Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Was Petitioner denied due process by the summary denial of Petitioner’s application for leave to file appeal where the application had been previously approved by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, and Appellees had not objected to the filing of the appeal, and the court altered the docket to falsify the filing date of the second vexatious litigant order to the date of summary denial? 2. Whether the California Superior Court should be “the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed” in Code of Civil Procedure Section 391.7(a) such that once filed with approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to require a second vexatious litigant application to file the appeal? 3. Whether Petitioner was denied due process, when the State Court of Appeal concealed the Notice of Appeal transmitted from the trial court and refused to docket the appeal for 111 days when the Notice of Appeal was properly filed with the trial court with preapproval of the Presiding Judge? 4. Does due process require change of place of appeal when the State’s Court of Appeal and its r \ ii Presiding Judge both are defendants in another lawsuit filed by Petitioner? 5. Whether the prefiling vexatious litigant order issued by the trial court is void where the judge failed to disclose that she was the attorney of record for Respondents for at least 2.5 years because of objective appearance of bias and prejudice? 6. Whether the Prefiling Order issued by the trial court in this proceeding should be void for not being supported by a qualified statement of decision for a prefiling order (only when an order declaring Petitioner as a vexatious litigant mentions “Section 391.7” can the order to be qualified to be an order for a Prefiling order according to Holcomb v. U.S. Bank National, Association, et al., 129 Cal.App.4th 1494(2005))? 7. Whether the Order declaring Petitioner as vexatious litigant should be reversed when the judge acted as Respondents’ attorney, more than “gave advice” and issued opinion beyond the scope of Respondent’s motion, sua sponte raised new facts at the eve of hearing and failed to give Petitioner full chance to rebut the new facts? 8. Whether the Order declaring Petitioner as a vexatious litigant should be revered when no reasonable judge would have granted the motion that has no declaration in existence and the only iii purported evidence was finding of the child custody order which was pending appeal? 9. Does due process require reversal of the dismissal by the trial court when the judge failed to disclose his regular social relationship with Respondents through the American Inns of Court? 10. Does due process require reversal of all orders of the trial court and change court as Respondent is an attorney for the trial court? _ 11. Does due process require reversal of the orders issued by the appellate court in this case as the Justice (Allison Denny) was a colleague of Respondent and an employee to Respondent’s client? 11. Should all orders signed by California Chief Justice for all Petitions filed by Petitioner in the past 10 years be reversed and cases reactivated because the Chief Justice failed to disclose her being a client of Respondent James McManis? 12. Whether due process requires the State’s highest court to make available to the public on the voting result by each participating justices on granting or denying Petition for Review? 13. Whether Petitioner is clearly denied reasonable access to the court and suffered gross . injustice when the records clearly show existence of extrinsic fraud that the trial court did conspire with Respondents to file their motion to dismiss iv in September 18, 2019 with e-filing envelop of #3406422 and another e-filing envelop of $3408311 at even later date, with 5 steps of altering the court records and docket in faking the filing date to be 9/12/2019 when it is undisputed that Respondents did n