Is 9th Cir's Case#18-56000, Dismissal, 11-29-18, null & void because of defective Defendant-Appellee, when correct was Leisure Village Association, Inc., et al? And, same identical Dismissal, 11-29-18 for 9th Cir. Case#18-55904, without this 'et al'

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Is 9th Cirs Case#18-56000, Dismissal, 11-29-18, null & void because of. defective Defendant-Appelle, when correct was Leisure Village Association, Inc., et al? And, same identical Dismissal, 11-29-18 for 9th Cir. Case#18-55904, without this "et al". This case. 2. Is the Rooker-Feldman doctrine constitutional when it fails, "to protect individual rights under the Constitution...the purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court", according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts & Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy? This case. 3. Is the Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #2, when it also denys my my equality under the Constitution too? This Case. 4. Is the Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #2, applicable when one's _ attorney _of against a client, as well as perjury & obstruction of justice? This cas 5. Is the Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #2, applicable when one's attorney of record unjustly relieved by the court which results in extreme bias against the client in eyes of another attorney for replace ment? This case. 6. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #8 .28&5, applicable when one is forced into Pro Per status against one's will? This case. 7. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s 2&5, applicable when Pro Pe status unfair & unequal under law, perposterous requirement to know law like attorney, unconstitutional? This case. 8. Is Rooker-Féédman doctrine re above items #s 2&5, applicable when Attorney/Client agreements bias & arbitrary in favor of attorney, denys client rights how case run, attorney has sole judgemeht,attorney uses conflict of interest to get relieved? This case. 9. IS Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item:#s 2&5, applicable when State Bars fail to proteet clients from dishonest attorneys without obstacles preventing investigation whether allegation(s) true or not? This case. 10..Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #1, applicable when Defendant (s) use anti-SLAPP(Calif. Civil Code)to deny Defamation, since freedom of speech can not exist on privatepnoperty¢ (Home Owner Association), freedom of speech only exists on public property? This case. 11. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s 2%10,applicable when HomeOwner Association has CC&Rs(governing documents)used in retaldatio to silence(chill)its defective operating conditions by the use of fine ? This case. 12. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above #tem #s 2,10&11, applicable when HomeOwner Association had known prior that what was fined»as violation of CC&Rs was not anonymous as basis for fine? This case. 13. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s 2,10,11&12, applicable when Home Owner & abets its legal vendors(re above item #9)in the suppression of freedom of the press ina racketeering enterprise under RICO? This case. 14. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s 2,9,10,11,12&13, applicabl when The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act(Calif. Civil Code)basically denys freedom of the press by granting authority to a HOA's Board of Dtrs. to establish CC&Rs(governing documents) that deny this freedom of the press? This case. 15. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s when HOA's CC&Rs(governing rendering them invalid re defective election process re elected Board member can be removed without reason? This case. (cont'd) QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (Cont'd) 16. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s applicable HOA's attorneys of record engage in anti-Semitism, aided & abetted by HOA's General Mgr.,(please note: Board of Dtrs.cause this to exist), & existing HOA,member? This case. 17. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s applicable when Calif. DOJ given no authority to enforce Davis-Stirl: ing Common Interest Development Act, & the local District Attorney refuses to get involved in disputes within HOA's senior retirement communities? This case. 18. Is Rooker-Feldman doctrine re above item #s applicable when this "hate-mongering" used againstrHOA, member to suppress defective operating