Audrey L. Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC, et al.

Whether the California Federal District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals intentionally and willfully deprived petitioner of all Rights under 18 U.S.C.§ 242 Equal Protections under the law, violations of the United States Constitution, including two Bill of Rights as an assault victim during financial abuse, which the petitioner requested in petitioners complaint and appeal. Does the Supreme Court find it appropriate by law under the United States Constitution and Federal Civil Rule 60 and Civil Rule 59 to VACATE ALL orders and Mandate, as ALL orders conflict, error of law, and reflect VACATED orders by Honorable Magistrate Nathanael Cousins, and denied petitioners Rights under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) to deny a Magistrate judge by law and request a United States District Court judge voted in by a President of The United States.

Whether the District Court and Ninth Circuit denied petitioners First Amendment Rights to be heard by failing to offer court time per the United States Constitution, and while this case involves intentional Extrinsic Fraud.

Whether the District Court and Ninth Circuit failed to acknowledge multiple Federal Crimes as in, Mortgage Fraud involving Fraud for profits, Conspiracy, Proven Wiretapping, Forgery, Mortgage Wire Fraud, Forced Extortion and Robbery under the Federal Hobbs Act, Obstruction of Justice, False Foreclosure and sell, Title Theft, Tampering with Evidence concerning Real Estate financial documents after a fraud closing and involving Extrinsic Fraud in both Texas and California Federal District Courts.

Whether this case was ruled in error concerning proper jurisdiction in California Federal District Court, therefore is not a Texas state case, nor frivolous, as orders omitted facts of Federal laws after District Court Honorable judge Edward Davila viewed crucial evidence, and while tampering with Federal defendants in this case and ruling with VACATED orders of the Magistrate judge collectively.

Whether the District Court and Ninth Circuit judges intentionally ignored proven and self admittance of Mortgage Fraud with profiting, willful and intentional Conspiracy involving all respondents, and respondents admitting to premeditated obstruction of justice while following through. 6. Whether the District Courts retaliated against petitioner by retracting a Forma Pauperis after petitioner paid for the case fee in full by check, and after petitioner filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Whether the Federal orders should have been VACATED, as requested by petitioner, and the California Courts failed to acknowledge the extended case time frame during a global pandemic, intentional obstruction in this case as the petitioner had no control and petitioner has Rights to a fast trial per Domestic Violence assault victim laws, including Marsy's Law and Article 1 of the California Constitution under Financial abuse.

Whether the Federal District Courts in California failed to offer petitioner Proper Procedural Due Process, failed to acknowledge No Due Process by respondents while respondents created false and misleading statements in Court and Financial Documents Under the color of law in Texas, and unlawfully obtaining petitioners personal property, including Heirloom furniture against petitioners will in exchange for commerce.

Whether the petitioner should be awarded a filed Default Judgement after serving all respondents per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Court Order TIME SCHEDULE date, and the Ninth Circuit then failed to acknowledge a filed motion by petitioner for a hearing to discuss prior to a final order and mandate against petitioners First Amendment Right.

Whether the California District Court judge intentionally ignored Fiduciary Theft by Texas respondent, Margaret Poissant, Esq., which was documented in the petitioners original Federal complaint, and after the California District Court judge viewed evidence of self admittance of Conspiracy and Fraud by this respondent who was running for Judgeship in Texas at the time of the state case. This also involved respondents, Sarah Vida, Esq and Tanglewood Condominium Owners, involving checks placed in Margaret Poissant, Esq. name after the original checks were written in petitioner's name.