgment entered o/a September 27, 2019. Wake County Superior Court Raleigh, North Carolina #18-CV-13119 Kathy R. Allen v. Arthur L. Allen, Anthony A. Klish, State Employees Credit Union (SEC), and William D, Harazin (Guardian ad litem) o/a November 2019 filed appeal to WCSC of the September 27, 2019 Order case but not ruled until Coronavirus delays. Judgment case was dismissed on Defendants’ suggesting the R. 7 . transcription contract, and R.9 and R. 11 proposed and printed record had not been filed and entered February 14, 2020 and Defendants requested a Gatekeeping Order for further filings against them. Wake County Superior Court Raleigh, North Carolina #18-CV-13119 Kathy R. Allen v. Arthur L. Allen, Anthony A. Klish, State Employees Credit Union (SEC), and William D. Harazin (Guardian ad litem) also not rule but into Coronavirus delays. Judgment December 13, 2021 denied March 2020 MER for February 14, 2020 Order prompted R. 3 North Carolina Court of Appeals appeal #22-601 filed. , North Carolina Court of Appeals #22-601 Kathy R. Allen v. Arthur L. Allen, Anthony A. Klish, State Employees Credit Union (SEC), and William D. Harazin (Guardian ad litem). Judgment entered May 4, 2023 dismissed appeal granting Appellees’ MTD North Carolina Court of Appeals #22-601 Kathy R. Allen v. Arthur L. Allen, Anthony A. Klish, State Employees Credit Union (SEC), and William D. Harazin (Guardian ad litem) June 6, 2023 denied Appellant’s en banc rehearing motion prompted