For my motion to stay, I raise the following questions:

a. Whether the Ohio Supreme Court's denial of my request for leave to file a motion to
stay of mandate pending my petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
constitutes a violation of my constitutional rights, including due process, access to the
courts; my First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, considering the
unconstitutional application of S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) designating me a vexatious
litigator.

b. Does the lack of a majority opinion or meaningful judicial review from the Ohio
Supreme Court regarding my vexatious litigator designation, and the subsequent
denial of leave to seek a stay, create a constitutional ambiguity that warrants the U.S.
Supreme Court's intervention to clarify the constitutional issues involved, especially
given the constitutional impact on my ability to access the courts and seek judicial
redress?

When I file my petition for writ of certiorari, I will submit the following questions for the

Court's consideration:

1. Did the lower court err in declaring me, John Paul Gomez, a vexatious litigator under
S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B), thereby infringing upon my constitutional rights to access the
courts, seek redress, and equal justice under law, without a thorough examination of the
merits of my claims consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

2. Given the split decision (3-3) among the justices, does the lack of a majority opinion
create ambiguity and conflict with established Supreme Court precedents regarding the
necessity of reasoned judicial reasoning in cases affecting litigants' rights?

3. Whether, as a parent, I have standing in proceedings that involve me and my minor
children wherein exists actual bias, a pattern of discrimination, collusion, and intentional
deprivation of my constitutional rights; compounded by ineffective representation of
counsel regarding my minor son, conflicting with the principles recognized in Troxel v.
Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), and ,, 466 U.S. 668
(1984)?

4. Whether the inability to seek review of the dismissal of grievances I filed against judicial
officers and court-appointed attorneys; and the failure to enforce the code of judicial and
professional conduct violate my First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights?

Whether a state court's vexatious litigator designation violates a pro se litigant's constitutional rights to access the courts and seek judicial redress without due process