Whether the lower Court had Standings to hear and Dismiss a No-Fault claim issue, under abuse of HRCP Rule 4

QUESTION PRESENTED I, Christopher Young (“Petitioner”) am an indigent, disabled, black man with a brain injury that is requesting this Writ of Certiorari, Appeal and Review of this case from an Oder from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Appeals Court”) No. 18-15813, entered October 18, 2018, Pursuant to S.C.R. Rule 10(a). The Appeals Court found Petitioner’s fifth attempt at an Appeal from the USS. District Court for Hawaii, Honolulu D.C. No. (“lower Court”) Frivolous, as the Appeals Court failed to prevent the evidence in the record, the lower Court from continuous violations to the Rules of the Court, the Federal and State Compact, Insurance Code, U.S and State of Hawaii Constitution, Statutory Proses, Public Interest, Discrimination, delays, and Petitioner’s Due-Proses. The question presented is: Whether the lower Court had Standings to hear and Dismiss a No-Fault claim issue, under abuse of HRCP Rule 4, with a Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial and Summons filed in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit State of Hawaii (“State Court”), with all Respondents’ failure to obey the Summons Order under the State Court Seal to answer within twenty days of service, and Respondent Officer Patrick T. Kihara (“Kihara”) failure to arrest or give mandatory citation to Respondent Michael M. Kraus (“Kraus”) for causing Petitioner property damage and permanent brain injury (“Insurance Fraud”), and Kihara chasing the Ambulance away that Petitioner called to the scene for needed medical attention (“violated safety and welfare for the public”)? Did the Appeals Court have a duty to hear the Misconduct, to Act on it, and answer an indigent person with a brain injury request for Counsel (“Appeals Court 1993 Resolution No. 3”), Remand the Case back to State Court, Grant the Default Judgement and Restore the Trial by Jury to hear the abuse (“morals”) to the Public Interest for Punitive Damages? a a}