Should the Applicant be exposed to irreparable harm, for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, granting the Emergency Injunction Motion in form but denying the emergency relief in substance by delaying until after the briefing of the appeal is completed, to appoint a Merits Panel for review of the entire appeal.

Should the Applicant be exposed to the irreparable harm of having to bring her mother to Meriden Probate Court proceedings and continue to be subjected to Criminal proceedings related, when the both have a strong showing of originating in retaliation against the Applicant, in the month of March, for exercising her Constitutional Rights under the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Should the Applicant be forced to produce her mother in a probate proceeding used to retaliate against the Applicant, where, if such is successful can result in her mother's unnecessary suffering and hasten eminent death and fraudulent control or possession of the Applicant's place of business for the probate court/petitioner's brother trying to make any proper, legal transfer of the property over 20 years prior, made to appear as a fraudulent transfer.

Should the police of Geographical District7( GA 7), the State of Connecticut Superior Court, State agencies such as, the Department of Elderly Services, the State Comptroller's Office), and the Applicant's brother, Anthony Oliphant, be used to cause the Applicant undue sufferings, irreparable harm, for the Applicant seeking divorce, and relief from losses related to being married to the defendant, Peter Macher, with whom the Applicant's brother is being used as tactical arms of the State of Connecticut in retaliation of the Applicant for: accessing the courts; seeking divorce and to recover money taken by the Comptroller Office from the Applicant's benefits, monthly but reimbursed to the defendant.

Should the Applicant be subjected to retaliation by the police being used as tactical arms of retaliation for the State of Connecticut, to manufacture false arrest, to facilitate damaging the Applicant's character, name, and reputation in attempts to disqualify her in the alleged probate process. The Applicant has never been arrested. purposed for the Applicant's permanent removal from her mother's home, the same being the Applicant's place of business.

In violation of the Applicant's Fourth, Fourteenth Amendment rights to the U.S. Constitution, among others, as associated with the Applicant's husband, and now engaging the applicant's brother, who it is strongly assumed, is being coerced to bring alleged conservatorship action in the Meriden, Connecticut probate court:

Should the Applicant be subject to retaliation or forgo, constitutional protections under the First, Third, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendment rights for seeking relief in court warranting 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503,1512, protection.

Question not identified.