Whether the Superior Court of San Diego County violated Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by issuing and enforcing a custody order without proper jurisdiction or evidentiary basis

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Violation: Whether the Superior Court of San Diego County violated Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by issuing and enforcing a custody order without proper jurisdiction or evidentiary basis, as recognized in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), which established that parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. This case is analogous to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), where the Supreme Court held that while Marbury had a right to the commission, the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ, highlighting the importance of jurisdiction in due process. Judicial Immunity and First Amendment Retaliation: Whether the doctrine of judicial immunity should be limited when a judge engages in retaliatory actions against a litigant exercising First Amendment rights, as established in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), which affirmed that judicial immunity does not apply when a judge acts without jurisdiction or engages in non-judicial acts. This is similar to Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), where the Supreme Court held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had a constitutional right to challenge their detention in federal court, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional rights. Judicial Misconduct and Supreme Court Intervention: Whether judicial misconduct and procedural irregularities that harm a parent's relationship with II their child warrant Supreme Court intervention, particularly when a judge acts outside their judicial authority, as held in Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). This case is comparable to Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969), where the Supreme Court held that federal courts have the authority to grant discovery under the All Writs Act when it is necessary to aid their jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness. Extension of Judicial Immunity: Whether judicial immunity should extend to actions by judges that exceed their legal authority and violate fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to due process and equal protection under the law, as recognized in Brown u. Davenport. This is similar to Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), where the Supreme Court denied the writ but provided a detailed analysis of jurisdiction, military tribunal authority, and constitutional rights, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional protections. First Amendment Violations and Judicial Retaliation: Whether Petitioner's First Amendment rights were violated when adverse rulings were issued against her in apparent retaliation for filing motions and challenging judicial misconduct, as ruled in Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). This case is analogous to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), where the Supreme Court allowed the writ, establishing that state officials could be enjoined from Ill enforcing unconstitutional laws, highlighting the importance of upholding constitutional rights. Federal Constitutional Protections in Custody Proceedings: Whether the California courts failed to uphold federal constitutional protections in custody proceedings, warranting review by this Court, as held in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), which recognized the fundamental nature of parental rights and the necessity of due process protections in family law proceedings. This case is comparable to Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988), where the Supreme Court established the standard for judicial recusal, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and fairness in judicial proceedings. Pattern of Judicial and Procedural Misconduct: Whether the documented retaliatory actions by Judges Terrie E. Roberts and Michelle Ialeggio between 2022 and 2024, including violations of due process rights, improper jurisdictional actions, and failure to enforce custody orders, alongside Family Cour