1. Does the state of California 's sanctuary state policy
disproportionality grant special solicitude to Hispanic
illegal immigrants over and above bona-fide U.S.
Citizen 's Civil Rights violate the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and the Due Process Clause, as to
suppress federal diversity issues and lack of subject
matter jurisdiction of sovereign Mexican citizens in
family court proceedings? Do these de facto
procedures violate constitutional safeguards, by
granting illegal immigrants special solicitude over
U.S. citizens? Particularly as to interfering with
contacts that destabilize equal custody of minors to
ensure expansion of federal subsidies to benefit the
state, violating the Fourteenth and Fifth
Amendments?

2. Does state actors ' interference into a civil equity
contract, a statutory non-modifiable contract (a
Property/Custody Settlement Agreement) through
means of duress and coercion by warrantless arrest,
destruction of evidence and witness tampering, state
concealed retroactive move-away impair the obligation
of contracts in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the
U.S. Constitution?

3. Does the state of California 's warrantless arrest of
Petitioner on his own property, [Lange v. California
594 U.S.] without probable cause, by verbal admission
by police ["The DA will kick this back "] and wholly
lacking any exigency, or grand jury indictment, and
reliance on clearly conflicting witness statements to
manufacture four felony charges [all dropped], that
caused a $210,000 stacked bail, violates the Fifth
Amendment 's requirement for Due Process of Law
and indictment for infamous crimes, particularly when
used specifically as to maliciously interfere with a
private property settlement agreement [PSA] and
thereby instantly terminate parental rights without
any hearing to show cause, or any fitness findings to
then concealing a 100-mile move-away, by conducting
the procedure retroactively, without any full
adversarial hearing beforehand, violate due process by
the state?

4. Whether state actors ' deliberate interference in a non-
modifiable property settlement agreement (PSA),
through intentional unlawful arrest, witness
tampering and evidence tampering, impairs the
obligation of contracts in violation of article I, Section
10 of the U.S. Constitution, especially when such
actions redistribute property and custody rights
without due process.

5. Whether the state 's actions —arresting Petitioner
without cause, warrant or exigency and tampering
with witnesses (including minor children), destroying
exculpatory evidence, and enabling a retroactive
"move-away " order that relocated children before any
adversarial hearing —constitute a conspiracy under
color of law to violate federally protected rights, akin
to racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (RICO),
thereby abridging Petitioner 's Fourteenth
Amendment privileges and immunities, including
fundamental parental rights as established in Troxel v.
Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

6. Whether California 's retroactive approval of a child
relocation ('move-away ') without

Whether California's sanctuary state policies and state actors' alleged unlawful arrest, evidence tampering, and witness tampering in violation of constitutional protections impair contractual obligations and deny due process in family court proceedings affecting parental rights and child custody