Claim Preclusion and Due Process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Claim Preclusion and Due Process: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner's claims on the grounds of claim preclusion when the petitioner was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims in the prior state court action, in violation of Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982). | 2. Judicial Misconduct and Due Process: . Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the petitioner's constitutional due process rights and engaged in judicial misconduct by dismissing the appeal without considering the petitioner's evidence of corporate fraud, in retaliation for the petitioner's anti-corruption advocacy, contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 453 and 455. 3. Fraud and Claim Preclusion: Whether allegations of fraud and fraudulent concealment by the petitioner against the defendant preclude the application of claim 2 preclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), and how the four-year statute of limitations for civil RICO claims impacts the claim preclusion analysis. 4. First Amendment Retaliation: Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the petitioner's First Amendment rights by imposing sanctions or legal consequences in retaliation for the petitioner's political expression and advocacy efforts, as protected by NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963). 5. Consistency in Judicial Process and Due Process: Whether the issuance of conflicting orders by the Ninth Circuit, where an original panel found the petitioner's appeal to be non-frivolous but a later panel dismissed the appeal in retaliation for whistleblowing on state government corruption, constitutes a violation of the petitioner's due process rights to a consistent and fair judicial process, as articulated in Caperion v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), and related cases. 3 6. Fraud Upon the Court and Due Process: Whether the California state court's approval of State Farm's Motion for Evidence Sanctions, based on deliberate misrepresentations and deceit, constitutes fraud upon the court, and whether the Ninth Circuit's failure to address these allegations in the petitioner's opening brief warrants Supreme Court review to uphold fundamental due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as supported by Hazel-Ailas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878). 7. Legally Binding Orders and Procedural Rules: Whether the Ninth Circuit's memorandum issued on April 2, 2024, not constituting a legally binding order under applicable procedural rules, and the premature and prejudicial denial of the appeal En Banc, while the related California Supreme Court case for claim preclusion is still pending, justify reopening the appeal based on errors and constitutional violations. 4 8. Jurisdiction and Res Judicata: Whether the Ninth Circuit's memorandum fails the two-part test for res judicata as outlined in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948), because there was no final judgment from the California Supreme Court and the court lacked jurisdiction. 5