Whether a State Judge can constitutionally ban a parent from videotaping public interactions during child custody exchanges and school-related matters

No question identified. : QUESTIONS 1. WHETHER, Petitioner should consider a State Judges laws Constitutionally Powerful, when the Justice System Court Judges ban, by court order, Petitioner and her Parents from videotaping wrongful acts in a public place? 2. WHETHER, Judges are acting Constitutionally, when they require Petitioner to perform under the laws, however, they excuse Respondent ’s acts because Respondent is in Pro Se, and so are Petitioner Pro Se? 3. WHETHER, a judge should disallow authentic evidence to come in to Court, because it is on USB Sticks, taken from several Car Cameras, that clearly captures the two chasing and Petitioners and dangerously cutting in front of Petitioners ’ moving automobile, Respondents using their two automobile to cause a chase of Petitioners ’ automobile, sandwiching Petitioners in, until i Respondent Sharif Tarpin disco ver s/see the cameras and then he exit left onto a cross street, but Respondent Enrika Jones continue to attempt to cause a very dangerously and deadly accident? 4. WHETHER, the Appeals Court ’s Judge acted “in the best interest ” of Minor Child M.T. to be fraudulently enrolled into a public school? 5. WHETHER, a Superior court Commissioner that has been declined by a is acting within his capacity when he/she makes an order to takes away Child Custody Plaintiffs ’/Petitioner ’s/Mother ’s Legal and Physical Custody Rights of her Minor Child „ because she refuse to participate in her child attending the school that her Minor Child is forced to attend under being made aware by receiving documents that the forgery was done by forged document that the father and his lady ii friend forged to make the enrollment with use of Mother ’s and Minor Daughter ’s Private and Confidential Information. 6. WHETHER, the Appellate Court Judges Erred by not finding that Eastern District Court Judge should have considered , when making such COURT ORDER that involve the custody issue, as is previous presented in the previous paragraph number 3 above, the important fact, is the Mother had already lawfully, timely, and properly enrolled their Minor daughter into the School District upon an agreement with the Father; however, the father secretly unenrolled their Minor Child from that proper school, and then forged the document and frauded the second enrollment, the reasonableness in Mother ’s attempt to correct the wrong that Father had been responsible for, and her attempt to Mitigate Damages that continue to accrue? iii 7. WHETHER, the United States Constitution Supports a Superior Court Judge making an “Order ” that bans a Parent from videotaping the custody exchange acts in a public parking lot? 8. WHETHER, a Public School Staff person(s) is Constitutionally right to ban a Parent from coming onto the Public School ’s Property to “Drop Off” or “Pick Up” his or her Minor Child? 9. WHETHER, a Public School Staff or the Security Person can escort a parent off the Public School Property, because the Parent and the Grandparents of the Minor Child filed police charges of Assault and Battery, done upon the Parent and Grand Parents, by the Public School Principal, Public School Teachers, and the School Security? 10. WHETHER, a parent of a minor student can be charged with “Trespassing, ” if the parent enters iv upon a public school ’s property, to take care of his/her Minor Child/Student school related matter(s)? by allowing Defendant to continue to not serve Plaintiffs when the law requires all Parties to do, to lead Defendant during the hearing, not allow Plaintiffs to bring in authentic and credible evidence to support their complaints, and only the Black Race Plaintiffs are abiding by the requirements of the law; such acts of the Judge (s) would be Racially Bias treatment of the Judge(s)? 11.WHETHER, when a Superior Court Judge Order a Plaintiff and Plaintiffs ’ Parents not to video tape in public Places, the exchange of Child Custody, the Order would violate Plaintiffs ’ First Amendment R