Whether California's prolonged disarmament of an individual under a non-violent restraining order violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments when no credible threat of physical harm exists

1. Second Amendment: Whether California ’s practice of automatically and prolongedly disarming individuals subject to non-violent restraining orders violates the Second Amendment (as applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment) when, as in Petitioner ’s case, there was no finding of any credible threat of physical harm and no history of violence, thus depriving an innocent person of the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense for five years without proper constitutional guardrails. 2. Fifth Amendment: Whether a trial court violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by forcing a civil defendant to choose between testifying in full or not testifying at all, thereby barring any selective invocation of the privilege. Here, the court presented Petitioner with an untenable ultimatum either waive his Fifth Amendment rights entirely in order to present a defense, or remain silent and effectively forfeit the opportunity to testify. Does such compulsion, which punished Petitioner ’s attempt to invoke the privilege, comport with the Constitution ’s protection against self incrimination? 3. Due Process: Whether Petitioner ’s due process rights were violated by judicial bias and fundamental unfairness in the restraining order proceedings in particular, where the trial judge sua sponte converted the case from a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) proceeding to a Civil Harassment Restraining Order (CHRO) without notice, and otherwise exhibited bias and prejudgment. Does the combination of a biased tribunal and a last-minute change of legal theory (which denied Petitioner a fair opportunity to defend against the new claim) amount to a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s guarantee of a neutral arbiter and fair hearing? 4. Extrinsic Fraud: Whether a civil restraining order obtained through extrinsic fraud including an alleged physical assault by Respondent ’s counsel immediately before the hearing (to intimidate Petitioner) and a campaign of collusion and perjury that prevented a fair adversarial proceeding can stand. In other words, must such an order be vacated to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice, given that fraud which deprives a party of the chance to fully present his case is anathema to due process and renders the resulting judgment fundamentally unfair?