Whether the warrantless entry by El Monte Police Department officers into Petitioner's property violated the Fourth Amendment, and whether the restraining order was based on false testimony

t 1. Whether the warrantless entry by El Monte Police Department officers into Petitioner's property, without exigent circumstances or valid legal justification, violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 2. Whether the restraining order issued against Petitioner was based on false testimony by a police officer following his unlawful entry, and whether the courts erred in refusing to expunge it despite clear evidence disproving the allegations against Petitioner. 3. Implications of the Court ’s Ruling I am deeply disappointed with Division 1. If this ruling stands, it sets a dangerous precedent allowing professional tenants like Mr. Feria to use this case as a shield for illegal activities. It also empowers police officers to criminalize landlord-tenant disputes under PC §418, granting them undue authority to enter private property without consent or a warrant. This undermines the very foundation of civil property rights and could lead to widespread misuse in future cases. The wrongful restraining order should be revoked and expunged. Not to set a bad example! 4. Whether the California courts erred in denying Petitioner ’s appeal in case B330219, where a subtenant engaged in unlawful commercial subleasing activities at peerspace.com, including hosting unlicensed events that posed safety hazards, Selling alcohols/Marijuanna to mostly minors without permit. And the courts failed to recognize the landlord ’s right to enforce lease terms against such actions. See Exhibit 10 Petition 5. Whether the legal system in California has imposed undue financial hardship on landlords, particularly in cases where they are the victims, by providing inadequate legal assistance for commercial lease disputes. Petitioner could not get help at the LA court civil case help center due to Commercial leases being excluded. Also requiring landlords to bear financial losses from non-paying tenants for 9 months while simultaneously restricting their ability to operate their businesses. By enforcing overly restrictive restraining orders that hinder property access (see Exhibit 1 Site plan), Petitioner was forced to close my side of the retail store in compliance with the 15 feet distance order. Additionally, whether systemic biases or law enforcement motives contribute to an environment where landlords are left without proper legal recourse, forcing petitioner toI i t \ . i : ■ i i t i , ■ i1/6 I rely on Al tools like ChatGPT instead of professional legal representation. i II.