1. Whether the Court should resolve the
following questions for which the five judges on the State of Hawaii Supreme Court
bench are exhibiting and committed and acts of treason and anarchism by not
following their own rules of the court public laws and Article III Section 2 and
Article VI cl.2: of the United States Constitution and of in violation of both state
and federal constitutional guarantees to due process and public law. This
implication also extends to include the (Ninth Circuit Court appeals en banc court),
who declined to rule on the merits of the claims that the three-judge panel affirmed
in the lower District of Hawai 'i Courts decision.

2. Whether judges are allowed to ignore rules of the courts, the doctrine of stare
decisis and case precedence violates Art. VI cl 2 of the U.S. Constitution supreme
law of the land?

3. Whether a court can arbitrarily and capriciously not address the question of
law on the mandatory language of court rules and case precedence of the Supreme
law of the land issued by this court?

4. Whether a State of Hawai 'i law can survive a constitutional challenge to
which the State of Hawaii law is more restrictive and greater in its fees than the
filing fees in both the State and Federal constitutions?

5. The U.S. District Court did not afford or recommend to Petitioner Yurie
Yamano (herein after "Yurie ") a pro bono counsel under rule 3(D) of the rules of
civil pro bono panel for the district of Hawai 'i, even after Yurie asked the U.S.
District Court to appoint counsel, or to issue an order under FRCP Rule 17 (c)(2)
Minor or Incompetent Person. Next friend doctrine. The court must appoint.
or issue another appropriate order —to protect a
who is unrepresented in an action, see FRCP Rule 17(c)(2).

6. Whether a U.S. District Court judge, sua sponte answer and apply the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine for the defendants, as a defense not brought up by the
defendants on a complaint constitute ambush by the government. And whether the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine violates the First Amendment of the United Statesincompetent person • • • •
Constitution, and Art. Ill, § 2, Art. VI cl. 2

8. Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals Court arbitrarily and capriciously
afforded 11th Amendment immunity to the State of Hawaii Supreme Court justices
who violated the procedural and substantive due process laws, court rules,
procedures and constitutional laws?

These questions were presented to all courts state and federal levels and was never
addressed.

Whether the Court should resolve the issues of treason and anarchism by state judges