Whether the California Supreme Court abused its discretion and/or committed plain error by failing to follow the State Bar Act, Rule 3-700(a) and depriving a citizen of his constitutional 'right to a fair notice' as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

No question identified. : — Comes Now THE EEN TONER, DONTVAnt OVAL, In Pro se, IN NECESSITY ; AND HENERY MOVES THIS HONORAMLE GOUAT TO 19SVE A WIT OF MABDAMUS ORDEUING THE CAL FORNIA SupREMeE COUAT, TO MENENSE On MODIFY IT'S QECISION IN A OISCPUNARY PAOCEESING, CASE NO, THE PEMNTIONER HENNEY AVENS THE DECISION SHOULO hE MEVENSE PUNRSUAKIT TO LAW AMO ALLE PROWOED HEnein. IN SUPPORT, THE PETITIONER SHOWS THE couUlT THE FOUlOWING®: fuavacvay COONAI STOATEME AI THE JUUSOICHON OF THIS COUNT 75 TNVOKGO PURSUANT TO THE NULE 20, ANd . THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCENUNES QuUE 21, THE ALL WTS ACT, 26 US.C,8 IBSI(@); ANC THE CONSTITUNON OF THE UNITEO STATES GUARANTEE OF A "Ne GHT TOR FAIN NOTICED, # THE PETITIONER AVES THAT HE 15 CURRENTLY IN STATE CUSTODY AND FLUNG in Pro se OVE TO FiuAncial DISABIL TY ) WHO THENEFONE , LEQUESTS in — THAT THIS COURT UMEnAlIY. Consus HiS PLEADINGS SN UGHT OF HlGnes Vi KENNER, HOU U.S, Si, S2I (1472), , SINTEMENT of me case I.) ON OR AMOUT DECEMBER Lb, 20IG, THE PETITIONER FILED A PETITION FOR WRET OF MANOAMUS IN THE CAL FORNTA SUBREME GUM. | (SEE, EXHIMIT ALY a Q.)ON Of AMOUT JANUARY 30, 2OIG, THE CAR FOINIA SUPMEME COURT DENIED NENTER, B,)HERENOW, THE PErTIONER MOUES THIS , HONORADLE COUT TO INTERVENE, AND] OR ORDER THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO TS90E A SHOW CAUSE ONE 2 COMPLIANCE, WITH THE STATE MAR ACT Secon GOES (a). a , , } — USSUE PRESENTED H) THE Per TiONEN MERAY AvENS THAT THE COU FOIA SUpMEME COUNT AMUSED TTS : DISCRETION AND/OR Comm?Ts PLERN GINON 4 FLOUNNG THE STATE PAR ACT, ROLE COBY (a) ANO NEPAIVING A CON ZEN OF HIS CONSTITUTION “MGHT TO A FANR Norice" AS GUARANTEED 4 THE FOURTEENTH AMEMOMENT, 5.) THE PETiionen HAS REPEATEDLY PRESENTEO THE NECORD OF THE coynr's THAT CLEANLY SHOW THAT ATONE GAIL M, OUSTO | WITHOREY FROM REPLESENTATION WITHOUr GIVING SUFFICIENT NONCE tO THE CU ENT AND ABANOONING THE CLIENT SIX (c) PAYS PIC — TOTHE PREUMINANY HEAMING, KESULING ON PREJLOTCED TO PETITIONER'S OEFENSE W?TH THE CEATH OF FRENTE williams. (SE,EXHOT | TjEX. GC) ATACHMENT™ O" AT P, LULl: , ©) THE peti tonen HAS SHOWN EVIDENCE — THAT ATTORNEY GARL mM. HUSTO WiTHONEW FLOM REDNESENTING Fr) A FRUGO CASE wi THOUT GINING SUFRIGIENT NOMCE 10 THE | CUENT, VIOLATING NWLE |. ie (d) oF THE NEW CAUFORNIA RULES OF PNOFESSIONAL Gonder: THE PETHONER HAS SHOWN THAT THE SUMEME Counr OF CALIFORNIA, HAS AO CONTINUES TO DISREGARD THE BULDEN OF PrtF UNDER THE STATE BAR ACT, MILE ©6083 (a), 6) He PET TONER 15 HENENOW PRoViOING EVIOENCE THAT COUNT OFFICERS HAVE INADVERTENTLY VIQLATED THE ETHICS OF , YOu OFMCE MY OISMEGANDING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIOns 14TH AMENOMERUT Aud THE, STATE HAR ACT) MULE COS (a), 4) THE Peon HAS SHOWN THAT THE SUMENTE COURT OF CALIFORNIA OVERLOOKED PETITIONERS UNTTEO STATES CONStTUTION [UHH AMENOMENT “RIGHT ro 8 FAIR NOTICE. | I.) Me peTitionen HAS NO OTHER NEMEDY (OF US IN WHICH TO COMPEL THE SUPREME, Counr OF CAUFORWIA TO REVERSE Ard] OR MoOlFYy ITS DECISION. THE CAL FoRNiA SUPNEME CounT tCOK JUOIGAL NON CE oF THE COUNTS DOCKET SHEET sHOW NG THAT THENE 15 MONLY "A CONFUCr OF Tarcresr IN THE REGOND, (266, XHIDTT A, Ex.C, enc © MENT" OM AT PT.) HoweVeR, @ CONFLECE OF _ INTEREST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICKENT NOTICE TO THE CLIENT, 15 SNCONSISTENT wihTH THE New’ CRU FORNIA MULES OF PnOFESsioNAL CONOUCT, MLE Ile) THEREFONE,, THE Srate, Aan ACT i) VidlATED, THE SUOREME Courr OF CAUFORNIA YSSUEO § DENTAL MEGAAEUG its MEIGS ON TANVANY 20, 2019 . ME pEenrionar MOVES THIS COuru TO UAIERSE Prudfon MOC 7 THAT OENiAL AS “ OLAIN Ennon, ! THE Nin Clneu?t counr oF AP_DEALS TN CalLpenoN Vi. Paunmy, 54 Fad igos, lOOl (Ath Cir. 1995) Helo THAT : 5 STHE SIXTH ANENOMENT; WHICH IS APDUCAMLE TO THE STATES THROUGH THE OVE PNOCESS CLAUSE OF THE icith AMENDMENT, GUANNTEES A Crunwinpl DEFENUNAUT A | FUNDAMENTAL MIGHT TO AE CLEANLY "INFORMED" OF THE NATUME PMO CAQCSE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HSM. I.) DECAOSE. MANAUS PETHHO 1S A PREFERRED VEHICLE FOR NENG OF DECISIONS, WHERE THERE ANE NO "APPEALS," THE | Peni DONE O