Nadejda Rozanova, et vir v. Rafael S. Uribe

Pursuant to Rule 10(c):" a state court... .has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court." In U.S. Supreme Court case of Grannis v.Ordean (1914) 234 U.S. 385, 34S. Ct. 779, 58 L. Ed. 1363 [234 US. 385] the Court stated, "The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be hear... "from which relevant and probative evidence has been omitted is not a fair hearing." In petitioners' case Courts (Superior and Appellate) decided that they allowed disrupting Due Process (guaranteed by 14 Amendment and decision of this Court) by omitting numerous (more than 18) relative and probative facts and laws. Courts did not argue or contradicts presented facts and laws, as if they did not hear them. They just omitted them and use only facts and laws which support Courts' legal theory. It striped petitioners from opportunity to be heard. Thus by 14 Amendment and this Court ruling in Grannis it has not been a fair hearing. It looks that omission became a common practice in California Courts since both Superior and Appellate Court use it. And this Court should stop this unconstitutional practice. Omitted facts and laws will be presented bellow in details.