Does due process require reversal of dismissals due to judge's failure to recuse or disclose conflicts of interest

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented in this case are: 1. Does due process require reversal of the dismissals as Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood failed to recuse or disclose her conflicts of interests? 2. Is a judge required to disclose his attorney-client relationship, colleague relationship, and regular social relationship with a party appearing in front of him/her? 3. Is a judge required to disclose regular social relationship through the American Inns of Court with a party appearing in front of him/her? 4. Shall Certiorari to be issued to safeguard Petitioner’s fundamental right to appeal : and access the court, to require the California State Court to comply with Rule 8.57 of California Rules of Court when there was an allegation that Petitioner did not file civil Case Information statement pursuant to Rule 8.100(g)? 5. Shall certiorari to be issued where an important right to appeal was affected by the dismissal which was based on a rt purported default of lack of filing of Civil Case Information Statement but the email notice was in fact a different notice for “lack of mediation statement” and the trial court failed to transfer the Civil Case Information Statement to California Sixth Appellate Court of Appeal where another related appeal was dismissed simultaneously with the same ground? 6. Does due process require justices to disclose whether they have received legal representation from attorneys appearing on contested cases before the judges? 7. Does the policy of law to decide on the merit warrant setting aside the appeal dismissal when lack of taking care of the purported default is contributed to Appellant’s attorney? 8. Should Justices of the Court of Appeal who are members of the William A. Ingram American Inn of Court or the San Francisco Bay Area Intellectual Property Rights American Inn of Court be required mo, as a matter of due process to disclose their social relationship with lawyers who are appearing before the justices?