How does this Court resolve the absence of appellate jurisdiction in the proceedings in which the attorney misconduct is alleged to have occurred, even when this Court did not previously find appellate jurisdiction was lacking?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ) QUESTION NUMBER ONE . How does this Court resolve the absence of appellate jurisdiction in the proceedings in which the attorney , : misconduct is alleged to have occurred, even when, ; this Court did not previously find appellate jurisdiction was lacking? ‘ QUESTION NUMBER TWO . ; Does the legislative intent and interpretations of California Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et seq. that holds those found to be vexatious litigants to what “ they have said in court filings differ from California Business Professional Code § 6068 (d) where bar members may say one thing in filings and thereafter : change course, and if so, on what legislative basis? i | ; QUESTION NUMBER THREE ; dt What constitutes conflicting decisions of this : California Supreme Court and is there an obligation . : imposed on this Court to resolve conflicts in this : Court's and every other Courts precedent and if not, why not? i QUESTION NUMBER FOUR ; Does the legislative intent govern in California sui , generis proceedings, and if not, why not? rr Page 2 | ( i . i QUESTION NUMBER FIVE : , What constitutes a sworn statement filed in a , California State Court proceeding, and if the sworn statement is found to be false does the false sworn statement constitute attorney misconduct and also, . require a referral to the California State Bar Court? QUESTION NUMBER SIX Does California Business and Professional Code : § 6106.5 authorize relief from overthrowing the governments mentions, attempts to overthrow those governments mention, or both. QUESTION NUMBER SEVEN Does a showing of prejudice causing delay in the enforcement of attorney misconduct proceedings constitute a class of one claim, and if not, why not? QUESTION NUMBER EIGHT Does California Business and Professional Code § 6106.1 and § 6115 authorize referrals to the committee as opposed to the California Commission on Judicial Misconduct? QUESTION NUMBER NINTH , Does the lack of California precedent authorizing recusal or disqualification for the first time during 7 appellate review establish a complete disregard for Page 3 . preemption, plausibility, and other precedents of this United States Supreme Court. Matter of Heff, . 197 U.S. 488 (1905); Johnson v. Shelby, Miss., 135 S.Ct. 346 (2014); Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., : Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); Alexander v. Choate, 469 US. 287, 295, 299 (1985); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 . USS. 641, 647 (1997); also see, Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1993); Compare, Athearn v. State Bar, 20 Cal.3d 232, 236 (1977). . J. A. ADDRESS TO PARTY NOT IN CAPTION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE c/o SOLICITOR GENERALS OFFICE ; 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC. 20530-0001 Office of the California Attorney General (916) 445-9555 1300 “T” Street . Sacramento, California 95814-2919 ; The State Bar of California Complaint Review Unit : Office of General Counsel 180 Howard Street ; San Francisco, California 94105-1617 . The State Bar of California Intake Unit 845 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-2515 ) Interim Chief Trial Counsel : : . Page 4 845 South Figueroa Street ‘ . Los Angeles, California 90017-2515 . Drew Aresca, Duty Trial Counsel ; 845 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-2515 . "= Page 5 :