1a. Isn't it true that under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, that Dr. Pierson, a self-represented party without alternative legal counsel then available, was entitled to due process and equal protection to advance and protect his property interests and rights in a court of justice before a jury of his peers without the Amador Trial Court holding those fundamental rights and liberty interests hostage to the extreme demand that Dr. Pierson must refuse to pursue the required emergency medical evaluation and treatment, but must alternatively be in attendance at trial at grave risk of permanent health injury and possibly even death?

1b. Furthermore, isn't it true that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes it unlawful and unconstitutional for any state court to deprive a U.S. citizen of those essential and fundamental rights and liberty interests protected by the U.S. Constitution as to all citizens of this Republic?

2a. Isn't it true that the denial of that right to Dr. Pierson caused by the trial court's immediate and unlawful dismissal of the case when Dr. Pierson was unable to attend the first day of trial as a self-represented party due to the exceptional good cause of an acute cardiac health emergency represents an absolutely intolerable and extreme deprivation of fundamental California and U.S. constitutionally protected rights and liberty interests that is completely alien to this Nation's Rule of law?

2b. Furthermore, isn't it true that such an example of gulag justice, which is unknown to our system of justice and the rule of law, has caused an exceptional and intolerable injustice to deprive Dr. Pierson, the only injured party here, of his essential and fundamental rights which requires and even demands immediate correction with the establishment of an unassailable case precedent which insures that no such injury is ever again perpetrated upon a U.S. citizen?

3a. Isn't it true that when an Insurer's involvement and contractually demanded complete control over the entirety of litigation which arises from an insured's negligent act(s) where that control far extends well beyond the provision of simple indemnification of the insured to exclusively involve the insurer's preferential management of the litigation to ameliorate its own financial risk and liability that exist in the case, the definition of those circumstances where that Insurer, a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, passes through the threshold where that corporate citizen must be permissibly considered a proper defendant in the case and not unlawfully and unequally protected by state statute or precedent?

3b. Isn't it true that the decisions of the California Courts inclusive of the Supreme Court of California to deny Dr. Pierson's right, as an injured third party, to proceed directly against CSAA et al. under those specific circumstances of this case where all risk at judgment as well as where the vast extent of professional and financial injury had been caused as a result of the Insurer's refusal to settle despite the existence of policy limit settlement offers repeatedly extended by Dr. Pierson over the long nine years representative of an unconstitutional deprivation in blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

Whether a self-represented party suffering a medical emergency can be denied due process and have their case dismissed for failing to appear at trial