Whether the Circuit Court of Fairfax County erred in captioning the final order as 'Commonwealth of Virginia versus Petitioner' when the lower court documents indicated 'County of Fairfax v. Petitioner'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW A) SCOTUS Rule 10(b) — Whether or not the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (hereafter “FCCC”) erred by , entering its 1/15/2019 “Final Order” captioned sua sponte “Commonwealth of Virginia versus [Petitioner[’ when the lower Fairfax County General District Court’s (hereafter “FCGDC’s”) 11/13/2018 documents: a) “Notice of Appeal ~ Criminal” and b) the likewise “Disposition Order — Uniform Summons” initially created “County of Fairfax v. [Petitioner],” FCCC Case No. MI-20181766, where these two controlling documents determined two different Prosecuting Authorities? ; B) SCOTUS Rule 10(b) — Whether or not the Court of Appeals of Virginia (hereafter “COAV”) erred by dismissing sua sponte Petitioner’s appeal without remanding for an FCCC “Amended Final Order” opining that Petitioner’s 1/23/2019 “Notice of Appeal” in Record No. 0135-19-4 “fail[ed] to name a necessary party” when: a) no appellee ever appeared in the COAV to oppose Petitioner; while his “Notice of Appeal:” b) stated “Fairfax County Code §82-5-43 is Unconstitutional with respect to the Constitution of Virginia, ... and the ... U.S. Guarantee Clause;” c) attached a copy of the sua sponte captioned 1/15/2019 FCCC “Final Order;” and c) “was hand delivered in accordance with RSCV Rule 5A:6(a) to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office for Prosecutor it) Maureen E. Cummins, VA Bar #85680, ...?” C) SCOTUS Rule 10(b) — Whether or not Petitioner received “Equal Justice Under Law” in the Supreme Court of Virginia (hereafter “SCV”) when that SCV : “refused” to accept Jurisdiction of its Record No. 200331 citing VA Code §17.1-410(A)(1) & (B) where | Petitioner’s 1/23/2019 FCCC to COAV “Notice of : Appeal” invoked his U.S. Amendment V & XIV Due Process Rights with Constitution of Virginia (hereafter “COV”), Article I, Section 3 Right which were nullified by the SCV due to Virginia and Federal Rights (including COV, Article I, Section 2 & 5) being systematically unenforced in Virginia’s Non-Federal Courts unlike in the Supreme Courts of IA and WI? D) SCOTUS Rule 10(c) — Whether or not the 1971 COV is unconstitutional with respect to the: a) U.S. Supremacy Clause when the SCV interprets the Constitution of the United States & its U.S. Bill of Rights via COV, Article VI, Sections 1 & 2; and/or b) U.S. Guarantee Clause as interpreted by Duncan v. McCall, 139 U.S. 449, 461, 11 S.Ct. 573, 577 (1891) with Virginia State, County, and City Judges “chosen by” members of the Virginia General Assembly not “elected by” the People via COV, Article VI, Section 7? E) SCOTUS Rule 10(c) — Whether or not current interpretation of the Constitution of the United States empowers this Supreme Court of the United States (herein “SCOTUS”) to Declare for the U.S. Congress and/or Order the Virginia Governor/General Assembly I that a Virginia Constitutional Convention must meet to frame for Virginia Citizens’ ratification a new COV which is in accordance with the U.S. Supremacy Clause and/or the U.S. Guarantee Clause? If so, whether or not this SCOTUS will so Declare or Order? F) SCOTUS Rule 10(c) Whether or not Petitioner’s invoked COV, Article I, Section 3 Right will be enforced by the SCOTUS to force Virginia: a) to reform its illegitimate Judicial Department establishing fair and impartial trials in accordance with the Due Process of U.S. Amendment V & XIV Rights; and/or b) to abandon its Contributory Negligence Tort Rule for the equitable principles of Comparative Negligence during and after Virginia Judicial Reform? G) SCOTUS Rule 10(c) To the extent that a Congressional Procedural Filibuster postponed or prevented full disclosure of the cause(s) of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on or about 1/6/2021 which jeopardizes and/or prevents Congress’ continuous duty to guarantee Virginia a Republican Form of Government, whether or not the Congressional Filibuster is Unconstitutional with respect to the U.S. Guarantee Clause? SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS FAIRLY INCLUDED (SCV 2/26/