1. Is it not true that in view of the matters brought to be heard (see APPENDIX A-1a.) the Courts Summary denial is Unreasonable and advance the an Action 40 Show Cause. Evidentiary hearing is warranted?

2. Is it not true that Cal. courts not Mentioned by Cal.'s Const.y nor the Statutes that express jurisdiction for such Courts, are without laws but valid jurisdiction?

3. Is it not true where courts of the State fail to File and hear Pleadings presented by the Petitioner than the Petitioner's right to Petition is unlawfully abridged?

4. Is it not true that where Master Blacher, hereinafter "Defendant" Does hold Courier arms) deprived of liberty by means of unlawful ment of Law notwithstanding that the Petitioner is natural, civilly and a Material of the United States of America is beyond the Statute only expressed time for enforcement of such deprivation; thereby Constitutionally and Statutorily Stipulated exempt Property of the Petitioner is Unduly attached to accomplish said deprivation is a fraud in Fact. The Preservation Upon which said deprivation transpire $ and said deprivation Trans flow Simultaneously with continuing Summary Seizure of the Petitioner's Financial Income. i.e. Funds then such deprivation can Spire to Violation of the Constitution that shows of the United States?

5. Is it Not true that Imposition of a Court Contempt on the Petitioner's prior to Petitioner's Consent is unlawful?

6. Is it true that The Penal Code S2085 8 which Dis used for the taking (vi or cents) of items at a monetary item rendered at the SAR and is it true that Pending that such item is 0.2055 any for the Petitioner's single, our dispersed People/persons for such Seizure, Accomplished without a hearing, for past Mis eon due & execute Simultaneously as the aforesaid deprivation of the Petitioner's liberty) and that execute where the Petitioner has no representation your read by Persons that never have to answer to the Petitioner's but engage in lawful user against the Neutral civilian Petitioner 4 and execute for the benefit of a class we Petitioner is directly excluded from Participating Assent Bench with swe Const./laws S [treaties of the United States?

Whether the California courts' denial of an evidentiary hearing is unreasonable and violates due process