1. WHETHER, video cameras used in public are protected by The United States Constitution, especially when applying and exercising under the 1st Amendment's Protected Rights of The United States Constitution?

2. WHETHER, when a California State Superior Court Family Law Judge can make an ORDER that a Party and Non-Parties to a Family Law Case must not videotape in a public parking lot, violates the Constitutional Rights of the Party and non-Parties, in the Court Case under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution?

3. WHETHER, Appellate Court erred by its decision that dismissed Appellant's Case?

4. WHETHER, California Supreme Court Judge Tani G. Cantil-Sakauve erred and abused her discretion by denying Appellant's/Petitioner's Petition to review her Case?

5. WHETHER, Appellate Court Assistant Deputy Clerk III Ben Haskett erred in awarding "Respondent shall recover costs on appeal"?

6. WHETHER, Appellate Court Deputy Clerk David Welton erred in awarding "Respondent to recover costs on appeal"?

7. WHETHER, Acting P.J. Robie erred in dismissing Appellant's/Petitioner's two Appeals?

8. WHETHER, the Appellate Court (signed by Robie. Acting P.J.) erred in determining that the orders appealed by Appellant/Petitioner were non-appealable?

9. WHETHER, Petitioner's Constitutional 4th Amendment Rights were violated when the Appellate Court finalized and erred by Assistant Deputy Clerk Ben Haskett signed, instead of Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann. and by ordering that "Respondent shall recover costs on appeal" and thereby abused its discretion by issuing Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner an order to recover cost from Petitioner?

10. WHETHER, the Appellate Court Acting P.J. Robie erred and abused his/her discretion by determining and ordering that the Petitioner's appeals were non-appealable?

11. WHETHER, Petitioner's Constitutional 4th Amendment Rights were violated when the Appellate Court finalized and erred by Deputy Clerk David Welton signed, instead of Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann. and by ordering that "Respondent shall recover costs on appeal" and thereby abused its discretion by issuing Defendant/Appellant/Petitioner an order to recover cost from Petitioner?

12. WHETHER, Petitioner's Constitutional 5th Amendment Rights were violated when the Trial Superior Court of California Family Law Judge John P. Winn made an ORDER that Petitioner/Party and Non-Parties to a Family Law Case must say specific words, phrases, and statements of the Judge's choosing and the Judge's specific chosen topics, or Petitioner could be criminally and or civilly charged?

13. WHETHER, Petitioner's Constitutional 9th Amendment Rights were violated when the Trial Superior Court of California Family Law Judge John P. Winn made an order restricting Petitioner from exercising her previously stated Constitutional Protected rights to videotape in a public parking lot?

14. WHETHER, Petitioner's Constitutional 14th Amendment Rights to Due Process were violated when the Trial Superior Court Judge John P. Winn treated Black Petitioner Carina Conerly less favorably than Filipino Respondent Sharif Tarpin during Court Proceedings (e.g., when Judge Winn allowed Respondent Sharif Tarpin to file meritless Ex Parte hearing, when Judge Lauri Damrell

whether-video-cameras-in-public-are-protected-by-1st-amendment