Kimberly Spence (formerly Willis) & Spencer (age 8)

What’s Best 4 Spencer?

U.S. Supreme Court Cases involving the Best Interest of a Child, Mass Incarceration,

Public Servant Accountability, States’ Rights to Govern as it Pleases, etc.

U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-6566 (representing the State of North Carolina)

Docket http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-6566.htm

U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-6567 (representing the State of Georgia) Docket

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-6567.htm

Hi!

My name is Kimberly Spence and publicly I represent WhatsBest4Spencer.com. Privately

amongst insiders, I am one of the Pro Se Litigants who is currently pushing for resolution of

U.S. Supreme Court Windsor-Spence Case Nos 15-6566 (NC) and 15-6567 (GA), involving

Enumerations of Error and / or Questions pertaining to 16 NEW intervening questions involving Mass

Incarceration, Public Servant Accountability, Judicial Reform, the Best Interest of a child and ensuring

access to inalienable Constitutional Rights, life, liberty, freedom, justice and equality for all citizens of

the United States of America.

The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Erroneously Dismissed the 16 Mandated Questions, knowing that

they are REQUIRED to Rule on Cases involving intervening Questions when two or more States file

cases with Enumerations of Error and / or Questions regarding Constitutional Violations.

The Cases are currently in the hands of Attorney/ President Obama and Attorney General

Loretta Lynch, who received the 25th (I stopped counting after 25) Federal Complaint on June 27,

2016. Here is the tracking information.

Please return to WhatsBest4Spencer.com or https://www.facebook.com/kimberly.spence.33,

frequently for updates.

My prayer and hope is that through these cases, citizens will begin to have access to life, liberty,

freedom, equality, justice and basic human rights via our existing inalienable Constitutional

Rights.

My prayer and hope is that through these cases, We the People can truly begin to form THE

more perfect union that we ALL desire…. RIGHT NOW, for our children and for our children’s-

children!

Here are the 16 Revised QUESTIONS PRESENTED to the U.S. Supreme Court

Justices For Rehearing as of April 5, 2016

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 and all other states; as these

mandates prevent citizens of the United States of America from having

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. 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 entity.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Here are the three Initial QUESTIONS PRESENTED to the U.S. Supreme

Court that were DENIED on April 4, 2016.

1. Whether the 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. Whether the 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.

Please help to create more DEMAND and AWARNESS of the 16 New Questions Presented

to the U.S. Supreme Court with a Tweet, Email, Post, Share or Like of your own.

The U.S. Supreme Court is MANDATED to RULE on CASES involving “controlling questions of

the law with intervening circumstances… that outline CLEAR Constitutional Violations from

two or more States”, per their own U.S. Supreme Court Rule Book (Rule 44.2, which can be found

on Page 57 on the printed version or Page 61 online here…

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf ).

Thank you sincerely!

Kimberly

Title: Spencer's Mom

WhatsBest4Spencer.com, the approachable- 350+ Million Views- Public Persona that WORKS!

Summary… U.S. Supreme Court Windsor-Spence Case - NOs. 15-6566 and 15-6567 involve

Enumerations of Error and / or Questions pertaining to the Best Interest of a Child, States’

Rights to Govern as it Pleases, Mass Incarceration, Judicial Reform and Public Servant

Accountability. You may find quick updates about the cases here… gofund.me/vzen8e8s here...

https://www.facebook.com/kimberly.spence.33 or here…

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/president-barack-obama-9.…

-------------------------------------------------------

Who is William Windsor?

https://todayshonoree.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/founder-of-lawless-america-bill-windsor-is-

todays-honoree/