Denial of due process and unrestricted access to courts

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Shall a writ lie for denial of due process and unrestricted access to the courts when the California Supreme Court allows one department of the Superior Court to contemporaneously overrule another department in a matter pending, in violation of the California Constitution? 2. Were the Petitioners were denied due process and their right to redress by the Supreme Court of California when it affirmed the decision of the California Court of Appeals allowing the trial court jurisdiction to dismiss the Petitioner's action without notice and a hearing in violation of the California Constitution? 3. Were the Petitioners denied due process when the California Court of Appeals affirm a lower court’s judgement ignoring their published opinion in Martin-Bragg vs. Moore 219 Cal App 4th 367 (2018), and the rulings of two other judges who found that Petitioner Moore had a beneficial interest in the 6150 Shenandoah Real Property ; and Petitioner Moore only paid the mortgage, taxes and improvements on his home for over twenty plus years ; 4, Was Petitioner Moore denied due process and their right to possess and enjoy his real and personal property and have an impartial court to redress when the California Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the Appellants’ this Constitutional right by upholding Judge Johnson’s denial of the return of Mr. Moore’s adjudged converted property? ii il ; ii 5. Were the Petitioners denied due process and their right to fair and impartial court to redress when the California Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the Appellants’ Constitutional and inviolate right to trial by jury in California and by failing to find such a denial reversible error ? 6. Were the Petitioners denied due process by the Supreme Court of California when it affirmed the decision of the California Court of Appeals affirming the lower courts orders denying the Appellants any discovery on whether defendant actually paid consideration for the real property: when she herself testified and the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals previously found, that Petitioner Moore paid all the mortgage, taxes and improvements on the 6150 Shenandoah property? 7. Were the Petitioners denied due process when Justice Helen Bendix had ruled previously, while a Superior Court Judge, and in another action with the same defendant Martin-Bragg, that Petitioner Moore was the owner of the 6150 Shenandoah Property and ordered him to pay $290,000. Justice Helen Bendix was abruptly removed from the Court of Appeals Panel during oral argument after she acknowledged this? . tii