Fairness in divorce trials

1. Whether fabrication of evidence and findings by the presiding trial judge, Honorable SUZANNE PARISIEN, violated Rodrigue’s right to due process under the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, where Honorable SUZANNE PARISIEN was already notoriously known for fabricating evidence and findings and denied the Motion for Judge Disqualification. 2. Whether consideration, by the Washington Court of Appeals, of the Crucial New Evidence indisputably concealed by Valerie throughout proceedings in the King County Superior Court (“KCSC”) and introduced for the first time on appeal long after briefing had closed, deprived Rodrigue of due process of law under the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. 3. Whether the Order Adjusting Trial Date is void and trial was premature. 4. Whether Valerie and KCSC’s refusal to serve divorce trial notices, orders, and pleadings at Rodrigue’s Designated Address For Service (“DAFS”) violated the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. 5. Whether alleged service-by-email of the trial notice was untimely and thus deprived Rodrigue of due process of law. 6. Whether KCSC lacked the authority to enter the Attorney’s Fees Order and the Final Child Support Order, and thus violated due process of law.