Was it a denial of procedural and substantive due process for the lower Court to not order dismissal of the subject criminal case with prejudice against Petitioner/Defendant Arthur Edward Ezor?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Was it was a denial of procedural and substantive due process for the lower Court to not order dismissal of the subject criminal case with prejudice : against Arthur Edward Ezor (‘Ezor”)? 2. Was it was a denial of procedural and substantive due process for the lower Court to not order dismissal of the subject criminal case with prejudice against Ezor due to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct? : ; 8. Did the prosecutor’s intentional intrusion into ‘ the attorney-client relationship constitute a direct interference with the Sixth Amendment rights of Ezor, and was it a per se violation of said Sixth Amendment? 4. Was Ezor denied the fundamental and due process right to a fair adversary proceeding as a criminal defendant due to the illicit actions of the ; prosecutor in violating the 6th Amendment? 5. Was Ezor denied equal protection of laws and treated disparately and unfairly from other criminal defendants by virtue of the aforesaid prosecutorial misconduct and denial of fair pretrial criminal pro; ceedings? 6. Did the Honorable Supreme Court of California commit prejudicial constitutional and reversible error 7: in not ordering the Superior Court. of State of California for the County of Los Angeles to dismiss the . criminal case against Ezor with prejudice, via the Writ of Mandate presented to it? : (4 ii 7. In the alternative to dismissing the criminal case with prejudice against Ezor, should the Honor, able Supreme Court of California have issued a Writ ; of Mandate or Mandamus ordering the Los Angeles Superior Court to disqualify the entire District Attorney’s Office of the County of Los Angeles, including ; District Attorney Jackie Lacey and Deputy District Attorney Kelly Howick. In not so ordering, despite a showing of prosecutorial misconduct by said District , Attorney’s Office, did the Supreme Court of California commit prejudicial constitutional and reversible error? 8. In the alternative to dismissing the criminal case with prejudice against Ezor, should the Honorable Supreme Court of California have issued a Writ of Mandate or Mandamus to the Los Angeles Superior Court ordering a stay of proceedings, ordering disqual: ification of the entire District Attorney's Office of the County of Los Angeles, including D.A. Jackie Lacey and Deputy D.A. Kelly Howick, and ordering the Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, to take over prosecution of the criminal case in place and stead of the aforementioned District Attorney’s Office? iti :