Does May 17, 2022 Order of California Supreme Court violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does May 17, 2022 Order of California Supreme Court violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution pursuant to Ringgold Lockhert v. County of L.A., 781 F.3d 1057 (9t Cir. 2014) in that it willfully delayed adjudication by 3 months and used a : voidable prefiling order that has not met any requirements of Ringgold to block Petitioner’s fundamental right to access the court on her habeas corpus petition that concerns imminent child safety and unlawful child custody confinement with a summary denial? : The requirements are the court must (1) give litigant notice and “an opportunity to oppose the order before it is entered, (2) compile an : adequate record for appellate review, | including “a list of all the cases and motions , that led the district court to conclude that a , vexatious litigant order was needed”; (3) make substantive findings of frivolousness or , harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly "so as “to closely fit the specific vice , encountered.” 2. Should Habeas Corpus be granted under the circumstances that Petitioner has been , deprived of child custody in violation of due process since August 4, 2010, delayed child custody return by fraudulent dismissal of her child custody appeal (H040395) by 4.5 years, and unlawfully blocked access to the family case since 2016 with a Prefiling Order in a way violated due process and the child safety ~~ | ii and health is still at jeopardy due to 7 Respondent Tsan-Kuen Wang’s dangerous . mental illness? 3. Is November 4, 2013’s child custody order void | as it is based on the void order of August 4, | 2010 that had been vacated and McManis ! Faulkner law firm had tacitly admitted that } the order was drafted by the law firm? 4, Should the November 4, 2013’s child custody , order be reversed in view of clear and , convincing evidence of the court’s conspiracy , in destroying the court record of the | Certificate of Court Reporter’s Waiving } Deposit filed on May 8, 2014 and creating false , notices alleging Petitioner’s failure to procure | the transcripts from the court reporter and | used that as the sole ground to dismiss the appeal? | 5. Should the Prefiling Order signed by Judge | Maureen Folan be void as it is unsupported by a Statement of Decision and the Statement of Decision did not cite California Code of Civil Procedure §391.7 when the order failed to satisfy any of the procedural safeguards | required by Ringgold Lockhert v. County of L.A., 781 F.3d 1057 (9t Cir. 2014)? 6. Is California Code of Civil Procedure §391.7 void for being overbroad with flat prefiling screening without restriction to an area of practice, which is in conflict with the law of Ringgold Lockhert v. County of L.A., 781 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014)? . 7. Does October 31, 2011 Order violate due process for maintaining the supervised . visitation order that had been set aside, without an evidentiary hearing? iii 8. Does May 27, 2016’s sua sponte Order of Presiding Judge of Santa Clara County (Rise Pichon) willfully violate | Petitioner’s fundamental right to access | the court where, without any notice nor | hearing, Petitioner was required to seek | 7 preapproval of the Presiding Judge of | | Santa Clara County Court and has been summarily denied each application to | , file any motion in her divorce case to | change child custody or change venue, | ; vacate/modify child support order but | Petitioner has been able to file any motion in the very same civil case where the prefiling order was issues without the need of seeking vexatious litigant application, after the order ruled that Judge Joshua Weinstein should not have directed the clerk’s office to cancel | all four motions of Petitioner filed in the | family case on April 29, 2016 where the , April 29, 2016 Order was clearly made } outside of the court, without notice, nor , proof of service? | iv |