Does rule of law exist in California, where the US. Constitution is just a piece of paper, statutes are ignored and MOU/CBA/contract is not contract, as far as the County of Santa Clara is concerned?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Does rule of law exist in California, where the US. Constitution is just a piece of paper, statutes are ignored and MOU/CBA/contract is not contract, as far as the County of Santa Clara is concerned? ‘ White-collar exploitation is based on violations of statutes and contract law, fraud in inducement and frauds in factum, latent ambiguity, conversion of temporary work uncertified with end date unspecified into indefinite volunteer work. . Title 5 CFR § 316.401 (b) states that temporary work appointment needs to be certified by supervisor as truly temporary, but not in California? Title 5 CFR § 316.401 (c) states that temporary ; work appointment must have specified end date, up to one year at the most, but not in California? Title 29 CFR § 553.101 (c) states individuals can be volunteers only where their services are offered —— freely without pressure, but not in California? Title 29 CFR § 553.102 (a) states that volunteer work similar to employee work at the same public agency is prohibited, but not in California? MOU/CBA is, once ratified, bona fide contract enforceable against employer, but not in California? MOU/CBA is contract in purpose & function in the plain language, as a whole, in context, but not in California? . Any latent ambiguity in a MOU/CBA/contract beneficial to drafter (County) requires interpretation against drafter (County), but not in California? County assumes no obligation to employee who for self-convenience voluntarily reports to other than regularly assigned work location, as per MOU. ii Stated otherwise, single clinic coverage is fair consideration; temporary/volunteer work is not. Can County demand/accept indefinite multiple clinic coverage AND classify it as volunteer work? , As per Civil Grand Jury Report and Response by the Board of Supervisors, the MOU/CBA between the County of Santa Clara and UAPD is but 1 of 18 labor i contracts, but in name only? Can County declare that MOU/CBA/contract is mere agreement or contract in name only, a blatant act ; of perjury and intentional fraud in court? ; Can California courts reject abuse of discretion . standard, when it is requested? Can California courts refuse to apply doctrine of judicial estoppel, when it is applicable? Can California courts take judicial notice of perjury by Defendant as indisputable truth? But deny request by Plaintiff for judicial notice ii of proof of contract from Civil Grand Jury Report? County’s demurrer must accept the truth of all allegations; failure to accept the truth of any one allegation renders it fake, invalid, null & void. Can California courts sustain fake & invalid ; demurrers that are null & void? Is it nonsense? Judicial notice allows for the introduction of : evidence that may be in dispute; and the demurrer only tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, Is it procedural error to use judicial notice of perjury as indisputable truth to justify nonsense . orders to sustain fake, invalid, null & void demurrers so as to deny valid contract claims AND to ignore daily violations of multiple federal and state statutes and Articles 1 & 6 of the U.S. Constitution, violations that are also causes of action in and of themselves? iii : . PROCEEDINGS Do v. County of Santa Clara, $283544; California Supreme Court; Petition for review denied 3/20/2024. Do v. County of Santa Clara, H051044; California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District; Final judgment entered 1/5/2024. Do v. County of Santa Clara, 22CV397515; California Superior Court, Santa Clara County; Demurrer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint; ; Judgment entered 6/27/2023; Order entered 4/11/2023. Do v. County of Santa Clara, 22CV397515; . California Superior Court, Santa Clara County; MT Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint; Order entered 10/5/2022.