Did the California Riverside County Superior Court and Fourth Appellate District Division Two in California violate the seventh amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including a right to a jury for Brala Beverly, Plaintiff, in a civil case, when it dismissed the Brala Beverly v. Riverside County Public Administrator case upon demurrer, where case facts were significantly in dispute?

Questions Presented Did the California Riverside County Superior Court and Fourth Appellate District Division Two in California violate the seventh amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including a right to a jury for Brala Beverly, Plaintiff, in a civil case, when it dismissed the Brala Beverly v. Riverside County Public Administrator case upon demurrer, where case facts were significantly in dispute? Did the Riverside County Public Administrator violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution in seizing real property inhabited by an individual named Brala Beverly without notice? Where lower courts and the Riverside County Public Administrator misstate facts of a case to construct a basis for seizure of real property, did those falsehoods create a validation for their violation of the constitutional rights of the Brala Beverly, whose real property was seized, including those of the fourth amendment right to be secure in one’s person and right to probable cause? Where the Riverside County Public Administrator has made a sworn declaration in court that Brala Beverly possesses and lawfully owns real property, may they subsequently seize that same real property without further evidence as to the estate without violating the Constitutional rights of that individual? Did the Riverside County Public Administrator violate the first amendment, fourth’ amendment and fourteenth amendment rights of Brala Beverly to declare a Will outside probate court, when they interfered in the uncontested small estate? Is the preclusion of a right to a jury in a civil lawsuit, by virtue of the sustaining of a demurrer amid disputed case facts, as occurred in the case of Brala Beverly v. Riverside County Public ' Administrator, a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution? Does this preclusion also preempt the fourth amendment right to probable cause? ii. Are Probate Courts functioning on constitutional grounds when acting outside a state law 7 already enforced outside Probate court on disposition of a Will under California Probate Code 13100, a law that causes disposition of the Will by declaration in a small and abandoned estate outside probate court and administration of the estate? Are Probate Courts functioning on constitutional grounds when they refuse electronic transmission evidence regarding a Will, or is this a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Unites States Constitution? ; Are Probate Courts entitled to demand a standard of evidence beyond that of probable cause in determination of the intent of a Will of a decedent, or is a higher evidential requirement a violation of equal protection under the law under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution for a beneficiary? Is a refusal of a Superior Court of California to allow creditor's claims to an estate to be made in a civil court, in violation of state law in California under the common counts cause of action and under probate Code 9353, also a violation of the due process and equal protection constitutional rights of that creditor under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution? Are Probate Courts respecting constitutionality in disallowing juries to decide the intent of a Will, a Will or creditor’s claims? Probate courts don’t permit juries by design. ts this . Constitutional in light of the seventh amendment? : iii. + il.