Where CPS investigators and Judge Diane Rappleye violate the rules announced in Doe v. Doe, where Prosecution and Appointed legal counsel of Ms Peterson violate Sworn Ethical Code law, and where Police officers violate civil rights of Alissa Peterson

Questions Presented 1. Where CPS investigators and Judge Diane Rappleye violate the rules announced in Doe v. Doe, 99 Haw 1, 52 P3d 255 (Haw 2002) by filing and granting the petition against Alissa Peterson to begin with and, Court should clarify under what circumstances could Alissa Peterson "initiate" further legal mediation with prosecutor and Judge and thereby purge the taint from the Doe v. Doe violation of Res Judicata and Estoppel? Court should clarify where has the legal standard for fair and equal treament been satsfied by the 14th ammendment and also in regard to the best interest of the children specifically? 2. Where Prosecution and Appointed legal counsel of Ms Peterson violate Sworn Ethical Code law ,The accused's Right to Education, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 affrimative defense and federal rules of evidence Rule 26. Duty to Disclose Depriving the accused of their right to "presumed innocence by law" aka "Innocent until proven guilty" Court should clarify the legal and judicial holding in Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) regarding pre-trails and the 6th Ammendement that without assistance of FAIR legal representation the "“noble ideal” of “fair trails cannot be realized" Court should clarify where justice realized and tangible? 3. Where Police officers violate civil rights of Alissa Peterson repeatedly over the span of 10 years with evidence specifically on 4/20/14 where Miranda right were violated Court should clarify where the rule announced in Edwards V Arizona and , Screws v. United States be satisfied? where officers violate the rule announced in Edwards v. Arizona by continuing to talk and record and sexually harass a suspect who has previously invoked the Fifth Amendment right tocounsel, under what circumstances does the custodial detainee "initiate" further communications with law enforcement and thereby purge the taint from the Edwards violation? Further more Court should clarify under what circumstances does one prove though interactions with police discrimination when one lacks direct evidence of discrimination and under what circumstances is Screws v. United States applicable after repeated tageted fraudulaent harassment defined by law? 2