Gabriela Gonzalez v. Harvey Roney, et al.

The Arizona Appellate Court, misstated issues of material fact; b) there is a fundamental error in the opinion of the court of Appeals, which misrepresents the analysis and the results; c) an erroneous findings of procedural default; d) lack of due diligence on the part of the Appellate court; e) there is a reasonable possibility of a cure by means of rehearing. Gilbert Aguirre v. The Industrial Commission of ArizonalCity of Goodyear Appendix H, opinion of the the Arizona Supreme Court; it was held that when an administrative Law Judge fails to make findings on all material issues necessary to resolve the case, the award is legally deficient and must be set aside.160 Ariz. 4,7-9 (1989).

1. Whether article III of the constitution confines the federal judicial power to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies” in which a plaintiff has a personal stake, and permits damages to plaintiff. Plaintiff in this case asserted tangible and intangible harm suffered, submitted evidence of concrete injury, in fact physical, mental harm and financial harm? Raines u. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819-820. To have Article III standing to sue in Federal Court, a plaintiff must show, that she suffered concrete injury inn-fact.

2. Whether Arizona Supreme Court and theArizona Appellate court, violated the equal protection component of the Due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment, by their lack of due diligence in their findings; made evident prejudice and unconstitutionality of the Arizona judicial system. Denying plaintiff an oral argument, to identify the evidence that clearly the appellate court incorrectly characterized and missed?

3. Whether the Appellate Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court are practicing in a form of systematic discrimination, against the pro se litigants, when each charges $280.00 to file a complaint, however, both agencies of the law, forbid unrepresented litigants from participating in the oral argument process. It is blatantly a discriminatory rule against pro se litigants, which violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

4. Whether Superior Court erred by precluding Petitioner to mention criminal charges pursuant A.R.S 13-1204 (A) (8)(e), was it a judicial error and/or violation of the due process clause? Petitioner is a healthcare worker and she works in a public place.

5. Whether the refusal of Superior Court order to give a jury instruction on the grounds of spoliation of evidence by defendant, constitutes a judicial error/abuse of discretion, and/or violation of the Due process clause? Superior Court order defendant Depuy to produce all evidence on 9/17/2019, which Depuy disobedient disregarded a court order.

6. Whether Jury’s extraneous prejudicial influence, deprived Petitioner of a impartial trial, which is unconstitutional under the sixth amendment of the U.S Constitution, Civil litigants are entitle to impartial jurors who will fairly and honestly deliberate the case without interference from personal biased or prejudice?

7. Whether jurors have the right and duty to judge all the circumstances, the law, the evidence and the facts to deliver a fair and honest verdict? 8. whether the Judge failed to exercise constitutional discretion to uphold the law, inquiring into the validity of the verdict to determine whether ethically biased statements were made during deliberation and, if so, whether there is a substance probability that any such comments made a difference in the outcome of the verdict?

8. Whether petitioner was denied due process clause under the fourteen amendment, for the lack of counsel, when The Arizona Supreme Court and the Appellate Court denied an oral argument?

9. What method the appellate court applied in conducting a plain error review of the trial and, in particular, what body of evidence the Appellate court relied on to misstate the facts of the battery assault? Due process requires at a minimum the orderly judicial review, of any disputed matters that arise from failure to review the evidence and to procure justice. The unconstitutionality of the Arizona Supreme Court and Appellate Court of Arizona, on the violation of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, towards pro se litigants. The U.S Supreme Court has partially incorporated the 5th amendment, to the States through the Due Process clause. This case is of public matter, as the battery assault occurred in a public healthcare institution, there are 6 major Honorhealth hospitals and about 70 primary and specialty care clinics just in Arizona. This HonorHealth Shea Hospital is located in Scottsdale Arizona. There is physical and sexual abuse rooted in the Arizona healthcare system.