Source: http://www.prosewestand.org/pro-se-we-stand/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:26:58+00:00

Document:
APPENDIX A– ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
Stonecipher v. Poplar Bluff R1 School Dist., 2006).
Thompson v. Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir. 1989).
jury and trial before a fair tribunal?
to equal protection under the law?
constitutional rights of litigant to a fair tribunal?
Violation of Plaintiffs right to Due Process, and jury trial?
equal protection under the law and a fair tribunal.
are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction.
then what rights does any entity have to their own property?
514 US 1 – Supreme Court 1995).
provided to the rich and powerful in society.
Ocean Park Blvd., Unit 1, Los Angeles, CA 90064.
2012. The Corresponding Motion to Strike was denied as Moot.
to Strike Plaintiffs Anita and Alexis.
Courthouse in Department 92, Hon. Amy K. Hogue presiding.
on CMI demurrer and Motion to Strike was reset for June 20, 2014.
she presumably left the firm of Wolfe and Wyman, LLP.
Leave to Amend on January 26, 2015.
In January 2015, Plaintiffs initiated efforts to meet and confer with Ms.
Granger to resolve the discovery disputes which were left outstanding by Ms.
for Summary Judgment stating the “case was not yet at issue”.
20 days leave to amend.
Amend that cause of action). The Motion was set for hearing on October 29, 2014.
Dismiss to July 29, 2014.
Amend, on October 29, 2014.
Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to Amend.
of action which was sustained without leave to amend, which the Court denied.
is a fundamental cornerstone of appellate practice.
was assigned as Magistrate Judge in the proceedings.
responsive to Plaintiffs request existed.
On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in U.S.
Infliction of Emotional Distress and R.I.C.O. Violations.
Causes of Action since the first discovery request in 2014.
Fourth Amended Complaint as well as Motion to Strike in US District Court.
Plaintiffs Meet and Confer efforts was in included.
previous representation that all responses had been provided.
complete pursuant to California Discovery Act.
after those efforts were ignored.
August 4, 2015 and ordering “CMI” to give notice of the Orders to Plaintiff.
Fourth Amended Complaint which was set for hearing on August 19, 2015.
of Plaintiffs Motion for Order Granting Leave to Amend”.
of the matters at issue in the case could be resolved.
Production of Documents which was set for hearing on February 17, 2016.
she never ruled on that portion of the Motion for Leave to amend”.
because he lived more than 75 miles from the noticed location.
about November 12, 2015 for inadequate record.
request for Production of Documents at the time of Deposition.
of Documents at the time of Deposition.
for Production of Documents at the time of Deposition.
not entered into the minute order (See RJN, Exhibit G, Order on MSJ).
Equity which set forth facts constituting bias.
without Comment contrary to California Law.
on, or about October 7, 2016.
“considered” and denied on a basis not consistent with California Statute.
Court which was summarily denied on July 12, 2017.
State Law in sum, can amount to a violation of constitutional rights of a litigant.
in place by California Statute, precedence and Rules of Court.
meaning is clear, it must be applied as written. (Conn. Nat’l Bank v.
NOT apply this standard in the ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment,” ie, are “material.” (Dunbar v.
Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers of Iowa, 2003 ).
CORPORATION, 2011) this also was ignored in the Summary Judgment ruling.
California statute and Federal law and they were ignored in my case.
consequence, a state interest of the highest order.” (PUBLIC UTILITY COM’N v.
was “so Extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.” (Liteky v.
Rehearing (See RJN, Exhibit F, Petition for Rehearing/Refusal).
Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. (Republican Party of Minn. v.
White, 536 US 765 – Supreme Court 2002).
enough. Judge’s robes must be as spotless as their actual conduct.” (Collins v.
injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” (Monell v.
(9th Cir. 1990); see also Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 1991).
of constitutional rights and civil liberties.
foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI and know the contents thereof.
information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
Executed on October 11, 2017, at Los Angeles, County, California.
I declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Notice of the following records from this case.
18 and not a party to this action. My address is 7257 Motz Avenue, Paramount, CA 90727.
Executed this _____ day of October 2017 at Los Angeles, California.
financial means for copying and mailing of all the pages of my petition.
extraordinary circumstances”. (US Supreme Court Rule 13.5).
to preserve the jurisdiction of this court.
remains that original petition was timely filed.
real parties will be advised of this action.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 § 1983
 v.

 v.