Without any due process nor hearing, should two lower
level administrators be premitted to sabatoge an Appellant
throughout the lower Court by banning him FOREVER FROM ALL
EMAILS, FAXES, TEPEHONE CALLS, AND 95 % OF WRITING, SUCH
THAT THIS SEVERE LIBEL AND SLANDER SPREAD TO THE APPELLATE
JUDGES WHO THEN DISREGARDED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT, WHICH IS
THE VERY BASIS FOR THIS CASE.

Should the above overly harsh punishments be allowed
when the Petitioner ONLY politely requested with evidence
a hearing into possible perjury by a clerk, and left a
polite PRAYER on phone voice mail to "let God decide."?

All I did do was to say a politg Prayer on voice mail
and request a hearing and I am banned for life from nearly
all lower Court communications with MY PROPERTY TAKEN FROM
ME. ALL MY CASE MANAGERS ARE TAKEN FROM ME FOREVER, THEIR
KNOWLEDGE AND GUIDANCE IS PERMANENTLY TAKEN WITHOUT ANY DUE
PROCESS.

This is in violation of the 14th Amendment, Section 1
"nor shall any State deprive any person of . . . liberty or
property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There is an industry wide adhesion monopoly Contract
practice in the book publishing world.

Citizens of the United States of America are forced to do these book
publishing adhesion contracts compelling them to agree
to no Jury trial with any and all disputes with the book
company,- in this particular case, the original publishing
contract does not even state that the author is giving up
his or her right to Jury trial for the dispute.

Should this industry wide bo;ok publishing contract
adhesion practice be permitted to continue. Many citizens
would like to be free of adhesion contracts.

These monoply adhesion Contracts violate the Seventh
Amendment of the Constituion of the Untied States of America
in that According to the Seventh Amendment, "the right to a
trial by Jury shall be preserved.

Should such industry wide (Book publishing) Contracts
be limited to permit more Jury trials in Civil matters?

Should two lower-level administrators be permitted to sabotage an appellant by banning them from all communication with the court without due process?