Whether the trial court's awarded judgment against the Petitioner was founded on legal error and/or judicial misconduct after applying two separate standards of care for two separate litigants requesting identical relief

QUESTIONS PRESENTED } The entire world witnessed the countless acts of domestic terrorism lodged against this nation’s most sacred symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Domestic terrorism takes many forms and they are not all physically violent. Systemic racism marches hand-in-hand with domestic terrorism in this case as the trial court has willfully neglected its duty to allow due process with equal protection of law while disregarding | this Court’s due process conceptions followed by resulting | litigation. Due process requires that the procedures by which | laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power. Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894). Each reviewing court has deliberately disregarded the United States Constitution and its clauses of due process and equal protection under law. The Questions presented are: 1. Whether, in accordance with this Court’s directive regarding the interpretation of due process and equal protection, the trial court’s awarded judgment against the Petitioner was founded on legal error and/or (prejudice) judicial misconduct after applying two separate standards of care for two separate litigants requesting identical relief; allowing due process and equal protection for one who is White and disallowing due process and equal protection to the other who is Black. 2. Whether the Petitioner had a liberty interest in the fair administration of justice and the right to procedural due process under law, free of discrimination and retaliation. 3. Whether, based on the evidence and by listing and weighing a series of factors which in totality showed invidious discrimination, the trial court’s actions amounted to a relentless effort to exclude the Petitioner from having his case transferred and/or presided over in alignment | | i with California law and both state and federal constitutions. | | | | | |