Whether harmful legal error occurred in the lower court proceedings

No question identified. : 1.)The Court of Appeal is a Court of Law. The Court reviews the trial courts and lower appellate 4 tribunal’s legal rulings for error. Did Harmful legal error occur per #18cv55216, USA v. 5 Balik, USCA 9" Circuit, #18cr00063-MWF, People v. Balik, USDC Central District of 6 California, and #18cr00264, People v. Balik, Santa Barbara Superior Court? ? 2.)Interlocutory issues with Petition. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. It asks an appellate court to review a 10 aspect of the case before the trial has concluded. Petitioner filed petition for en banc il rehearing per #18cv55216. Petitioner received dismissal order from USCA 9" Circuit on v2 May 17", 2018 and Mandate on October 12, 2018. Did USCA panel Article III Judge " Silverman, Judge Bea and Judge Watford got it wrong? #18cv00264 is still active; Petitione ‘ . is waiting for trial date and is represented via a Santa Barbara County Public 16 Defender/Court Directed Attorney Gregory. Next hearing is February 20, 2019 with Judge 17 Thomas Adams in Department 10 of Santa Barbara Superior Court. [“SBSC”] Is SBSC . 8 giving Petitioner full due process under the law? . . 3.) Why is the United States Court of Appeals, for the Ninth Circuit the most overturned Federal 21 Appellate court in the United States by SCOTUS? | 22 4.)Armed Services “Status” — Under narrow and limited circumstances, state-court criminal 23 prosecutions may be removed to federal court. Any officer of the United States or its courts, any officer of either House of Congress, or any member of the U.S. armed forces subject to . . criminal prosecution may remove such an action if it arises from acts done under color of 27 such office or status. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a), 1442a. “A civil or criminal prosecution in 28 a court of a State of the United States against a member of the armed forces of the . SCOTUS #18cv55216 USCA 9 CIR /PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI -2 1 United States on account of an act done under color of his office or status” Status may need 2 to be challenged, Petitioner assumes this means “active duty” status. The language is : 3 ambiguous; Do all 22 million U.S. Veterans have “Armed Forces Status” and thus legal ‘ removal rights under 28 US Code § 1442a? Should Petitioner, being an Operation Iraqi 5 Freedom Veteran, having served in the US Army and US Navy, be able to remove under 6 . 7 (supra) statute? 8 5.) Does Petitioner meet/satisfy two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 9 384 U.S. 780, 788-92, 794-804, 86 S. Ct. 1783, 16 L. Ed. 2d 925 (1966), and City of 10 Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824-28, 86 S. Ct. 1800, 16 L. Ed. 2d 944 ut (1966)? 2 6.)Did District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and or clerks properly review Petitioner’s notice for 18 removal pleading? Per Judge Fitzgerald’s opinion/order, he references the 6"" Amendment : “4 improperly. Petitioner brought up 6" Amendment per Santa Barbara Superior Court traffic 8 infraction case #3777843, People v. Balik. #3777843 presiding Judge James Herman 16 denied Petitioner from direct cross-examination of a Santa Barbara Police Department v7 Office Rapp; did Judge Herman violate Petitioners 6" Amendment rights? Should 18 Petitioners criminal case be removed to federal court on the basis that Petitioners 19 prosecution in state court violates his rights under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments? 20 (Notice of Removal at 3).” 21 7.)Was District Judge Fitzgerald randomly selected to preside over #18cr00063? Petitioner hates no 22 one, with this being said, Petitioner promulgates a Biblical Leviticus 18:22 towards 23 homosexuality and the LGBTQ movement. Petitioner may have a lesbian niece Allison 24 Clements, 4" year student at the University of lowa — Petitioner still loves her, however 25 Petitioner opposes her homosexual lifestyle. What was the District Court’s process for 26 _ selecting Judge Fitzg