Whether the United States Supreme Court should provide national safeguards against lower State Court systemic failures to comply with fundamental Constitutional protections when fraud, lack of jurisdiction, forgery, and collusion are alleged

When lower Ohio State Courts enter judgments as a result of fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction, forgery, and collusion, and Petitioner has appealed to, and exhausted every State and Federal Remedy where Court officials have worked in a concerted action to deprive Petitioner of her 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment protected rights, Is this the most salient time when the United States Supreme Court should accept Petitioner ’s extraordinary case to provide national safeguards against lower State Court ’s broad and sweeping systemic failure to comply with fundamental Constitutional protections ? ii. SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW When the Ohio Supreme Court declines to hear Petitioner ’s timely filed, nonfrivolous, 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment Constitutional Question[s] case while failing to provide a Remedy or even an Opinion, Are Petitioner ’s “Protected ” Rights violated when that State ’s Supreme Court ’s own OH. App. Prac. Section 8:1., explicitly clarifies that its own Ohio State Supreme Court ‘has deviated from the Constitution by doing so’ ? iii. THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW When the language of the Ohio State Constitution commands that no person shall be a judge once they have attained the age of Seventy ; meaning that, no person shall be elected by the people ; and no person shall be appointed by the Governor ; is it a Constitutional Conflict that a crafty loophole was created in the Ohio State ’s Constitution which permits a Judge/Justice to bring back and assign, even temporarily, another age restricted retired Judge to active duty by bypassing and flouting legislative procedures ? ii iv. FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Is it a Constitutional conflict that the State of Ohio currently has two (2) operational Published versions of the Ohio Constitution which confuses Petitioner, and the Public, as to which version must be applied when presenting “matter of right ” Constitutional Questions presented for Review under the United States Constitution, or of this State, when the Ohio Secretary of State ’s published version Article IV. Section 2. (B), (2), (a) includes enumerated sections, (i), (ii), and (iii)., ; yet the OH Const. Art. IV, Section 2. O Const IV Sec. 2 Organization and jurisdiction of supreme court “Currentness ” version Article IV. Section 2. (B), (2), (a) includes only enumerated sections, (i) and (ii)., ? FIFTH QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW v. When there is a Felony Forgery of Petitioner ’s attorney ’s signature on an official Court document, (a ‘JOURNAL ENTRY ’), in Petitioner ’s case which took place without Petitioner ’s attorney ’s knowledge or permission, and without a Hearing, Trial, witnesses, or recordations that any proceeding ever took place, and which caused the deprivation of Petitioner ’s Constitutionally protected right to contract and parent her children, is that criminal Felony Forgery, which was committed by officers of the Court, a Judicial Act?