Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing Petitioner's appeal based on procedural technicalities that allegedly violated due process and equal access to justice, and whether the trial court's actions in issuing orders without evidence and denying witness testimony constitute a violation of constitutional rights

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing Petitioner ’s appeal based on a technicality that caused no harm or prejudice, and abused its discretion by denying the Petitioner ’s request to augment the record so due process could be met and thus needing also its request for an extension of time to file the opening brief, which deprived the Petitioner of due process and equal access to justice, and whether such actions violate principles of fairness and equal treatment for pro se litigants; and whether the Petitioner was deprived of due process and equal protection under the law when the trial court issued orders without any evidence being presented by the Plaintiff and denied the Petitioner the ability to present witnesses, violated mandatory commands of the statutes on Civil Restraining Orders and Petitioner ’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial rendering those orders void, and that VOID orders must be set aside when raised. 2. Whether the trial court ’s refusal to allow the Defendant to present witnesses, issue orders without evidence, and the statement by the trial judge of bias and prejudice —indicating that the judge had already made a decision before hearing the Defendant ’s defense — violated the Defendant ’s constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and equal protection under the law. 3. Whether the wrongful issuance of a Civil Restraining Order (CRO) warrants the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to ensure uniformity in the application of not upholding void orders, and uniformity of due process protections in civil restraining order cases, based on: A. The Plaintiffs submission of no evidence and refusal to allow the Defendant to call witnesses, in violation of due process and equal access to justice; B. Whether the trial court ’s failure to acknowledge the existence of a previously filed and served restraining order by Appellant on Plaintiff which would prevent a TRO and permanent RO granted if disclosed by Plaintiff by mandatory commands of the statutes, but is proven was maliciously omitted by the Plaintiff in a retaliatory Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) application yet intentionally ignored by an openly bias judge that required dismissal of TRO and any RO denied, but caused granting of a TRO and RO by this and also proven perjury and fraud of Plaintiff that has ongoing and permanent harm to Defendant, violating Defendant ’s rights to fair notice and equal justice and equal access, and whether perjury and fraud by Plaintiff render the court orders void and subject to reversal; C. Whether the issuance of a Civil Restraining Order based on proven perjury and fraud, coupled with a violation of due process and the failure of the court to vacate void orders under statutes such as F.R.C.P. 60 and California CCP 473(d), renders the orders mandatory to be set aside and should be addressed by this Court; D. Whether the expiration of a civil restraining order does not render the case moot, where the wrongful issuance of the order has caused significant, permanent harm, including damage to the Defendant ’s ability to travel, secure employment, and maintain a reputation, and the collateral consequences continue to affect the Defendant even after the order ’s expiration.