Arthur Edward Ezor, Petitioner v. Ellie Page

1. The Supreme Court of California should not have denied the Petition for Review, and the subject Order against EZOR should be reversed. 2. The Supreme Court of California had inherent and statutory authority to order the relief requested and violated constitutional norms in not properly ruling in favor of EZOR and against ELLIE PAGE ( “ PAGE ”). 3. The Supreme Court of California denied EZOR proper and meaningful constitutional review. 4. Denying EZOR review, and a full-fledged hearing on the merits, with oral argument and a reasoned written decision, was a denial of Due Process and Equal Protection of Laws under both the California and U.S. Constitutions. 5. Denial of review violated EZOR ’ s First Amendment right of access to the courts. 6. Procedural and substantive due process was violated, and valuable Property, legal and equitable rights were abridged and lost, when the Supreme Court of California did not reverse the improper granting of summary judgment by the trial court (App.la), and the Court of Appeal ’ s affirmance of same (App.2a). There are material triable issues in the case that should have been heard by a jury. 7. EZOR was denied his primordial constitutional right to a jury trial pursuant to the 14th and 7th Amendments and appropriate remedies in law and equity. 8. The reversible improper, unlawful granting of summary judgment by the lower courts was cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 9. As there was a plethora of material triable issues, it was a denial of due process equal protection of laws and the right to a jury to grant summary judgment against EZOR and in favor of PAGE.