Whether the lower court's vexatious litigator designation and dismissal of grievances against judicial officers violate the petitioner's constitutional rights to access courts and seek redress under the First and Fourteenth Amendments

This case raises critical questions regarding constitutional rights of parents in family and juvenile court proceedings, and the necessity for a reasoned judicial opinion considering a split decision among the justices. The specific issues for review are: (a) Did the lower court err in declaring me, John Paul Gomez, a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B), thereby infringing upon my constitutional rights to access the courts, seek redress, and equal justice under law, without a thorough examination of the merits of my claims consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendment? (b) Given the split decision (3-3) among the justices, does the lack of a majority opinion create ambiguity and conflict with established Supreme Court precedents regarding the necessity of reasoned judicial reasoning in cases affecting litigants' rights? (c) Whether, as a parent, I have standing in proceedings that involve me and my minor children wherein exists actual bias, a pattern of discrimination, collusion, and intentional deprivation of my constitutional rights; compounded by ineffective representation of counsel regarding my minor son, conflicting with the principles recognized in Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57 (2000), In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? (d) Whether the inability to seek review of the dismissal of grievances I filed against judicial officers and court appointed attorneys; and the failure to enforce code of judicial and professional conduct violate my First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights? 2