1. In this case of perilously profound impression, did the Court of Appeal violate the due process rights of Appellant when it arbitrarily disregarded allegations by the Appellant without a hearing at the eleventh hour based on its contention that those allegations characterize his correspondence with the Hollywood Chamber in a manner that conflicts with the actual text of that correspondence provided in the exhibits to determine that the Hollywood Chamber did not waive performance of the conditions precedent?

2a. Where the Court of Appeal simultaneously served as the factfinder and the reviewing court, did the Court of Appeal violate the due process rights of Appellant in determining that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof "clear and convincing" evidence standard to prove the Hollywood Chamber waived performance of the conditions precedent for the star awarded to Robin?

2b. (In a related question) Did the Court of Appeal violate the sacred right to a trial by jury and the due process rights of Appellant when it made the decision on whether the Hollywood Chamber waived performance of the conditions precedent and thereby precluding a jury to make this determination?

Did the Court of Appeal violate the due process rights of Appellant?