Whether the California Supreme Court's no-stare-decisis rules violate the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing lower court review of rule constitutionality and denying petitioned review

California's 1928 Constitutional Amendment withdrew au thority for California Supreme Court (CSC) to adopt appel late rules, after giving that authority in 1926 to Judicial Council of California (JCC), composed of many justices and judges. In 1974, CSC began adopting rules, governing all parties in all California courts, barring stare-decisis citation to se lected cases, even when the case re-litigates a past case with the same parties and privies under the same determinative law and facts, as here. Using stare decisis, CSC barred all lower courts from re viewing CSC's no-stare-decisis rules' constitutionality, then denied Appellants' review-petition, thereby preventing any state-court review. Questions raised: Does U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, §1 (14A-§1) al low California Supreme Court to adopt Calif. Rules Of Court (CRC), CRC.8.1100-1125 (Title 8, Div.5), governing all state courts, bar lower-court review of no-stare-decisis rules-under stare decisis, then deny its own (petitioned) review, thereby preventing any state-court review of state-rules' con stitutionality? Did CSC violate 14A-§1 to bar stare-decisis citation after losing constitutional authority in 1928 to adopt any appel late rules? Are CSC's no-stare-decisis rules unconstitutional by con tent or effects? Given that stare decisis bars any lower court review, does CSC denial of petitioned review of CSC rules violate Appel lants' statutory rights to appeal? What procedures must American courts use to satisfy Boddie u. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 375 (1971) (Boddie **) m requirements to never exercise its “monopoly...over binding conflict resolution ” to assume over a case outside society-set boundaries? Under 14A-§1, may an attorney firm advise corporate board members, then sue the board-majority on the subjects of the advice? IV Parties Per Rule 14.1(b)(i), parties are 2 Petitioners and 6 Respondents. R-Ranch Property Owners' Association (R-Ranch POA or POA) is Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Appeal-Respondent, Art Bullock and James Goguen are Defendants, CrossComplainants, Appellants, and Petitioners. Mark Grenbemer, John Crosby, Ron Bucher, and Timothy Caswell (Individual Cross-Defendants, or ICDs) are CrossDefendants, Appeal-Respondents, and Timothy Stearns is Goguen's attorney at Trial Court, Ap peal-Respondent, and Per Rule 29.4(c), 28 USC §2403(b) may apply, so the initial document in this case (Application To Extend Time To File Petition For Writ Of Certiorari) was served on California At torney General Rob Bonta, who was not a party below. Per Rule 29.4(c) and 28 USC §2403(b), to our knowledge, neither 3DCA nor CSC certified to California Attorney Gen eral that constitutionality of CSC-adopted rules was drawn into question.