B: Did 5th district court was in error, bias or abuse discretion when it gave opinion on appeal in a case No: F0870504 and posted Incorrect Date on Opinion When Opinion Not Issued on 12/2/24 and when opinion given on feb, oq exhibit BIC- Did 5th district in error when Issued invalid Remittitur on feb 3 25 when opinion never issued or waiver of oral argument in this case and the matter stands submitted as of the date of 'fXtettoSal 14th amendment amendments,due process ) (Exhibit B) Did the lower courts errjn fa l'nS to renSto conflicts and procedural irregularities, including the issuance of orders without prope due process?

C: Whether the Tulare Superior Court showed error, bias and abused its discretion in the irulineI on Dec 5:23 I ? (record on appeal 4051-4062), Nov 1523? (record on appeal 3398-4003) land a ruling onAugust 22-23, A pp Tion^/record on appeal 2774-2789) and entering judgment on 11/30/25? ( Exhibit G) .

D- Did Dental Board of California, department of consumer affairs, state of California made erroneous and abuse-of discretion hOtoerDen^igOrder on reconsideration Petition issue on 21st day of August 23 (record on > appeal 4208-4210) based on Petition reconsideration Aug 16 2023?id ophthalmology pat Compensated under imminent . _ain laaa Rnnm Co v Patterson (1879) when deprived of property or for economic injury? ( Exhibit D) rs m'rXi^20th 2023) based on Accusations that were brought on Aug 17 22?.(record on appeal 4122-4127,4128 4131) Stal Board of California, department of consumer affairs, state of California made > erroneou discretion when issued Order compelling mental and physical «amm«flon^us06«U based on Petition to compelling mental and physical examination^ and prof code S820) filed on 06/24/zz i

g" Sid Dental IS/department of consumer affairs, state of California made ™o Rabuse

H-DiXnXrci of California, department of consumer affairs, state of California made erroneous and abuse of discretion when issued further "Notice of revocation due to non compliance with the evaluation on Oct13 23 while Xged WSS and retaliatory "duc[ State violations of the plaintiffs civil rights unde, 42 u.s.c. S -SSS.S37-. » U.S.C. S -M2. 1.

J:Kd tee tower courts demonstrate bias or abuse of discretion In their rulings, including tee denial of H°dX^ concerns regarding the protection of whistleblowers and vidafions^breTchof fiduciary d^tey, and retaliation under federal and ^ate laws, indud^ingtee^Sherman Antitrust Act, California 's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and 42 U.S. . § ■ 9

JVferatee da"nW'sc?nXtlonal and civil fights, including First and Fourteenth Amendment.and iX rtghKoteted through aileged misconduct,

Whether the judicial review of material errors can be obstructed