Whether the state court erred in not allowing the petitioner to prove that the alleged charges are not crimes

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | @ THE STATE COURBDID NoT ALLOW TO PROVE THAT ALLEGED CHARGES ARE NOT oaWies. (Gee ATTACHMENT 25, GEE PAGES GD To G4) @THE COURT OF APPEAL REFUSED TO ADDRESS {TS OWN RULING (SEE ATTACHMENT 4) AND RULINGS OF GIL COURT THAT ALLEGED Runa we eRe NO COURT SHOULD EVEN IGNORE. ANY HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, INSUSTICE AS IT @ PETITIONER SiIN@H WAS CHARGED UWOITH OFFERING FOR FILING FALSE PROOFS OF SERMICE WITH THE CIVIL COURT UNDER CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 415 CPC iS"), SUCH CHARGES AFFECT ACCESS TO COURTS (SEE ATTACHMENT 4) COURTS SHOULD PROTECT ACC ESS 10 THE REASO WAs THar THEY WERE Nor AO ADDRESS ALL @Ri CRITICAL ISsUEs BUT, FOR TUSTICE ARD FOR GREE ome FIRST APPEAL (SEE PAGE @) COURTS SHOULD ADNere ALL eave DSSISTANCE. OF COUNSEL , RE NOT CRIMES: CAN BE RAIgER ANY TIME KES LIKE CHARGE CONVICTION FOR NON-eRIME \¢ VOID AND cal NAN, PROCEEDING ANYTIME IN ANY PROCEEDING (esha mre IN BESET AsipE *S INGH REPEATEDIy Giese tee VASILYAN C2083) a COURTS REFUSED TO ADDRece tte ol NEVE RY PROCEEDINGs EPRESENTATION. APPON TED ATTOERET ete SINGH WAS De NED Seip™ ATREENTATON, APPONTED STIORNEYS DD ROT RAGE “Taree eee {TaN DEFENSES LIKE ALLEGED CHARGES ARE NOT CRIMES"BE H oR ESSED IN THNS CASE? CINGH SHOULD NOT REMAIN CONVICTED ff _ PPR NON-CRIMES, BASED ON FALSE AND FAGRICATED TECTMN CHARGES ARE NOT CRIMES. RE ee eae ee