Whether the trial court's actions violated the petitioner's equal protection rights by entering a judgment without personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or evidence, and with judges who refused to recuse despite financial interests

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In contrast to cases normally presented to this Court, the courts below provided no trial, and permitted no appellate review. Thus, this Court is the first, and only, opportunity for due process and ; justice. 1. Whether based upon a layperson engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, who mailed an ex-parte motion to a trial-court judge’s chambers that resulted in the trial court, without a hearing, entering a judgment — against Petitioner that included court orders where the court had no personal jurisdiction, no subject matter jurisdiction, nor any evidence, and the trial-court judge and the Cal. Supreme Court’s chief justice refused to recuse themselves when they held a financial interest in the case, and the appellate court violated the law by 4 failing to act as a three-judge court, so departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that : those actions violated Petitioner's equal protection of the . laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment? ; 2. Whether California’s Vexatious Litigant Statutes are unconstitutional because, facially, and as applied, they not only deny access to a litigant who is illegally placed on the Vexatious Litigant List, but even if s/he were legitimately on the list, California utilizes its Vexatious Litigant Statutes as a pretext to create a category of citizens who are denied access to California’s courts because they are prevented from filing defensive motions, or meritorious motions, in violation of their rights to redress of grievances and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment? FY wr i 3. If this Court fails to address this case, whether that is tantamount to leaving self-help as the only realistic remedy available to California’s 40 million citizens to vindicate their rights against a rogue trialcourt judge when California’s appellate courts fail to provide appellate review? ke II.