Do this Court's holding in Tumey v. Ohio and Ward v. Village of Monroeville apply to cases wherein additional money is paid to the judge for convictions, extra-judicially, through a pension fund?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Supreme Court has always held that state courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction in trials wherein the judge receives additional pecuniary gain for convictions that he will not receive in an acquittal. Arizona does not agree with, nor abides by, this Supreme Court’s holding. In Arizona, judges do receive additional pay for convictions and sentences by the Private Prison Corporations. Accordingly, jurisdiction is sine gua non to the following questions. 1, Do this Court’s holding in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) and Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972) apply to cases wherein additional money is paid to the judge for convictions, extra-judicially, through a pension fund? fe.g.: may judges’ and/or their pension(s) invest in the private prison corporation(s)?] 2. Does the Constitution’s Article I, § 10, clause 1 prohibition of States entering into an “Alliance or Confederation” prohibit the States from confederating with private prison corporations and/or other States to house State prisoners in non-government corporate facilities using taxation [State] derived funds? 3. Does jeopardy remain attached to a foriginal] criminal trial wherein, over defendant’s objection, the judge sua sponte declared a mistrial for jury deadlock after the judge speciously denied that the lesser included offense [that the jury requested] existed in State law, and the judge refused to provide correct answers or give additional instructions, leaving the jury misinformed about State law? 5