1.)The Court of Appeal is a Court of Law. The Court reviews the trial courts and lower appellate tribunal's legal rulings for error. Did Harmful legal error occur per #18cv55216, USA v. Balik, USCA 91h Circuit, #18cr00063-MWF, People v. Balik, USDC Central District of California, and #18cr00264, People v. Balik, Santa Barbara Superior Court?

2.)lnterlocutory issues with Petition. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. It asks an appellate court to review aspect of the case before the trial has concluded. Petitioner filed petition for en banc rehearing per #18cv55216. Petitioner received dismissal order from USCA 91h Circuit on May 17th, 2018 and Mandate on October 12, 2018. Did USCA panel Article III Judge Silverman, Judge Bea and Judge Watford got it wrong? #18cv00264 is still active; Petitione is waiting for trial date and is represented via a Santa Barbara County Public Defender/Court Directed Attorney Gregory. Next hearing is February 20, 2019 with Judge Thomas Adams in Department 10 of Santa Barbara Superior Court. ["SBSC"] is SBSC giving Petitioner full due process under the law?

3.)Why is the United States Court of Appeals, for the Ninth Circuit the most overturned Federal Appellate court in the United States by SCOTUS?

4.)Armed Services "Status" - Under narrow and limited circumstances, state-court criminal prosecutions may be removed to federal court. Any officer of the United States or its courts, any officer of either House of Congress, or any member of the U.S. armed forces subject to criminal prosecution may remove such an action if it arises from acts done under color of such office or status. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a), 1442a. "A civil or criminal prosecution in a court of a State of the United States against a member of the armed forces of the United States on account of an act done under color of his office or status" Status may need to be challenged, Petitioner assumes this means "active duty" status. The language is ambiguous; Do all 22 million U.S. Veterans have "Armed Forces Status" and thus legal removal rights under 28 US Code § 1442a? Should Petitioner, being an Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran, having served in the US Army and US Navy, be able to remove under (supra) statute?

5.) Does Petitioner meet/satisfy two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788-92, 794-804, 86 S. Ct. 1783, 16 L. Ed. 2d 925 (1966), and City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824-28, 86 S. Ct. 1800,16 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1966)?

6.)Did District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and or clerks properly review Petitioner's notice for removal pleading? Per Judge Fitzgerald's opinion/order, he references the 6"'Amendment improperly. Petitioner brought up 6th Amendment per Santa Barbara Superior Court traffic infraction case #B

Whether harmful legal error occurred in the lower court proceedings