Whether California courts may engage in procedural due process violations under the Anti-SLAPP statute and improperly designate a vehicle as total loss salvage, thereby violating constitutional property rights

a) Whether a summons and complaint that was filed on February 2, 2022 and was served on the defendants timely on March 19, 2022 and March 21, 2022, whether such defendant/s may file after a year a demurrer and motion to strike and a motion to strike under California Anti-SLAPP Statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16(f) on February 6, 2023, and the motion was heard a year later by the bias and unfair trial court on March 8, 2023? b) Whether California courts morally bankrupt may engage in fraud of procedural due process during the appellate process that violated Petitioner Ms. Ashlie R. Anderson who was affected by California Anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16 [et. seq. (and other similar Anti-SLAPP statutes across United States] are treated as an ordinary per se takings 1 law under the Fifth Amendment that violated Ms. Anderson ’s Fourteenth Amendment that protects against the government ’s deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law insurance companies illegal criminal fraudulent activates are condoned and covered-up by the state court appellate court biased and prejudicial Justice Elwood Lui helped insurance company avoid liability 2 from innocent drivers as Ms. Anderson were 100% no fault (and other millions of innocent drivers) whose vehicle were fraudulently and illegitimately reported to DMV as “Total Loss Salvage ” on the same day of the accident when it was not a total loss salvage, but in good operational condition, had forced Ms. Anderson to surrender her vehicle and license plate to DMV, but the state court appellate court committed fraud of procedural due process by ignoring the truth seeking when insurance companies submit total loss salvage documents to DMV, the appellate court also determined the insurance company ’s fraudulent use of a forged estimate of an inspection that never took place on November 23, 2021 done to support the designation as “Total Loss Salvage ” was not excusable and shows actual malice? When a law as the Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16 allows a state to force innocent drivers as Ms. Anderson to surrender her good operational vehicle, license plates and registration to DMV as a total loss salvage when it is not a total loss salvage, it is an equivalent to an ordinary per se takings law is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. See Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); government acquisitions of resources to permit uniquely public functions constitute "takings," e.g., United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256. Pp. 438 U. S. 123-128. 2 For comparison and equality all made laws are as “double blade swords. ” California and many other states in the U.S. impose severe penalties for drivers involved in accidents that make fraudulent claims or engage in staged accidents. These penalties can range from criminal felony charges and imprisonment up to five years, civil penalties and fines up to $50,000 or double the amount of the fraud, with suspension of driver's licenses, and loss of benefits. But trial and appellate Courts and Supreme Courts cover-up and protect insurance companies under Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16 who engaged in fraudulent and criminal activities against no fault claimants, raises significant legal and ethical concerns. \Klem v. Access Ins. Co., 17 Cal.App.5th 595, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 711 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) concluded that submission of the standard DMV total loss form was not absolutely privileged]. 2 c) Whether the California Supreme Court, Appellate courts and trial courts may run amuck of all appellate process in order to cover up injustice and fraud by insurance company criminal and fraudulent activities knowingly with actual malice reporting Ms. Anderson ’s vehicle to DMV as total loss salvage, when it was not total loss salvage, constituted a protected activity for purposes of an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16 et. seq. by biased appellate court Justice El