When can a court allow faulty and fabricated service-by-mail of a criminal summons instead of personal service-by-sworn-officer?

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW: ~ 2 . 3 |l 1. When deciding the matter of a no-bail bench warrant for failure to appear, can the court 4_ || allow faulty and fabricated, misdirected service-by-mail of a criminal summons that if not faulty, would otherwise conform to the California Code of Civil Procedure instead of requiring 5 || personal, officer that conforms to the Penal Code? ‘ : 2. The record demonstrates Respondents’ pattern and practice of faulty and fabricated service 7 || that does not conform to the Penal Code. Is the district attorney, her county employer and other: liable for damages resulting from faulty and fabricated service of a criminal summons? 8 9 1/3. Petitioner was arrested at his home as a result of a no-bail warrant and held in police custody for seven days and required to post cash bail to secure his release. According to statute, the only 10} ; a: ; ; ; crime for which petitioner was arraigned would have required the Respondents to cite-and11 || release petitioner following booking had the police made the misdemeanor arrest. Petitioner was Pp 12_ || not convicted of any crime as a result of the prosecution. Was Petitioner denied his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure? 13 4. The district attomey cited the Code of Civil Procedure on the criminal summons, creating the 14 ; ; on ; ; ; appearance of authority for proper service. The district attorney then convinced a judge to issue 15 |! a no-bail bench warrant for failure to appear. If a pattern and practice of mail fraud can be 16 established, can the district attorney, the police and other public officials be held liable in a private action for mail fraud and kidnapping in accordance with the federal RICO statutes? 17 1g || 5. Did the Respondents’ reckless acts alleged in Petitioner’s complaint exceed the reasonable person standard that would otherwise afford the Respondents qualified immunity? 19 29 || 6. Were the acts alleged in Petitioner’s complaint sufficient to meet the standard for conspiracy to deny Petitioner his legal and Constitutional rights? 21 22 || 7. Was Petitioner’s complaint sufficient to survive defense motions to dismiss the complaint? ; 23 . 24 : 25 26 27 28 Henneberry vs. County of Alameda, California, et al. , Petition for Writ of Certiorari ‘ Co i