Does Georgia Supreme Court Rule 38 conflict with federal law and preempt it?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 1. Does Georgia Supreme Court Rule 38 Requirement that a Petition fora Writ of Certiorari be filed within twenty (20) days of disposition of a motion for reconsideration while its federal Supreme Court counterpartRule 13 requires the filing of such Petition within 90 days conflict with countervailing federal law and therefore preempts it rendering Georgia rule 38 a nullity? 2 Does Georgia Supreme Court rule 38 (20 day) requirement for filing a writ of certiorari so far apart from this court’s requirement as to constitute a gross departure from the accepted and usual Practice or course of judicial proceeding in this court as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power? 3 Did Georgia Supreme Court violate the statutes and constitutions of United States and the State of Georgia by maintaining dual docketing system in this appeal one secrete which Petitioner was not allowed to see nor provided a copy and the other open to the public? 3 4 Does Georgia Supreme Court Justices’ dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal and their characterization of Petitioner’s motion for disclosure as “unusual” violate sixth amendment to United States Constitution, free speech right and whistle blower statute in bringing their unlawful and unethical practices to public light? 5. Was Judge Constance Russell divested of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the facts and circumstances of this case including the fact that she stole or rigged the case from Judge Ural Glanville who was randomly assigned the case so as to render all orders issued by her null and void? 6. Does Georgia law stating that “the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing an appeal and an order disposing of sucha motion is not appealable in its own right” so far apart from federal rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgments and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(I ) which effectively stays notice of appeal until the motion for reconsideration is ruled on, as to call for this court’s exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction and declare conflicting Georgia law a nullity? 4 7 Are there compelling public interests for Georgia Supreme Court to have granted the writ of review that override technical grounds the court used to avoid holding Respondents, Judges Russell and Tusan accountable for their violations of state and federal laws and the constitutions? 5 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Petitioner hereby certifies that this brief complies with type volume limitations set forth in Supreme Court Rule 14. It has been typed in Times New Roman 14 points font and contains 5, 817 words. Petitioner hereby states that in making this certificate, he has relied upon the “word count” program at the word processing system used to prepare this brief. =F Oduok 6