Whether the Respondents' decisions in Astarte's case is non-judicial conduct under color of law and constitution, failed in their judicial ethics, and is ABUSE of their discretion; only this Court has the power to hold them accountable, that is of great public importance

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Respondents decisions in Astarte's case is non-judicial conduct under color of law and constitution, failed in their judicial ethics, and is ABUSE of their discretion; only this Court has the power to hold them accountable, that is of great public importance? 2. Whether the Respondents did deny Astarte her state, and federal constitutional rights, statutory rights, and civil rights, under TITLE 1A, unconstitutional Title 3A Vexatious Litigants CCP § 391 et Esq. The Judicial system of America has a mandatory sworn duty to uphold the Constitutions and the supreme law of the land in the peoples court? 3. Whether this high Court will use its power to protects the peoples civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the state and U.S. Constitutions. Such as California CCP § 391 et Esq.? 4. Whether the Respondents did in their non-judicial conduct violate 18 U.S. Code § 242 when they did take away under color of law all Astarte's rights to be heard in any California court without a hearing of facts in the matter. Thereby blacklisting, and treating her like a criminal? . 5. Whether the Respondents did rule finding Astarte's case S273684/S274906 had "entitled matters" then with out notice to Astarte, the Supreme Court of California based on an unsigned _ notice by Justice Humes from the lower court 1st-DCA DIV-S sent stating: "Astarte was at that —~ time determined to be a vexatious litigants" without factual evidence or hearing under law, and that her case had NO merit. Thereby case dismissed? 6. Whether this high Court will find: "A judgment may not, cannot be rendered in violation of constitutional protection (Earle v. McVeigh and Hanson v. Denckla). Such as herein VOID Marin Case 53979 with undisputed real evidence at issue in case S273684 / S274906 [now before this Court] thereby returning all that was taken by extrinsic fiduciary fraud? 7. Whether the Respondents made decisions that is conflicting trial court interpretations of the law are in need of resolution that is clearly erroneous conduct with sufficiency for uncontradicted real trial court minutes of real evidence and is prejudicial to Astarte? 8. Whether Astarte, in Pro Se. now listed as a vexatious litigate could obtain the sought relief by a later appeal under the Unconstitutional CCP 391 et Esq. ? 9. Whether the continuing irreparable harm/injury to Astarte, should this case continue without being heard, would be considered under the Constitution a Manifest Injustice? 10. Whether the position the California courts [The peoples court] are taking when a judge/justice under color of law by ignoring their code of ethics, state and federal Constitutions, and does not follow the law. This case has widespread importance to the American people? . INJUSTICE FOR ONEIS INJUSTICE FOR ALL 2 ‘ + IL. PARTIES 1. All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. LOYAL DAVIS [Astarte’s husband] party in interest [deceased 12/24/2017] CA family Code §721 states that “a husband and wife are subject to the general rules governing fiduciary relationships which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other.” By virtue of this “confidential relationship”, a “duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing” is imposed on each . Ii. RELATED CASES THAT HAS CONTINUED THE IRREPARABLE HARM TO Astarte ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ASK WHY? Marin County Superior Court case CIV 2103212 at issue void case 53979 Judge Glade F. Roper presiding 2. Judge Roper intentionally ignored and suppressed real evidence, and failed his duties under law and his code of ethics concerning Astarte's uncontradicted Marin void case 53979 at issue, there were no hearings, ignoring and suppressing all evidence; her constitutional due process rights to set aside the judgment and invalidate the breach of fiduciary duty for the fraudulent grant deed to Loyal's mother. The Docket stated on 2/23/2022 "It is Ordered: Notice of ent