No. 19-7511

Frank Deville, et ux. v. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, et al.

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2020-01-31
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-procedure concealing-material-facts conflict-of-law constitutional-rights due-process federal-law fraud-particularity hearsay-evidence judicial-procedure legal-standards liberal-amendment material-facts standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2020-03-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

What is the liberal ability to amend a complaint?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED With one attempt to amend a complaint is that sufficient liberal ability to amend? What is fraud particularity? May hearsay be admitted as evidence in the court of law? Concealing or suppressing material facts ; is that legal? According to law there should be liberal ability to amend (Roland v. ; Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108, 112) Truth is not what we believe it to be. Truth is what the law says is truth. Its not about our truth or the defendants truth or the judges truth but the truth of the law. Any unlawful activity in any business activity that is forbidden by law. (saunders v. Superior court 27 CAL. App 4" 832, 838-839). ; The case set here now is indeed unique, a the highest state court has rendered a decision of an important federal question of federal law has not been but should be, settled by this court 28 U.S.C. 451.There is indeed a conflict of law that do exist. The petitioners constitutional due process : rights have been violated, he hasbeen denied the right to be heard and to have a fair hearing. / . . i

Docket Entries

2020-03-30
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.
2020-01-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 2, 2020)

Attorneys

Frank Deville
Frank Deville — Petitioner
Frank Deville — Petitioner