California's 1928 Constitutional Amendment withdrew au
thority for California Supreme Court (CSC) to adopt appel
late rules, after giving that authority in 1926 to Judicial
Council of California (JCC), composed of many justices and
judges.
In 1974, CSC began adopting rules, governing all parties
in all California courts, barring stare-decisis citation to se
lected cases, even when the case re-litigates a past case with
the same parties and privies under the same determinative
law and facts, as here.
Using stare decisis, CSC barred all lower courts from re
viewing CSC's no-stare-decisis rules' constitutionality, then
denied Appellants' review-petition, thereby preventing any
state-court review.
Questions raised:
Does U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, §1 (14A-§1) al
low California Supreme Court to adopt Calif. Rules Of Court
(CRC), CRC.8.1100-1125 (Title 8, Div.5), governing all state
courts, bar lower-court review of no-stare-decisis rules-un-
der stare decisis, then deny its own (petitioned) review,
thereby preventing any state-court review of state-rules' con
stitutionality?
Did CSC violate 14A-§1 to bar stare-decisis citation after
losing constitutional authority in 1928 to adopt any appel
late rules?
Are CSC's no-stare-decisis rules unconstitutional by con
tent or effects?
Given that stare decisis bars any lower court review, does
CSC denial of petitioned review of CSC rules violate Appel
lants' statutory rights to appeal?
What procedures must American courts use to satisfy
Boddie u. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 375 (1971) (Boddie **)
requirements to never exercise its "monopoly...over binding
conflict resolution " to assume subject-matter-jurisdiction
over a case outside society-set boundaries?
Under 14A-§1, may an attorney firm advise corporate
board members, then sue the board-majority on the subjects
of the advice?

Whether the California Supreme Court's no-stare-decisis rules violate the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing lower court review of rule constitutionality and denying petitioned review