Is the statutory law taking of a person's property arbitrary, too broad and discriminatory under Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) and void under Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct at 1158?

United States Courts entered incompatible decisions on the application of California enforcement statutes under Civil Code of Procedure § 128(a)(4) and Family Law Code §§ 290 and 291. It has used California Statutes in a way that violates the California Constitution and calls for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power to settle: is application of Civil Code of Procedure § 128 and Family Law Codes §§ 290 and 291 proper without affording due process and equal protection of the law? And any sanctions against a pro se litigant who requested a family law code §2030 hearing to ensure equal rights and to have her claims adjudicated under family law code §2120-2129 is proper under Civil Code of Procedure Section 128.5 in light of Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct. at 1158?

Is the statutory law taking of a person's property arbitrary, too broad and discriminatory under Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) and void under Logan v. Zimmerman, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct at 1158?