The questions presented in this case are:

1. Does due process require reversal of California
Sixth District Court of Appeal ' s Judgment of
June 4, 2019 [hereinafter "June 4 2019 's
Judgment "] when the named Justice writing the
Judgment does not exist?

2. Does due process require reversal of June 4
2019 's Judgment as the Presiding Justice Mary
J. Greenwood failed to disclose her conflicts in
interest (She was discovered to be the wife of
Judge Edward Davila who was the trial court
judge for this appeal in 2009 when issues
involved include judiciary corruptions)?

3. Does due process require reversal of June 4
2019 's Judgment as the Sixth District Court of
Appeal knowingly caused the records on appeal
to be incomplete in missing material records
filed by SHAO about Remittitur when the
Remittitur Opinion of March 14, 2014 of Judge
Theodore Zayner was made based entirely on
written submission without trial except a
hearing for the sole purpose to check on the
submission status despite the missing records
were named in the Notice of Designation of
records?

4. Does due process require reversal of June 4
2019 's Judgment as it issued an illegal 10-day
oral argument waiver notice (App.55) and
disallowed oral argument when Petitioner
requested that on the 11th day (App.53)?

5. Should June 4 2019 's Judgment (App.58-81) be
reversed as the Sixth District Appellate Court
fraudulently referenced two material records
filed by SHAO to pretend they had reviewed
and falsely stated that they had reviewed the
entire records (e.g.,App.74,L. 14) but these
filings are not in the Records on Appeal as the
Court specifically excluded these records from
the records on appeal and denied SHAO 's
motion to "augment " these records that were
identified in the Notice of Designation of
Records?

6. Should the June 4 2019 's Judgment be reversed
for omitting from discussion all major issues'of
the appeal requested by Petitioner such as the
child support order in the stipulated judgment of
May 2008 was illegal for being well below the
guideline support without participation of the
child support agency in violation of California
public policy codified in California Family
Code §4065(c), the court 's failure to refund
SHAO 's $10,000 undertaking since January
2012 and the bias and prejudice of Judge
Zayner, Santa Clara County Court and the Sixth
District Court of Appeal by blindly twisting the
facts that legal authorities were indeed provided
in the Opening Brief (E.g., OB, P.9 and P.22 for
the legal authorities to change venue)?

7. Does due process require judges who are
members of the American Inns of Court to
disclose their social relationship with the
interested third parties to the underlying family
case who are members of the same chapter of
the American Inns of Court and is an attorney
for at least a Justice at the appellate court and

Does due process require reversal of California Sixth District Court of Appeal's Judgment of June 4, 2019 when the named Justice writing the Judgment does not exist?