Does the Court Exceed Constitutional Authority in Defending the State's Regulation of Insurance vis a vis the Court's Predatory Treatment of Personal Injury Cases and Plaintiffs?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | Does the Court Exceed Constitutional Authority in Defending the ° | State’s Regulation of Insurance vis a vis the Court’s Predatory | Treatment of Personal Injury Cases and Plaintiffs? i Does the California Court’s treatment of the Petitioner's Intentional Tort Claim and Limited Hearing of Her Complaint, Which Gives the Impression that the California Courts and Agents of the State Promote | : | Abridging the Rights of Petitioners, Violate the Court’s Inherent Function to Promote Reasonable Fair Access to Justice and the Law? Does the Lower Court’s Denial of the Petitioner’s Right to a Hearing of her Complaint of an Intentional Tort and the Court's Closure of the | Petitioner’s Action of Intentional Tort Violate the Petitioner's . Constitutional Rights if the Courts Fail to Mandate Appropriate Proceedings in the Way of an Evidentiary Hearing, as Required by 28 USC §636(b)(1)(B) & C; and EC §402, to Determine Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations to Properly Dispose of a Petitioner’s Case? . a Supervisory Power Over the State of California Court’s Abuse of Discretion is Necessary When the State Fails to Acknowledge their : Abuse in the Face of a Petitioner’s Claims of Abuse, and Clear — : : Evidence of that Abuse. Is the Court’s Continued Abuse of Discretion, and Justification of their Abuse, in Keeping With the Constitution When that Abuse Amounts to the Denial of a Petitioner’s Rights? —_ \ t ™