Hi!


My name is Kimberly Spence, divorced (read my full story to understand why) mother of eight-year-old Spencer. Like you, I believe in the CONSTITUTION, don’t want to change our right to access our inalienable Constitutional Rights and want to protect the best interest of families.


That's why I currently have 16 NEW intervening questions before the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to ensuring access to inalienable Constitutional Rights, the Best Interest of a child, Judicial Reform, Accountability, Mass Incarceration, life, liberty, freedom, justice and equality for all citizens of the United States of America.


The U.S. Supreme Court ONLY Dockets cases that have proven Constitutional Violations (Michael Duggan, Clerk already acknowledged that the cases are not meritless) and the Court is MANDATED to Rule on cases involving Constitutional Violations when two or more States file cases. However, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices will only grant the hearing of the 16 NEW Questions and / or decide to rule on the cases during their PRIVATE CONFERENCE ON JUNE 2, 2016 if We the People create enough demand or awareness surrounding the need to provide access to inalienable Constitutional Rights to all citizens, especially We the People.


Please sign this Petition and share the information with all of your contacts.


Thanks!

Kimberly

Title: Spencer’s Mom

http://www.whatsbest4spencer.com (newly rebranded) the approachable- 350+ Million Views- Public Persona that WORKS!

Summary… U.S. Supreme Court Windsor-Spence Case Nos 15-6566 (NC) and 15-6567 (GA) involve Enumerations of Error and / or Questions pertaining to 16 NEW intervening questions involving ensuring access to inalienable Constitutional Rights without changing the Constitution, the Best Interest of a Child(ren), Judicial Reform, Public Servant Accountability, Mass Incarceration, life, liberty, freedom, justice and equality for all citizens of the United States of America, especially We the People. You may find quick answers to Frequently Asked Questions here… http://www.whatsbest4spencer.com/questions---answe... Also, please remember to help fund the mounted cost of the U.S. Supreme Court Cases and What's Best 4 Spencer cause expenses by clicking here… https://www.gofundme.com/vzen8e8s

16 QUESTIONS PRESENTED to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices

1. Whether the best interest, safety, security and United States Citizenship of a minor child(ren) should take legal precedence over the need to honor jurisdictional rules, laws, statutes or guidelines governing the care and upbringing of a minor child in State, Federal or International law, treaties, policies or long arm statutes governed by the state of Georgia, North Carolina, all other states and the Federal government; as these intervening mandates deprive citizens of access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights as well as access to Federal Statutes and Laws that guarantee such inalienable Constitutional Rights as guaranteed to all citizens of the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, 28 U.S.C. § 1655, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3), Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, “466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L. Ed. 2d. 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Loving v. Virginia (Case No. 388 U.S.1 (1967), Burt W. Griffin & Lewis R. Katz OH. FELONY SENT.L. § 5:53 (2008), Civil Rights Act of 1871, Civil Rights Act of 1961 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), Dean v. United States, 418 F. Supp. 149(E.D.N.Y. 2006), Frap 3., Title II. Appeal from a Judgment or Order of a District Court, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945), International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945) , Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233, Kansas v. Crane, 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002), Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938), Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F. 2d 486, Milner v. Department of the Navy, 90-1163, Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 365 (1989), Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 at 661, O’Connory v. Donaldson, 42 U.S. 563 (1975), Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F. 2d. 240, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 130 F.3d 695, 697 (5th Cir.1997) Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973), Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) and B. Platsky v. CIA, 953 F. 2d 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991), United States v. Andrades, 169 F.3d 131, 132 (1999), United States v. Bohr, 406 F. Supp 1218 (E.D. Wis. 1976), United States v. Doe, 935 F. Supp. 478 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) and any other statute designed to preserve inalienable Constitutional Rights.

2. Whether the State of Georgia, North Carolina and all other states should automatically mandate the video or audio recording of court proceedings; as well as the take-down, transcription and release of all recordings and transcriptions, without the requirement of litigant(s) request for release of court proceedings, and at no cost to the litigant(s), as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

3. Whether the State of Georgia, North Carolina or any other state should have the right to require citizens of this great nation to forego any of their inalienable constitutional rights, including their constitutional right to refuse to be psychologically evaluated, as these intervening means of governing are linked to the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional Rights.

4. Whether the State of Georgia, North Carolina or any other state should have the ability to levy forms of punishment against citizens of this great nation for exercising, seeking or attempting to gain access to any of their Inalienable Constitutional Rights, as these intervening means of governing are linked to the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional Rights.

5. Whether citizens in the State of Georgia, North Carolina or any other state can be banned from using tax payer funded services; including court systems, when they are seeking access to a fair or speedy trial and appeal; and / or simply seeking access to any of their inalienable constitutional rights via tax payer funded State or Federal systems or entities, as these intervening means of governing are linked to the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional Rights.

6. Whether State Agencies that Govern the Best Interest and Well-Being of a Child(ren), Court Reporters, Educators, Mental Health Professionals or Police Officers should be licensed or paid directly or indirectly by the State of Georgia, North Carolina or any other tax payer funded system or entity within State or Federal government, as these intervening means of governing are linked to the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional Rights.

7. Whether State Agencies that Govern the Best Interest and Well-Being of a Child(ren), Court Reporters, Educators, Mental Health Professionals or Police Officers should be mandated to work directly or indirectly for Officers of the Court; including Justices, Judges or Attorneys in the state of Georgia, North Carolina or any other tax payer funded State or Federal system or entities, as these intervening means of governing are linked to the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional Rights.

8. Whether the State of Georgia, North Carolina and all other states should mandate the automatic release of any and all findings, rulings, opinions or deliberations made by Officer of the Court (including Justices during private Conference), case managers, guardian ad litems, state employees, contractors, businesses, state systems or entities; directly to the parents or guardians of the minor child(ren) and at no cost to the parents or guardians of the minor child(ren), as these intervening means of governing are linked to the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional Rights.

9. Whether citizens of the United States living in the State of Georgia, North Carolina, Montana and all other states should have access to due process, proper service, more than 30 days adequate notice of hearing, free access to telephone services, free legal research materials, free access to the Internet for research purposes, free use of computers, free printing servicces, normal visitation, less expensive (over the long run) whole foods, adequate and humane – non predatory shelter, free prescription drugs, immediate medical attention, free legal services and a hearing to address any and all other concerns within 24 hours of arrest and incarceration; until the resolution of their case via final order, and at no cost to the imprisoned, as these intervening means of governing are linked to the deprivation of inalienable Constitutional Rights.

10. Whether it should be mandated that the exact same tax payer funded services provided to tax payer funded officers of the court and public servants, government systems or entities, government contractors should be immediately made available to all litigants in a case at no cost, within 24 hours of case filing at any jurisdictional level, as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

11. Whether the state of Georgia, North Carolina and all other states should mandate immediate termination of tax payer funded government employment and contracts; tax payer funded retirement plans; licensing for systems, entities, individuals or businesses; opportunities for re-employment or new contractual agreements as well as the immediate arrest and incarceration of individuals, who chose of their own free will to ignore their oath of office, chose to ignore mandates and / or refuse to provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitution Rights, as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

12. Whether the state of Georgia, North Carolina, Montana and all other States should automatically expunge the criminal records of individuals who have been convicted of a crime; who have served time for misdemeanors or minor crimes, which include any and all non-violent Felony crimes; within one months’ time of their date of release from jail, prison, court mandated programs or captivity, as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

13. Whether the state of Georgia, North Carolina, Montana and all other States should automatically mandate the full restoration of any and all inalienable Constitutional Rights; including their right to Vote, within one months’ time of their date of release from jail, prison, court mandated programs or captivity, as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

14. Whether the State of Georgia, North Carolina, Montana and all other States should mandate free ankle monitoring and probation services as an alternative to fines or imprisonment; including any and all non-violent Felony’s, as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

15. Whether officers of the court, state employees, contractors, businesses and State entities who have profited from historically oppressive systems should share in the cost of restitution or reparations for citizens of the United States of America who have been deprived or denied access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights as a community, or due to legal errors; with the use of Frivolous Error Fees designed to offset the growing cost of fraudulent arrests and incarcerations on tax payers in the state of Georgia, North Carolina, Montana and all other States, as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

16. Whether Justices, Judges and officers of the court should be mandated to provide concise, detailed rationale and legal reasoning for their use of discernment on any and all Denial Orders of the court and Denials deliberated via private Conference; most especially petitions and requests for In Forma Pauperis status in the state of Georgia, North Carolina, Montana and any other tax payer funded State or Federal system or entity, as proscribed by existing legal precedence in Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) and B. Platsky v. CIA, 953 F. 2d 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991), as these intervening tactics will undoubtedly provide citizens with access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights.

Initial QUESTIONS PRESENTED to the U.S. Supreme Court - DENIED on April 4, 2016.

1. Whetherthe State of Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Montana and all other States have the right to implicitly and explicitly deny citizens access to their Inalienable Constitutional Rights via State Statutory Ban’s in an effort to preserve each individual States’ Rights to Govern as it Pleases; preserve each individual States’ Jurisdiction and Long Arm Statutes; preserve each individual State’s Authority over a citizen’s right to life, liberty, freedom, justice, equality, financial security, voter rights and the pursuit of happiness; and preserve such States’ Rights to Govern as it Please above providing citizens with access to Due Process, Equal Protection and Equal Protection Against Abuse of Government Authority, under the Fourteenth Amendment; Freedom of Speech, under the First Amendment; Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial and Appeal, under the Sixth Amendment as well as access to Federal Statutes and Laws that guarantee such inalienable Constitutional Rights under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, 28 U.S.C. § 1655, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3), Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, “466 U.S. 147, 104 S. Ct. 1723, 80 L. Ed. 2d. 196, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Loving v. Virginia (Case No. 388 U.S.1 (1967), Burt W. Griffin & Lewis R. Katz OH. FELONY SENT.L. § 5:53 (2008), Civil Rights Act of 1871, Civil Rights Act of 1961 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), Dean v. United States, 418 F. Supp. 149(E.D.N.Y. 2006), Frap 3., Title II. Appeal from a Judgment or Order of a District Court, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945), International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945) , Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233, Kansas v. Crane, 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002), Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938), Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F. 2d 486, Milner v. Department of the Navy, 90-1163, Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 365 (1989), Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 at 661, O’Connory v. Donaldson, 42 U.S. 563 (1975), Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F. 2d. 240, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 130 F.3d 695, 697 (5th Cir.1997) Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973), Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) and B. Platsky v. CIA, 953 F. 2d 25, 26 28 (2nd Cir. 1991), United States v. Andrades, 169 F.3d 131, 132 (1999), United States v. Bohr, 406 F. Supp 1218 (E.D. Wis. 1976), United States v. Doe, 935 F. Supp. 478 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) and any other statute designed to preserve inalienable Constitutional Rights.

2. Whetherthe State of Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Montana and all other States have the right to continue America’s longstanding draconian tradition of Enslaving African American Descendants of Slaves and all other Human Beings via for profit State and Federal Mass Incarceration systems under the Thirteenth Amendment or provide companies with the highly profitable means to extract reduced or FREE Labor and levy exurbanite fees for inmate services against citizens and their loved ones, as such practices undermines family structures; fosters generationally impoverished communities; sanctions an American cast system based on greed and violence; and provides the irrational and irresponsible justification of retaliatory acts against citizens who seek, demand and deserve access to life, liberty, freedom, justice, equality, financial security, voter rights, the pursuit of happiness, equal protection, equal protection against government authority, freedom of speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial and appeal, access to inalienable Constitutional Rights as well as the right to access protected Federal Statutes and Laws designed to protect the rights of citizens over and above the rights of States to operate under States’ Rights to Govern as it Please. Whether draconian American “systems” like Mass Incarceration inherently targets and disproportionately affects African American Descendants of Slaves who have generationally endured for profit systems of past like Slavery, Sharecropping and Jim Crow. Whether draconian American “systems” like Mass Incarceration, who inherently target and disproportionately affect African American Descendants of Slaves, less fortunate citizens and activists, unduly deprives citizens of their right to access life, liberty, freedom, justice, equality, financial security, voter rights, the pursuit of happiness, Due Process, Equal Protection and Equal Protection Against Government Authority; under the Fourteenth Amendment, Freedom of Speech; under the First Amendment, Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial and Appeal; under the Sixth Amendment and access to Federal Statutes and Laws guaranteeing a citizens rights to inalienable Constitutional Rights is.

3. Whether individuals who violate their Oath of Office or deprive citizens of their inalienable Constitutional Rights or operate under tyranny should be sanctioned via Frivolous Error Fees designed to target their current or future earned income, retirement plans and pensions, current and future investments or any financial enterprise designed to generate, accumulate or pass on wealth, stability or comfort to themselves or others in an effort to offset tax payer expenses related to settlements or restitutions resulting from their negligent, criminal or profit driven choices and actions; offset incredulous and severe expenses of historically oppressed African American Descendants of Slaves and all other citizens proven to have been denied access to their inalienable constitutional rights or deprived of life, liberty, freedom, justice, equality, financial security, voter rights or the pursuit of happiness as a result of individuals who violate their oath of office; or depriving citizens of access to their inalienable Constitutional Rights, which hinders such rights to Due Process, Equal Protection and Equal Protection Against Government Authority, under the Fourteenth Amendment; detours Freedom of Speech, under the First Amendment; precludes such Rights to a Fair and Speedy Trial and Appeal, under the Sixth Amendment and thwarts access to Federal Statutes and Laws guaranteeing inalienable Constitutional Rights.