Whether the panel correctly decided that Parkinsonism does not produce Parkinson's disease

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED I ne a oO : “ PAGE # I. . Sos ot | qe ONE: ISUUE FOR REVIEW , THE PARKINSON DISEASE; SOMETIME PRODUCE THE SEQUEL | PARKINSOISM OR THE SEQUEL PARKLNSONISM PRODUCE = PARKINSON DISEASE -WRONG. “SHB OTHER E/2:08F NUMBER “ESUUE. SHAT I. PRESEN@TWDFOR REVIEW IS o(&¢INTURE -HAVED *_ Fe eee ee AGRSO. THATSANCHO GLUED HE HAD PARKINSON'S LIKE SYMPTOMS): ~ THE -PARKINSONIM: HEVER WILL Propocz ayy “CISEASE: BECAUSE IT IS. aN SEQUEL. . PARKINSON'S LIKE SYMPTOMS IS “PARK INSONISM-OR ( PARRINSONISM PLUS PRODUCE PARKINSON THAT: IS. PLACED THE OXCART ON FRONT OF THE .OX (THE WAGON IN THE HEAD OF THE STEER) PARKINSONISM IS NOT aN DISEASE <qeIS AN SEQUEL OF somE. -BESEASE . (AMD, FROM SOME INTOXICATION AB _ INTOXICALION SEQUEL INSONISM .<PARKI PLUS... OR PARK} “Like "ape ange ~ ~ SARE REALLY TRULY. STATEMENTSe Sa OR PARKINSON LIME SYMPTOMS -ALL. ABS HE. SAME) “#TWO ISUUR FOR REVIEW:THE PANEL ALSO DECIDES WHETHERTOCERTIFY THE OPINION FOR’ PUBLICATION. INGENERAL AN OPINION IS PUBLISHED IF IT ESTABLISHES ANEW RULE OF LAW INVOLVES A LEGALISSUE OF OF CONTINUING. PUBLIC INTEREST CRITICIZES _ EXISTING LAW OR MAKES A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO LEGAL LITERATURE. ; o UNPUBLISHED OPINION DO NOT ESTABLISH PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORE” ‘TO SUPPORT AN ARGUMENT NOT BY PARTY NOT BY THE COURT. . CALIFORNIA COURT OH. APPEAL SIXTH APPELLATE DISTTRICT INSAN JOSE. — : R THIS IScoseecny7 rn Le _ # Giese Isune Se REYIEW cope OF CIVIL PROCEDURE #36GUORXISTING DISABILITIES . AP PRGE LEME EATION © “3 PERTOD?IS7CORRECT? . en Et #356 1S) toe : _ _ ‘+ FOUR __ISuVve FoR BBL ; &L4 THe DAMAGES HARM AND NOW THE INJURY “PARKINSON,s ~ DISEASE. 8 YEARS. KINSONISM REHABILITACION WITH PHYCAL THERAPRUTIST {TRAUMATOLOGIS(, AND TREATMENT“OF THE BEST NEUROLOGIST OF M¥ “BORN COUNTRY 7CANBE A PRODUCT OF FEW HOURS OF ONE NIGHT AND FEW HOURS THE NEXT DAY?, = # EIVE ISUUE FOR REVIEW. /ors CORRECT 70 CUT JUDICIOUS LITTIE PIECES oF ae ae OF ONE BARTY sn FAVOR OF THE OTHER PARTY. AND THA SOME..." SIX ISUUE FOR REVIEW. I DID KNOW THAT. IN IN CRIMINAL CASES THE tout OR THE DEFENDANTS ARE ABLE 0 BRING BACK OLD CASES AS PREVIOUS _ BUT MY TREE CASES ARE CIVIL? IS CORRECT WHAT THEY DID? eo I AM THE PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, THE FIRST CASE ayy saconp caSé ARE NOT IN SISPUTE, I AM THE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT I DETERMINE WHICH IS MY CASE. '. NOT THE RESPONDENTS AND DEFENDANPS, NEITHERTHE. COURT CAN'T IMPOSE CASESOR ANYTHING ELSE TOMY DEMAND, . -? IS CORREGT THIS STATEMENT?. SEVEN _ISUUE FOR REVIEW: I EXHAUSTED ALL POSSIBILIWY f0.GET JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA FROM THE 40 PAGES OF PTITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SEE FROM PAGE 25 TO 37. & 1S If ANOTHER REASON FOR FOR GRANTING THE PETITIONG EIGHT ISUUE FOR REVIEW: IS NOT ONLY IN CONTRAST BETWEEN SECOND APPELLATE AND SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT,,. INSIDE SECGND..APPELLAYE BETWEEE DIVITION EIGHT AND DIVITION FIVE. SEE: FROM