1. Does the fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, by means through the Hm% §liuii (which imlyiii the duil=©itiiiniMp elsuii, thi pfivilggii ini immtti §llUii, Ihd thi dut pgggiii ©liyii WggMug feggithig), protect those rights of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against State intrusion, bringing the Hurtado v California ruling into question?

2. Being a right found within the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is the grand jury clause to be protected against State intrusion, as prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment, as the petitioner is both a citizen of the United States and the state of Washington; the Fifth Amendment provides both a privilege and immunity through its enactment within the Constitution by Congress; and the grand jury is one of the first steps in the process to hold a person to answer for an infamous crime?

3. Can vague State law that creates arbitrary and prejudicial application rules and process deny the defendant a grand jury before being held to answer for an infamous crime, while other citizens of the State have received a grand jury with no legislated specificity to why, be used to deny an individual his liberties and freedoms?

Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect rights against state intrusion?