Joan E. Farr v. Alexandra Grant, et al.

Was Joan Farr denied her First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments by the defendants, and did the government defendants also deny her right to an attorney under the Sixth Amendment for 25 years?

Did the court of appeals err in its decision to affirm the district court’s ruling since Joan Farr showed sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove a government conspiracy to deny her civil rights?

Was Joan Farr denied her right to hold public office as President of the United States pursuant to 42 USC 1985?

Due to inter-circuit conflict, was jurisdiction proper in Missouri if Joan Farr had been unable to acquire justice in Kansas for 25 years?

Did the Court of Appeals abuse its discretion by denying Joan Farr’s petition for rehearing en banc?

Were the decisions by a 99-year old federal district court judge clear error and also deemed null and void since judges in Missouri must retire by the age of 70?

Were the actions of the defendants, their counsel and the courts shocking to the conscience and considered “outrageous government conduct?”

Should this case be decided on its merits and remanded back for trial or another remedy sought?