Whether a class of one Equal Protection claim requires combining three distinct offenses for defining similarly situated parties, and whether a homeowner can be ordered to take action forcing property into local law noncompliance

The lower tribunals committed harmful errors by violating Henrys’ right to Equal Protection, issuing orders violating state and local laws, and issuing orders forcing Henrys into LDC noncompliance. The lower tribunals’ harmful errors also included violating Henrys’ rights to protection against excessive fines. These harmful errors have adversely affected Henrys’ substantial rights, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, which can only be remedied through granting this Petition and overturning the entirety of Magistrate’ s orders (and circuit court order portions upholding Magistrate’ s orders). Moreover , these harmful errors implicated four important questions of federal law which this Court should address in order to protect the inherent rights of millions of Americans across the country . 1. Whether , in a class of one Equal Protection claim, three distinct offenses (being simultaneously appealed) should be combined for purposes of defining the class of those similarly situated. 2. Whether a homeowner may be ordered to take action that would force their property into noncompliance with local law. 3. Whether fines (and liens) may properly be imposed when there is no alleged harm caused by an offense. 4. Whether a never -ending daily fine is grossly disproportionate to a malum prohibitum one-time act.