Did the Supreme Court of California abuse discretion and show bias in denying multiple petitions related to a dental board administrative proceeding involving due process and constitutional rights?

: A: Did the Supreme court of California in error, abuse discretion and show bias in denying Petition (S286892 )on Nov 20 24 and left unresolved conflicted issue of law and factual issue? (including violation of 7th,5th, 1st,4th and 14th amendment amendments) ? (opinion attached as Exhibit A). B: Did Tulare court in error or abuse discretion denying writ on Aug 20 24 Patient Samreen Riaz, filed the Writ mandate in the tulare superior court after Deny Petition For Reconsideration (Cal. Gov. Code § 11521,11517 ( denial date on all the administrative court and Dental board of California orders (including Oct 13 23 revocation order (Exhibit B,). C: Did 5th district court was in error, bias or abuse discretion when it gave opinion of denying writ in a case No: F086809 on Oct 26 23 for the reason "Petitioner has failed to exhaust her judicial remedies by seeking a petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 before the Tulare County Superior Court ’’?. Was Ca department of Consumer affair and dental board of California (now DBCA) issued Oct 13 23 Notice of revocation due to non compliance While Pending Petition F086809 was without jurisdiction and in due process violation?( opinion attached as Exhibit C) D:Did Dental Board of California, department of consumer affairs, state of California made erroneous and abuse of discretion in Order Denying reconsideration Petition on 21st day of August 23 based on Petition reconsideration filed Aug 16 2023? (Exhibit D) .Did ophthalmology pat Compensated under imminent domain (see Boom Co. v. Patterson (1879) when deprived of property or for economic injury? E:Did Dental Board of California, department of consumer affairs, state of California made erroneous and abuse of discretion in Decision And Order(dated August 2nd 23) based on administrative judge proposed decision and Order ? F: Did the Administrative judge make abuse of discretion and erroneously Propose decision and Order (dated June 20th 2023) based on Accusations that were brought on Aug 17 22?. G. Did Dental Board of California, department of consumer affairs, state of California made erroneous and abuse of discretion when issued Order compelling mental and physical examination(bus and prof code S820) on 06/24/22 based on Petition to compelling mental and physical examination(bus and prof code S820) filed on 06/24/22 ?( Exhibit E) H. Did Dental Board of California, department of consumer affairs, state of California made erroneous and abuse of discretion when issued further “Notice of revocation due to non compliance with the evaluation ” on Oct 13 23 while pending WRIT OF MANDATED 084-1097) ((ORDER -F086809) between Sept 7 23Oct 26 23 at the 5th District Court which got denied . I: Did petitioner due process rights violated due to Judge Hillman failure to recuse from the case on and before July 30, 2024 when question raised his personal interest involved in the controversy of this case and bias toward petitioner and further made erroneous ruling on June 18 24 deny Motion to compel discovery and obstructed of discovery (18 U.S. Code Chapter 73) and deny demurrer and motion strike defendant's defective affirmative defenses in july 30 24 hearing? J:Did petitioner constitution and patients rights violated when DBCA initiated petition on mental exam (without serving petition to ophthalmology patient before order obtained) on ophthalmology patient for a reason that ophthalmology patient was exercised in the past her first amendment rights? K: Did dental board and Administrative board agency lack jurisdiction, has no legal authority and failed to state act or omission upon which it can proceed over (Ophthalmology of Public (who did not violate dental practice act)? Suggestive Answer: YES 2 Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons: Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons: Pursuant to Rules 8.208 and 8.488 of the California Rules of Court, the undersigned identifies the following interested ent