1.) THE PETITIONER HEREBY AVENS THAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND/OR COMMITS PLAIN ERROR IN FLOUTING THE STATE BAR ACT, RULE 6083 (a) AND DEPRIVING A CITIZEN OF HIS CONSTITUTION "RIGHT TO A FAIR NOTICE" AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

5.) THE PETITIONER HAS REPEATEDLY PRESENTED THE RECORD OF THE COURT'S THAT CLEANLY SHOW THAT ATTORNEY CARL M. HUSTO WITHDREW FROM REPRESENTATION WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO THE CLIENT AND ABANDONING THE CLIENT SIX (6) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, RESULTING IN PREJUDICED TO PETITIONER'S DEFENSE WITH THE DEATH OF FRENTE WILLIAMS.

6.) THE PETITIONER HAS SHOWN EVIDENCE THAT ATTORNEY CARL M. HUSTO WITHDREW FROM REPRESENTING IN A FRAUD CASE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO THE CLIENT, VIOLATING RULE 1.16 (d) OF THE NEW CALIFORNIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

THE PETITIONER HAS SHOWN THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, HAS AND CONTINUES TO DISREGARD THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER THE STATE BAR ACT, RULE 6083 (a).

6) THE PETITIONER IS HEREINOW PROVIDING EVIDENCE THAT COURT OFFICERS HAVE INADVERTENTLY VIOLATED THE ETHICS OF YOUR OFFICE BY DISREGARDING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 14TH AMENDMENT AND THE STATE BAR ACT, RULE 6083 (a).

4) THE PETITIONER HAS SHOWN THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA OVERLOOKED PETITIONERS UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 14TH AMENDMENT "RIGHT TO A FAIR NOTICE."

I.) THE PETITIONER HAS NO OTHER REMEDY OR USE IN WHICH TO COMPEL THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TO REVERSE AND/OR MODIFY ITS DECISION.

Whether the California Supreme Court abused its discretion and/or committed plain error by failing to follow the State Bar Act, Rule 3-700(a) and depriving a citizen of his constitutional 'right to a fair notice' as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment