Does due process require reversal of California Sixth District Court of Appeal's Judgment of June 4, 2019 when the named Justice writing the Judgment does not exist?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : The questions presented in this case are: 1. Does due process require reversal of California Sixth District Court of Appeal’s Judgment of June 4, 2019 [hereinafter “June 4 2019’s © Judgment’ when the named Justice writing the . Judgment does not exist? | 7 oo 2. Does due process require reversal of June 4 . _ 2019’s Judgment as the Presiding Justice Mary _ ; J. Greenwood failed to disclose her conflicts in , interest (She was discovered to be the wife of ae ’ Judge Edward Davila who was the trial court oo i judge for this appeal in 2009 when issues , . , : _ involved include judiciary corruptions)? oe 3.. Does due process require reversal of June 4 2019°s Judgment as the Sixth District Courtof ‘Appeal knowingly caused the records onappeal . > , oe _ to be incomplete in missing material records : . . filed by SHAO about Remittitur when the a Remittitur Opinion of March 14, 2014 of Judge Theodore Zayner was made based entirely on written submission without trial except a hearing for the sole purpose to check on the a submission status despite the missing records were named in the Notice of Designation of _ . oO ; records? . ; ii . -4, Does due process require reversal of June 4 ~2019’s Judgment as it issued an illegal 10-day : , oral argument waiver notice (App.55) and -disallowed oral argument when Petitioner. requested that on the 11" day (App.53)? | 5. Should June 4 2019’s Judgment (App.58-81) be reversed as the Sixth District Appellate Court fraudulently referenced two material records filed by SHAO to pretend they had reviewed — . and falsely stated that they had reviewed the entire records (e.g.,App.74,L.14) but these filings are not in the Records on Appeal as the . Court specifically excluded these records from ; , the records on appeal and denied SHAO’s ‘ ‘motion to “augment” these records that were 7 identified in the Notice of Designation of Records? . . 6. Should the June 4 2019’s Judgment be reversed for omitting from discussion all major issues of the appeal requested by Petitioner such as the : __ child support order in the stipulated judgment of May 2008 was illegal for being well below the guideline support without participation of the child support agency in violation of California public policy codified in California Family : Code §4065(c), the court’s failure to refund a SHAO’s $10,000 undertaking since January _ : 2012 and the bias and prejudice of Judge . Zayner, Santa Clara County Court and the Sixth a District Court of Appeal by blindly twisting the oe _ i facts that legal authorities were indeed provided BC in the Opening Brief (E.g.,OB,P.9 andP.22 for , the legal authorities to change venue)? ; 7. Does due process require judges who are members of the American Inns of Court to a disclose their social relationship with the oo . interested third parties to the underlying family = case who are members of the same chapter of 0 the American Inns of Court and is an attorney. __ for at least a Justice at the appellate court and . for a Justice at California Supreme Court? 7 8. Does due process require removal of SHAO’s _ appeals from the Sixth District Court of Appeal ol oo, . toa neutral venue where that court has failedto disclose its conflicts of interest, has had actual prejudice against SHAO in knowingly allowing . _ the records on appeal to be incomplete after , being repeated requested for 6 months in . ; ; SHAO’s seeking extension of filing Opening : . Brief, after the court had illegally allowed the : . , trial court to delay preparing the records on appeal for 3 years in violation of California . Rules of Court Rules of Court Rule 8.122(D)(2), 8.124(g) and 8.130(f)(1) , (App.11&12), had a history of illegal dismissal — . of this appeal on March 14, 2016 of Meera . Fox, 31;App.85) and had caused a false docket . entry of Feb. 27, 2017(App.86&121 Declaration of Meera Fox,{31); with a oe fraudulent notice purportedly from the ° . Appellate Unit of Santa Clara County Court, _ an