(1) DO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS UNDER
FORTBEND COUNTY, TEXAS v. DAVIS, 139 S.Ct. 1843( U.S.2019) AND
HALL v. HALL, 138 S.Ct. 1118, 200 L.Ed.2d. 399, 86 U.S.L.W.
4159 (U.S .2018) APPLY TO THE STATES BY THE PETITIONER (S) 5TH . AND
14TH . AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS IT PERTAINS
TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE 14th.
AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CLAUSE AS IT PERTAINS TO
PROCEDURAL PROCESSING RULES AND ORDERS THAT TRIGGER A JUDGMENT
RELATED TO THE TORRENCE RULING AND THE DEFAULTS SUBJUDICE ARGUED
COMING FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA CASES INVOLVED?

(2) DO THE PRESENCE OF JUDGE KAYE HEARN FROM THE S.C.
SUPREME COURT SITTING UPON THESE CASES PRODUCE A CONSTITUTIONAL
PENNSYLVANIA, 136 S.Ct. STRUCTURAL ERROR PURSUANT TO WILLIAMS v.
1899, 195 L.Ed .2d . 132, 84 U.S.L.W. 4359( U.S.2016) WHERE SHE IS A
DEFENDANT IN THE RELATED CASES THAT ARE SOUGHT 28 U.S.C. § 1407
TRANSFER INVOLVING THE FIDUCIARY HEIR CRAWFORD WHERE WE ARE
SOUGHT TAG ALONG CASES PRODUCING A POTENTIAL FOR BIAS THAT RISES
TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL VOIDING THE STATE COURT'S
JURISDICTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRONG TO SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION?

(3) DO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS UNDER
MONTANA, 136 S.Ct. 1609, 194 L.Ed.2d. 723 BETTERMAN v .
(U.S.2016) UNDER MONTGOMERY v. LOUISIANA, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 /
4064( U.S.2016), UNDER NELSON L . Ed . 2d . 599, 84 U.S.L.W. v.
COLORADO, 137 S.Ct- 1249, 197 L.Ed.2d. 611, 85 U.S.L.W. 4205
(U.S.2017), AND UNDER WEARRY v. CAIN, 136 S.Ct. 1002, 194
L.Ed.2d. 78 (U.S.2016) APPLY TO THE CRAWFORD CASE PRODUCING
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE OTHER INMATES, NAMELY THE
PETITIONERS AND THE OTHERS, BEING DETRIMENTALLY RELIANT UPON THAT
CASE PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)(b) OF ADA, ARE ENTITLED TO
CLAIMS OF NON PARTY RES JUDICATA AND OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DUE
TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA CONCEALING,

Question not identified