Does due process require reversal of the dismissal where the court fraudulently concealed dismissal and knowingly dismissed the appeal with false ground without a motion complying with Rule 8.57 on the day of known unavailability of the Petitioner?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented in this case are: 1. Does due process require reversal of the dismissal where the court fraudulently concealed dismissal and knowingly dismissed . the appeal with false ground without a motion complying with Rule 8.57 on the day of known unavailability of the Petitioner? 2. Does due process require disqualification of the Court of Appeal where the Presiding Justice is the spouse of the judge who issued the parental deprival orders that are at issue for this appeal . and has proactively dismissed Petitioner’s 4 appeals, directly or through the acting Presiding Justice that caused conflicts of interest with the Court of Appeal? . 3. Does due process require disqualification of the . trial court where the interested parties have extrajudicial relationship with the court and , the court has refused to prepare records on appeal for 4 years? 4, Does due process require reversal of the decisions of the judge who failed to disclose conflicts of interest? : 5. Does due process require reversal of the custody order of November 4, 2013 when there is no finding of any clear and convincing evidence that the mother is unfit to support parental deprival of mother? 6. Does due process require reversal of the custody order of November 4, 2013 when it failed to consider the child’s wishes to be with the mother? 7. Does due process require reversal of the Nov. 4, 2013’s Order when it was based on illegal order of August 5, 2010 that was made without any notice, motion or hearing? 8. Does due process require reversal of the November 4, 2013’s Order when the court refused to provide a statement of reasons as requested on whether the initial parental deprival orders of August 4 and 5 violate Constitutional due process? 9. Does due process require reversal when the trial court severely obstructed justice to . disallow records on appeal to be prepared for four years? 10. Does the courts’ joint deterrence of records on appeal to be filed for four years constitute iii violation Is Petitioner’s fundamental right to appeal and access the court as a matter of law? 11.Should judges who are members of the American Inns of Court be required as a matter of due process to disclose their social relationship with lawyers who are members of the Inns of Court and who are appearing before the judges? 12.Should judges disclose the conflicts of interest with the interested third parties including attorney-client relationship, social relationship, and the interested third parties being a Special Master of the Court? 13.Should the case be removed from Santa Clara County Court to a neutral forum? 14.Is California Family Code §3042 void for violating the equal protection clause in the First and Fourteenth Amendment in treating the children in parental deprival situation differently from the children in the child dependency court where California Welfare and Institutions Code §317(e)(2) requires the minor’s counsel to determine and represent the child’s wishes for a child at age 4 or above, but California Family Code §3042 only honors the iv child’s wishes for the children who are at least 14 years old? 15.Is Petitioner’s due process right violated by the Court’s generating false notices, altering dockets, blocking access to the case docket? 16.Is Petitioner’s due process right violated by the Presiding Judge’s deterring the clerk’s office to accept or docket filing of the papers submitted by Petitioner? 17.Should the court immediately change child custody to protect the minor based on health insurance’s psychological claims showing Respondent’s voluntary psychological visits for very dangerous mental illness with repeated suicidal thoughts? 18.Is Justice Grover’s June 8, 2017’s Order (App.169-72) void for creating false ground of April 12, 2016’s Order vacating dismissal being : to giving time for SHAO to fix the default which is beyond the scope of the motion that led to April 12, 2016’s Order, in violation of California Go