In Re Reinaldo J. Aguiar Marcano

Does a state trial court violate the Fourteenth Amend­ ment’s Due Process Clause when it exercises quasi-criminal contempt jurisdiction and issues a physical arrest warrant (Capias) against a pro se citizen based on a knowingly false judicial finding of personal service, where the state’s own public record confirms that the underlying show-cause order was never physically served and was instead sent via invalid electronic "eService" to an email address in direct violation of state statutory service requirements, thereby establish­ ing a systematic pattern of service evasion designed to deny the citizen notice and judicial review?

Does a state statutory and procedural scheme (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 30.016 and Tex. R. Civ. P 18a) vi­ olate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by creating an unconstitutional, structural trap that strips a citizen of their fundamental right to an impartial tribunal, where the statute permits an actively biased trial judge to hold hearings and execute physical arrest warrants while a referred motion to recuse is suppressed in administrative limbo without a ruling for 169 days, while simultaneously denying the citizen any right to interlocutory or mandamus review of the bias until after a final judgment has been en­ tered?

Is a citizen unconstitutionally deprived of liberty with­ out due process, and structurally retaliated against for ex­ ercising First Amendment rights, when a state trial judge is featured directly on the cover of the citizen’s authored whistleblower publication exposing judicial corruption, and the judge subsequently examines this publication from the bench after it is introduced into evidence by opposing coun­ sel, yet refuses to recuse himself and instead signs a void, extrajudicial Capias order during an active, mandatory ju­ risdictional stay to facilitate the extortion of corporate tech­ nology assets?

Does a state-ordered alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Tvr*oc<ass svnd its associat-sd. stata~law confid.sntial-it^7 ru-las, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by being weaponized as a shield to insulate active fraud on the court, civil rights deprivations, and extortion, where a court-appointed neutral neutralizes his own mediation after recording that the moving party has zero actual safety con­ cerns regarding the citizen, yet the state court continues to enforce a void civil arrest warrant based on those identical, pretextual safety claims?