Does due process require reversal of the dismissal of appeal based on the fact that the California 6th District Court of Appeal fraudulently dismissed the appeal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented in this case are: 1. Does due process require reversal of the dismissal of appealbased on the fact that the California 6* District Court of Appeal fraudulently dismissed the appeal by concealing from Petitioner’s notice its short notice of the July 9, 2018’s new due date of Opening Brief, directing Petitioner to wait for the Court’s ruling on her objection for insufficient records on appeal and motions rather than to file an Opening Brief before , the ruling, and thereby setting a trap for a secret and prompt dismissal of this appeal : with the excuse that Petitioner did not file her Opening Brief, in disregard of the facts that Petitioner had filed part of her appellate : brief---Motion for Judicial Noticein support of her Opening Brief, that the Court was aware that Petitioner would have filed her Opening Brief but for the insufficiency of the records on appeal (All of the papers filed by : Petitionerwith the trial court in response to Respondents’ motions on vexatious litigant orders were not included in the records on appeal),when, in fact, 13 minutes before the Court’s issuance of the notice of acceptance for filing of her Objections and Motions, the ; Court had already secretly ordered a new . short due date for the Opening Brief to be July 9, 2018 without waiting for 15 days as ' required byRule 8.54(b)(1) of California Rules of Court with clear anticipation that . Petitioner would miss the unnoticed due date when the secret order of July 3, 2018 and the | } ii dismissal order of July 10, 2018 were not entered into the docket until after July 11, 2018? 2. Does due process require reversal of the dismissal of appeal and disqualification of the Court of Appeal based on the fact ; thatRespondent James McManis has an unidentified Justice client at the 6‘ District Court of Appeal who he had given gifts of his free legal services regarding the Justice's private affairs in violation of Canon 4(B)(5) of California Code of Judicial Ethics and Rule 5300 of California Rules of Professional Conduct? 8. Does due process require reversal of the dismissal of appeal and change venue based on the fact that the Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood failed to disclose her conflicts of interest in that she is the spouse of Judge Edward Davila who started the illegal parental deprival orders 8 years ago, conspired to cause the parental deprival of August 4, 2010 to become “permanent” (Petition No. 11-19), conspired to dismiss all appeals in order to constrain the judiciary corruptions directed by Respondent James : McManis within his clients courts’ control, to ensure Judge Patricia Lucas’s parental deprival order to be a permanent firm order (Petition No. 18-569), to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy to allow , theRespondents to have an excuse to apply collateral estoppel of Judge Patricia Lucas’s . November 4, 2013’s decision at the trial court, the client of Respondent James McManis vy which being Respondents’ sole defense against Petitioner in this underlying legal malpractice lawsuit (see App, Declaration of : Meera Fox), where actual prejudice has been shown by Justice Greenwood’s proactive dismissal of Petitioner’s 4 appeals deriving from the family court case and this legal malpractice case within 2 months of her swearing-in to the seat of Presiding Justice at the 6% District Court of Appeal, directly (e.g., Petition No. 18-569) or indirectly (through Justice Franklin Elia and Justice Adrianne Grover who acted on behalf of her), in violation of Canon 2(B)(2),(7) and (8) of California Code of Judicial Ethics? 4. Is there severe obstruction of justice that a Justice with prior history of bias and prejudice against Petitioner and is currently sued by Petitioner, silently dismissed the appeal on July 10, 2018 without giving notice ’ to Petitioner, after the Justice actively blocking Petitioner from filing her Opening Brief, by double deceiving measures where the Court defrauded Petitio