equal-protection-clause-violation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED If “there is no rational basis for Congress to treat needy citizens living anywhere in the United States so differently from others”, and if “[t]o hold otherwise. . . is irrational and antithetical to the very nature of the. . . the equal protection of citizens . 1 guaranteed by the Constitution”, U.S. . vu. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. 159 (2022) ; (Sotomayor, J. dissenting), certainly, “[a]ll persons. .e have the same right in every State. .. and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like , punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Moreover, “[t]he fundamental requisite of due process of ; law is the opportunity to be heard”, and Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914), and that should occur “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965). While “these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states,” Lee Resolution; still, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”, Decl. of Indep., and, “although ‘neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion”, “[a] petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons”, including where “a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals”,. S.Ct.R. 10(b). : : “A petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court that is [similarly] subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when it is filed with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying discretionary review.” S.Ct.R. 18(1). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). Accordingly, by the order entered on May 10, 2024, in the above referenced matter, the State Supreme Court for the State of Texas had denied an interlocutory petition for review of the judgment issued by the state appellate court, from which a timely appeal had been brought, first filed with this Court on May 17, 2024, upon which filing, Czyz had been granted 60 days to address defects that had rendered it noncompliant with S.Ct.R. 33.2(b). See also S.Ct.R. 14.5. ; Due process, in syllogistic express is merely “the process that is due,” T.P. Mining, Inc., 8 FMSHRC 687 (1986), and the deprivation thereof involves an irreparable harm, in derogation or abnegation thereof. Cohen v. Rosenstein, 691 F. App’x 728, (Mem)-—730 (4th Cir. 2017). Moreover, “[i]t may be realistic today to regard [even] welfare entitlements as more like ‘property’ than a ‘gratuity.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, n.8 (1970). And“especially a pro se complaint, should not be dismissed summarily unless ‘it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”, Gordon vu. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), a consideration of imperative significance the sole issue raised now on appeal: Whether, for purposes of equal protection, the actions of a State Court, which provides a statutorily conferred right to “file the Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs approved by the Supreme Court or another sworn document containing the same information”, Tex. R. Civ. P. 145, so that that “party is not required to pay costs in the appellate court unless the trial court overruled the party’s claim of indigence i