Whether the defendants have satisfied all three factors of the doctrine of claim preclusion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 2 A void deed of trust is without legal effect. It binds no one and is a mere nullity. Sucha 3 contract has no existence whatsoever. It has no legal entity for any purpose and neither the 4 inaction (failing to answer request for admission) of a party, nor the actions (answering 5 request admission) of a party can validate it. A void thing is nothing. A void transaction 6 cannot be rectified or validated by the parties to it even if they so desired. A homeowner 7 who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion 8 of his legal rights at the foreclosing entity’s hands (Yuanova v. New Century Morg. Corp., 9 62 Cal. 4" 919.) 10 The following questions are presented. in| 1) Have the Defendants satisfied all three factors of the doctrine of claim preclusion, which 12 demands; (1) the claims in the present action be identical to the claims litigated in a prior 13 proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the 14 party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to th 15 prior proceeding? 16 2) Is a demurrer legally considered a ruling on the merits, which can be used for claim 17 preclusion? Can a demurrer validate a void deed of trust? 18 3) Were the past causes of action in Case No. B247883 identical to these present causes of 19 action under this review? Can the cause of actions in either case validate a void deed of 20 trust? 21 4) Cana deed of trust, considered void “ab initio” pass privy to a nonaffiliated third-party? 22 Can a deed of trust, considered void “ab initio” legally pass title? 23 5) Did petitioner present an “affirmative defense” to the defendants’ claim preclusion defense 24 in his opening brief, in his reply brief, and in his motion for reconsideration contrary to the 25 2nd District Court of Appeal’s “2DCA” claim that he did not? Did petitioner’s “affirmative 26 defense” recite Judge Linfield’s initial August 8", 2016, ruling that rejected the defendants’ 27 initial claim preclusion defense in verbatim? Can the defendants’ preclusion defense 28 validate a void deed of trust? ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 6 ‘ 1 6) Does Judge Michael Linfield’s initial ruling on August 8", 2016, regarding claim preclusion! 2 contradict his final ruling on January 7", 2020, regarding the defendants’ same exact 3 recycled claim preclusion defense? Is it the duty of this reviewing court to settle the 4 controversial, contradicting, and outstanding “question of law” regarding claim preclusion 5 in this petition? 6 7) Does this case not mirror the same exact circumstances presented in Boyd v. Freeman (18 7 Cal. App. 5th 847, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d... Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd ..., 2017), a precedent 8 case in which 2DCA determined that a demurrer based on the statute of limitations is a 9 “technicality” ruling and not a ruling “on the merits?” Can a “technicality” ruling validate a 10 void deed of trust? isl 8) Does the Seventh Amendment state? 12 In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty 13 dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, 14 shal] be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, then according 15 to the rules of the common law? 16 9) Does a “question of fact” unanimously decided upon by a criminal jury, protected by Re17 examination Clause of the 7° Amendment, re-affirmed by the 2nd District Court of Appeal, 18 refused review by the Supreme Court of California, reaffirmed by a U.S. District Court, 19 Case No. and reaffirmed by a U.S. District Court of Appeal, Case 20 No. 21-55710 become a “ultimate fact,” for all further proceedings? Can the jury’s 21 reaffirmed ruling declaring deed of trust 2007-074-5400 forged or fraudulent and not 22 considered recorded because it is not considered genuine or in other words void legally pass 23 title? 24 10) Doe