1. Was Petitioner Cassandra Wiltz denied her 14th Amendment Due Process rights to be provided with a notice and an opportunity to be heard (and were the defendants for case no. 24-CVH-04-0331 and the State of Ohio intentionally allowed by State judges to escape accountability/liability for the crimes that they were charged with committing, when the following events occurred (a) the Petitioner filed a lawsuit that charged the defendants with committing crimes and with helping the State of Ohio to commit crimes (The crimes included, but were not limited to, unlawfully using and unlawfully cremating the body of Dan Burnett, engaging in a racially motivate threats/assault against the Petitioner, and retaliating against the Petitioner 'because she exercised her First Amendment right to petition the government and to file lawsuits against the defendants and the State of Ohio '), (b) the defendants for the case filed a Counterclaim that asked the Court to declare the plaintiff to be a Vexatious Litigator (so that she could not litigate the lawsuit) and did not provide a copy of the Counterclaim to the Petitioner, (c) the Court made a 7/18/24 and 7/19/24 written decisions indicating that it would not compel the defendants or Court staff to provide the Petitioner with a copy of the defendants ' Counterclaim or Motion for Judgment on the Counterclaim, so that she could respond to them (while having knowledge that the Petitioner was unaware that the Counterclaim was a request for the Court to declare the Petitioner to be a Vexatious Litigator), (d) the Court granted the Motion for Judgment on the Counterclaim (and stated that this was a 'default judgment ') and supported its decision with fabrications about the petitioners litigation history and behavior, (e) the Court stated that the Petitioner 's lawsuit that described criminal behavior was dismissed 'solely because the Petitioner was found to be a Vexatious litigator ', and (0 the Court of Appeals refused to allow the Petitioner to Appeal the 7/18/24 and 7/19/24 decision and stated that it was not going to hear any Appeal Brief arguments concerning the 7/18/24 and 7/19/24 decisions and concerning the Petitioner 's claim that she was denied a due process right to be provided with a notice and an opportunity to be heard?

2. Did the Respondents lack 'standing ' to initiate a Vexatious Litigator civil action against Petitioner Cassandra Witz (via the 4/23/24 filing of a Counterclaim for case no.24-CVH-04-0331) and did the Common Pleas Court judge lack 'jurisdiction ' to make a 7/23/24 Vexatious Litigator Declaration and to dismiss case no. 24-CVH-04-0331 (because the 7/23/24 Declaration was made)? Were the acts of (the Common Pleas Court) making the 7/23/24 decision without having jurisdiction to make it, (the Court of Appeals) adopting the 7/23/24 decision, and (the Supreme Court) refusing to accept jurisdiction of the case additional evidence of the judges ' bias against the Petitioner and/or denial of the Petitioner 's 14th Amendment Procedural Due Process rights?

3. Did the Common Pleas Court Judge

Whether the Petitioner was denied 14th Amendment Due Process rights through judicial actions that prevented notice and opportunity to be heard in a vexatious litigator proceeding