Whether any State or judicial body should be allowed to violate Constitutional Rights

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether any State or judicial body, in this case, the State of New Hampshire court, should be allowed to violate Constitutional Rights, in this case relative to Article IV, Article V, Article VII, Article VII, and Article IX, and amendment XIV respectively as follows, of improper search, depravation of property, preservation of trial, excessive fines, and the rights of the people including lack of notification or access to records of a court case. Whether any State or judicial body, in this case, the State of New Hampshire court, should be allowed to not follow its own laws, in this case, of the State of New Hampshire, in this case relative to the exemption of a private landlord from any rule of procedure relative to a security deposit or Fair Housing Law and allowing eviction within 7 days for any reason. ; Whether any State or judicial body, in this case, the State of New Hampshire court, should be allowed to docket or hear a case when the opposing party is exempt from the relative law, in this case, of the State of New Hampshire, in this case relative to the exemption of a private landlord from any rule of procedure relative to . a security deposit or Fair Housing Law. Whether any State or judicial body, in this case, the State of New Hampshire court, should be allowed to not follow its own procedure, in this case, of the State of New Hampshire court system, in this case relative to proper notification and allowance of a reply brief in New Hampshire Supreme Court. Whether any State or judicial body, in this case, the State of New Hampshire court, should be allowed to have conflicting rules of procedure, in this case relative to deadlines to reconsider without reference between. Whether any State or judicial body, in this case the State of New Hampshire court, should be allowed to not rehear a case as a first hearing with the appropriate direction of burden of evidence when the electronic, in person, or other notification systems failed. Whether any State or judicial body, in this case the State of New Hampshire court, should be allowed to order payment of judgement or uphold judgement made when the would-be payee is exempt from the relative law, regardless of if the judgement was of default or lack of notification. Whether any single notification attempt or method is sufficient to uphold the intent of the Constitution to proper judicial notification. Whether court proceedings are unduly burdensome and ought be simplified and followed, in this case for a single parent of a private small unofficial rental business, meeting exemptions in law when the judgement might be the same as the earnings reflected on Rental tax forms for a year and affects livelihood and future business. . Whether a court clerk’s office should be allowed to offer incorrect information and advice or be staffed by individuals without law degrees when the clerk of court is bound by law to correct procedures. Whether a stay should be granted of judgement made in violation of rights, law, procedure, by default of failed notification systems, to a single parent small unofficial rental business, meeting exemption in law. Whether a stay of hearing or prosecution should be granted of any contempt © of court for failure to pay a judgement made in violation of rights, law, procedure, by default of failed notification systems, to a single parent small unofficial rental business, meeting exemption in law, while preparing a petition for a Writ of Certiorari within the 90-day timeline. Whether any judicial decision should be based on the necessity of production of evidence when evidence is subject to tampering and disappearance. Whether a counter sue by the party with greater liability must be heard in an appeal. Whether there should be any time limit to appeal to State Supreme Court or to US Supreme Court when a Writ of Certiorari is requested by a private party. Whether a landlord’s amounts collected at move-in and eligible for judgement at evict