1. Does May 17, 2022 Order of California
Supreme Court violate the First
Amendment, Fifth Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution
pursuant to Ringgold Lockhert v.
County of L.A., 781 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.
2014) in that it willfully delayed
adjudication by 3 months and used a
voidable prefiling order that has not
met any requirements of Ringgold to
block Petitioner 's fundamental right to
access the court on her habeas corpus
petition that concerns imminent child
safety and unlawful child custody
confinement with a summary denial?
The requirements are the court must (1) give
litigant notice and "an opportunity to oppose
the order before it is entered, (2) compile an
adequate record for appellate review,
including "a list of all the cases and motions
that led the district court to conclude that a
vexatious litigant order was needed "; (3) make
substantive findings of frivolousness or
harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly
so as "to closely fit the specific vice
encountered. "

2. Should Habeas Corpus be granted under the
circumstances that Petitioner has been
deprived of child custody in violation of due
process since August 4, 2010, delayed child
custody return by fraudulent dismissal of her
child custody appeal (H040395) by 4.5 years,
and unlawfully blocked access to the family
case since 2016 with a Prefiling Order in a
way violated due process and the child safety
and health is still at jeopardy due to
Respondent Tsan-Kuen Wang 's dangerous
mental illness?

Is November 4, 2013 's child custody order void
as it is based on the void order of August 4,
2010 that had been vacated and McManis
Faulkner law firm had tacitly admitted that
the order was drafted by the law firm?

Should the November 4, 2013 's child custody
order be reversed in view of clear and
convincing evidence of the court 's conspiracy
in destroying the court record of the
Certificate of Court Reporter 's Waiving
Deposit filed on May 8, 2014 and creating false
notices alleging Petitioner 's failure to procure
the transcripts from the court reporter and
used that as the sole ground to dismiss the
appeal?

Should the Prefiling Order signed by Judge
Maureen Folan be void as it is unsupported by
a Statement of Decision and the Statement of
Decision did not cite California Code of Civil
Procedure §391.7 when the order failed to
satisfy any of the procedural safeguards
required by Ringgold Lockhert v. County of
LA., 781 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014)?

Is California Code of Civil Procedure §391.7
void for being overbroad with flat prefiling
screening without restriction to an area of
practice, which is in conflict with the law of
Ringgold Lockhert v.

Does May 17, 2022 Order of California Supreme Court violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment