whether-video-cameras-in-public-are-protected-by-1st-amendment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. WHETHER, video cameras used in public are protected by The United States Constitution, especially when applying and exercising under the 1 Amendment’s Protected Rights of The United States Constitution? 2. WHETHER, when a California State Superior Court Family Law Judge can make an ORDER that a Party and Non-Parties to a Family Law Case must not videotape in a public parking lot, violates the Constitutional Rights of the Party and non-Parties, in the Court Case under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution? 3. WHETHER, Appellate Court erred by its decision that dismissed Appellant’s Case? 4. WHETHER, California Supreme Court Judge Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye erred and abused her discretion by denying Petition to review her Case? 5. WHETHER, Appellate Court Assistant Deputy Clerk III Ben Haskett erred in awarding “Respondent shall recover costs on appeal”? 6. WHETHER, Appellate Court Deputy Clerk David Welton erred in awarding “Respondent to recover costs on appeal”? 7. WHETHER, Acting P.J. Robie erred in dismissing two Appeals? 8. WHETHER, the Appellate Court (signed by Robie, Acting P.J.) erred in determining that the orders appealed by were non-appealable? 9. WHETHER, Petitioner’s Constitutional 4 Amendment Rights were violated when the Appellate Court finalized and erred by Assistant Deputy Clerk Ben Haskett i signed, instead of Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, and by ordering that “Respondent shall recover costs on appeal” and thereby abused its discretion by issuing Defendant/ Appellant/ Petitioner an order to recover cost from Petitioner? , 10. WHETHER, the Appellate Court Acting P.J. Robie erred and abused his/her discretion by determining and ordering that the Petitioner’s appeals were nonappealable? 11. WHETHER, Petitioner’s Constitutional 4 Amendment Rights were violated when the Appellate Court finalized and erred by Deputy Clerk David Welton signed, instead of Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, and by ordering that “Respondent shall recover costs on appeal” and thereby abused its discretion by issuing Defendant/ | Appellant/ Petitioner an order to recover cost from Petitioner? 12. WHETHER, Petitioner’s Constitutional 5" Amendment Rights were violated when the Trial Superior Court of California Family Law Judge John P. Winn made an ORDER that Petitioner/Party and Non-Parties to a Family Law Case must say specific words, phrases, and statements of the Judge’s choosing and the Judge’s specific chosen topics, or Petitioner could be criminally and or civilly charged? 13. WHETHER, Petitioner’s Constitutional 9° Amendment Rights were violated when the Trial Superior Court of California Family Law Judge John P. Winn made an order restricting Petitioner from exercising her previously stated Constitutional Protected rights to videotape in a public parking lot? 14. WHETHER, Petitioner’s Constitutional 14 Amendment Rights to Due Process were violated when the Trial Superior Court Judge John P. Winn treated Black ii Petitioner Carina Conerly less favorably than Filipino Respondent Sharif Tarpin during Court Proceedings (e.g., when Judge Winn allowed Respondent Sharif Tarpin to file meritless Ex Parte hearing, when Judge Lauri Damrell allowed Respondent Sharif Tarpin to show up in Court over an hour late, when Judge James M. Mize continued a Domestic Violence Hearing to another date when Respondent Sharif Tarpin did not show up, when all the judges allowed Respondent Sharif Tarpin to proceed when he has not served Petitioner Carina Conerly, when clerks and judges would not allow Petitioner Carina Conerly to present all her evidence against Respondent Sharif Tarpin)?