1) Does patently unequal, disparate state administration of the
Rule of Law and failure to provide state remedy in strict
accordance with the Texas Constitution, specifically Article
V, Section 10 and Article I, Sections 15 and 29, violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution?

2) Can state court judges refuse to comply with U.S. CONST.
AKT. VI, § 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) by conducting further
proceedings and render judgments after a case has been
officially removed to federal court?

3) Is the application and enforcement of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 in any
way contingent upon race, ethnicity, or color of one's skin and
is it contingent, as the U.S. District court ruled, upon
whether an issue of racial inequality is present,
notwithstanding the salient fact there are no qualifying
words of phrases whatsoever in § 1443 indicating this?

4) Can the lower federal courts refuse to comply with the
jurisdictional instructions of the U.S. Supreme Court,
specifically those promulgated in Chicot County v. Sherwood,
148 U.S. 529, 13 S. Ct. 695 (1893) and Hyde et al. v. Stone,
61 U.S. (20 How.) 170 (1857)?

5) Can federal courts shirk their duty and authority to correct
judice (absolutely void) state court (nullify) a coram non
judgement, specifically delineated in Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U. S.
140 S. Ct. 696, 206 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2020), while the litigation is
in federal court under federal statutory jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 or 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)?

6) Did the Fifth Circuit when it egregiously fined err
(sanctioned) an indigent pro se litigant for exercising his
federal statutory right to appeal, specifically 28 U.S.C. §
1447(d), to protect and preserve his constitutionally
guaranteed right to a trial by jury after it was illegally
foreclosed by the State of Texas and subsequently ignored by
the U.S. District Court?

7) Did the Fifth Circuit err when it granted Respondent 's
dubious, eleventh hour new counsel 's motion to dismiss?

8) Did the Fifth Circuit err when it egregiously ignored the U.S.
Supreme Court declaration promulgated in Railroad
Company v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5 (1881) that a litigant should
not have to carry the heavy burden of simultaneous litigation
in both state and federal forums, especially in light of the
salient fact the litigant is pro se (without counsel).

Does patently unequal, disparate state administration of the Rule of Law and failure to provide state remedy in strict accordance with the Texas Constitution violate the Equal Protection Clause