1. Petitioner was denied appropriate justice and retribution for the intentional maligning of her brand name, GoldenPrints, LLC, and intellectual property on the part of Respondent, Amazon.
Is it just that an American citizen be denied rightful retribution and access to justice because they are uninformed of court procedures, jurisdictions, and protocol? Further, is it just that an American citizen be denied rightful retribution and access to justice because they are unable to obtain appropriate counsel due to lack of funds.

2. Guilford County Court issued a Gatekeeper Order on 19 May 2023 against Petitoner, thereby disallowing Petitioner access to justice by denying Petitioner the ability to file legal documents against Respondent, Amazon, or even respond to court documents and proceedings, which further impeded Petitioner 's legal action. Respondent 's counsel referred to Petitioner 's appeals as "needless filings that placed an undue burden on both the judicial system and Amazon. " In fact, the Respondent referred to any filings made by Petitioner similarly. Respondent 's counsel did not wish to address any of the points made in Petitioner 's claim nor did they wish to have the facts from Petitioner 's lawsuit be heard in court. Respondent 's counsel focused solely on objections to Petitioner 's purported errors in filing protocol, which culminated in the 16 December 2022 Dismissal Order and subsequent 19 May 2023 Gatekeeper Order. It is clear that Amazon has unlimited ability to fund any and all courtroom proceedings on their behalf through counsel. It is Petitioner 's belief that not only did Amazon have no limit in their actions in impeding Petitioner 's civil rights for the purpose of robbing Petitioner of her legal action, their counsel along with parties from Guilford County court acted together to obstruct justice for the profit and benefit of those same parties. Respondent 's counsel, along with parties from Guilford County court were aware that without the ability to obtain legal counsel, knowing Petitioner 's filing status as Indigent, Petioner was unable to obtain representation, ensuring that the true and legitimate claims in Petitioner 's lawsuit against Respondent would not be heard. Petitioner respectfully asks this Court to also review those herein named orders on certiorari review.

3. Respondent acknowledged that Petitioner appealed the 16 December 2022 Dismissal Order in a timely fashion; however, falsely claimed Petitioner never took steps to prosecute this appeal. In fact, Petitioner attempted at various times to meet procedural requirements in order to properly address the orders. Not only was the Petitioner already challenged by a lack of procedural knowledge as well as direct interference by persons employed at Guilford County Courthouse and Guilford County Superior Court, Guilford County Superior Court also issued the Gatekeeper Order disallowing Petitioner further access to her case file. It came to the Petitioner 's attention on several occasions when Petitioner went to Guilford County Court to file legal documents or look through the case file that documents were missing, misfiled or filed out of order in a manner that convoluted understanding of the case matter and facts. Notably, Petitioner 's Exhibits, specifically those evidencing the marring and maligning of Petitioner 's intellectual property with linked images of garbage and garbage bags by Amazon were missing from the files when Petitioner appeared in court on the day of hearing. Petitioner was told that these were likely in the

Whether a pro se litigant can challenge a court-issued Gatekeeper Order that impedes access to justice and legal proceedings when alleging corporate misconduct and intellectual property infringement