Was the trial court's judgment unconstitutionally cruel and unusual?

No question identified. : QUESTION REVIEW PRESENTED 1. Was the trial court Clackamas State of Oregon’s judgment sentence Municipal , Court dated 01/26/2017 in favor of respondent Happy Valley Municipal Court and against Petitioner Linh Thi Minh Tran unconstitutionally cruel and unusual in this case? : 2. Has the Happy Valley Municipal Court failed to prove the highest standard burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when determining the guilt or innocence of Linh Thi Minh Tran in this case? 3. Were the trial court Clackamas County State of Oregon’s ruling error intentional misrepresentations, conclusions that were reached without proper procedural protections and that lacks sufficient evidentiary support? 4. Has the trial Court Clackamas County State of Oregon erred that as a matter of law or with intent to deceive when it ruled that Linh Thi Minh Tran has been convicted guilty violation Happy Valley Municipal Code Low Density Residential Zone-Unpermitted Use Code (HVMC) 16.22.030? 5. Was the Judgment Sentence Municipal Court De Novo Appeal signed and entered on 01/26/2017 by trial court Clackamas County State of Oregon judge Heather L. Karabeika to convict Linh Thi Minh Tran to be guilty in this case clearly errors, abuse discretion standard of law, violation of . the fundamental of rights, clearly violation of U.S. Constitutional, violations of PETITIONER LINH TH! MINH TRAN’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. HAPPY VALLEY MUNICIPAL COURT VS. LINH THI MINH TRAN. Linh Thi Minh Tran, DefendantPetitioner pro se, 12542 SE Capeila court, Happy Valley, Oregon 97086] Tel: 503-558-0886 | Email: | Page 2 of 51 Oregon Constitutional Article J, Section 10, violation of U.S Constitutional Amendment Four, Eight, and Fourteenth, clearly deprived Linh Thi Minh Tran of a fair trial hearing as results the trial court has failed to demonstrate and exercise sound and reasonable and legal decisions making skills and trial court also has failed to produce and evaluation whether evidence could reasonable support the guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt? 6. Was Oregon Court of Appeal’s decision to be error when it affirmed without opinion with trial court Clackamas County’s ruling in this case presented a significant error issue of law when Happy Valley Municipal Court admitted in its answering brief submitted to Oregon Court of Appeals that Officer Ryan Kersey’s mistake because Linh Thi Minh Tran’s property located at 12542 SE Capella court, Happy Valley, Oregon 97086 was not violated Happy Valley City Code HVMC 16.22.030? 7. Was Oregon Court of Appeals decide to be error that as a matter of law when it affirmed without opinion with the trial court Clackamas County State of Oregon’s Judgment Sentence Municipal Court De Novo Appeal dated 01/26/2017 when there were sufficient evidences in court file to determine that Linh Thi Minh Tran’s property located at 12542 SE Capella court, Happy Valley, Oregon 97086 is single-family dwelling? PETITIONER LINH THI MINH TRAN’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. HAPPY VALLEY MUNICIPAL COURT VS. LINH THI MINH TRAN. Linh Thi Minh Tran, DefendantPetitioner pro se, 12542 SE Capella court, Happy Valley, Oregon 97086 | Tel: 503-558-0886 | Email: | Page 3 of 51 8. Was the trial court Clackamas County State of Oregon inconsistent or confused | in ruling on the issue that this case presents? 9. Was the case presents a significant issue of law include the jurisdiction of the Oregon Court of Appeals and the trial court’s error? 10.Did Oregon Court of Appeals decide to be wrong when it affirmed without opinion with the trial court Clackamas County State of Oregon’s Judgment Sentence Municipal Court De Novo Appeal dated 01/26/2017 when it has full knowledge that the trial court was violation of Oregon Constitutional Article I, : Section 10, violation of U.S Constitutional Amendment Four, Eight, and Fourteenth, abuse discretion standard of law, v