Three questions.

1. Patricia A. Cornell Trust. As a matter of law, did the Courts err when it denied Petitioner her Constitutional Due Process Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition, to have her rightful home in her mother's Property? Did the courts err in failing to recognize the Settler's INTENT for the Beneficiary Petitioner's right to an expressed gift with a mandatory commandment with use of the word: "Shall" of a Life Estate? Whether a Trustee can take away the rights of exclusive possession of the Property from a Beneficiary? Does the law still recognize unanswered conflicts regarding a Beneficiaries Right of Occupancy, and when a trustee has a right to sell the Property? As a matter of law, did the Court err in failing to recognize that a Court shall prove the validity of Extrinsic Evidence before allowing it in as Admissible Evidence, knowing full well drafting lawyers' Testimony was False?

There has been no unpublished case like this for over one hundred years. The Case: California Supreme Court: Le Breton v. Cook, (Le Breton) 107 Cal. 410 (1895).

2. Petitioner was denied her Constitutional Right of Due Process to have an Impartial Trial Judge and a Fair Trial. Petitioner was denied her Right of Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition under the First Amendment. Petitioner filed a written Verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant to CCP section 170.3 (c) (1), for disqualification of the Trial judge for Bias, Prejudice or lack of impartiality under CCP 170.1 (a) (6). The Trial Court failed to follow any of the prescribed statutory procedure. So, the Trial Judge held the Trial Illegally. As a matter of law, did the court err in failing to recognize that the California Supreme Court in People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 322, 332, ("Brown"), summarizing and quoting Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309, "Arizona", squarely held an appeals court may consider a Constitutional Due Process challenge to the denial of a disqualification motion based on Judicial Bias, even on appeal from a final judgement. In Brown, the Court strongly suggested that a litigant raising a disqualification issue on appeal from a final judgement in most cases must have pursued the writ remedy and been summarily denied. Petitioner sought writ review and was summarily denied. Did appeals court err in failing to recognize Procedural requirements of CCP 170.1, 170.3? As a matter of law, whether a State Court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to follow mandatory statutory procedures for adjudicating a timely challenge to the trial judge's impartiality under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 170.1(a)(6) and 170.3 — procedures the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held are Constitutionally required to protect the right to an impartial tribunal, see Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), and Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) when the trial court simply ignored the verified statement of disqualification, no Judge ruled on it, and the court of appeal refused to review the claim on direct appeal despite this Court

Whether a state court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment rights by: (1) denying a beneficiary's constitutional right to an impartial tribunal by failing to follow mandatory statutory procedures for adjudicating a timely challenge to judicial bias under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 170.1 and 170.3; (2) denying a fee-waiver litigant's right to a court reporter in violation of Government Code § 68086 and Jameson v. Desta; and (3) failing to recognize the settlor's intent regarding a beneficiary's life estate rights in trust property