Does the state court have subject-matter jurisdiction in a trial wherein the judge shall receive extrajudicially paid pecuniary gain for a conviction and/or sentence that the judge will not receive for an acquittal or mistrial?

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 Courts do not agree with, nor abide by, this Supreme Court’s relevant holdings. : In Arizona, judges do receive additional pay for convictions and sentences from the ; Private Prison Corporations. Accordingly, subject-matter jurisdiction is sine qua non to the following questions. 1. Does the state court have subject-matter jurisdiction in a trial wherein the judge of which shall receive extrajudicially paid pecuniary gain (“Graft”) for a conviction and/or sentence that the judge will not receive for an acquittal or mistrial? a) If not, is such a conviction and sentence void and/or voidable? b) Does the fact that the Graft is paid by and/or laundered through a Pension Fund diminish the effect of the Graft on the subject-matter jurisdiction? 2. Must Petitioner’s conviction and sentence be vacated due to the fact the judge in Petitioner’s trial shall [and/or is] receive Graft for the conviction and sentence — pursuant to Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) and Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972)? ; a) If so, is Petitioner considered a “slave” since he is now held as a collateralized ‘ commodity by an Arizona confederate corporation even though Petitioner has not been “duly convicted” in a court of competent jurisdiction as required by the Thirteenth Amendment and Article III of the Constitution? b) If so, should Petitioner be “Emancipated” pursuant to the Emancipation Proclamation and/or the Thirteenth Amendment and/or this Supreme Court’s holding in U.S. v. Amistad, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 518 (1841)? 4 BASIS FOR QUESTIONS ; Pursuant to the Thirteen Amendment and Article III of the United States Constitution, , being “duly convicted” in a court of competent subject-matter jurisdiction is sine qua non to conviction and imprisonment, i.e.: legally held as a “slave” by the Government and/or a corporation for the Government. Pursuant to the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments the judge’s ; impartiality is sine qua non to the trial and sentencing court having subject-matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to this Supreme Court, the judge’s interest and/or absence of interest in the outcome of a matter is sine gua non to bias, impartiality, prejudice, and Due Process of Law. Pursuant to the unconscionable unconstitutional contractual Confederation between the STATE OF ARIZONA, Arizona, Private Prisons, other States, et al, judges are paid illegal Graft for convictions and sentences that they are not paid for acquittals and/or mistrials, laundered. through the judges’ Pension Fund, by the Private Prisons to keep the Private Prisons full so that the Private Prisons can unlawfully acquire taxpayer derived funds. The Arizona courts and prosecutors consistently discard all arguments presented relevant to subject-matter jurisdiction by deflecting the arguments towards other jurisdiction concepts, e.g.: in personum jurisdiction, because the courts (judges) and the State (prosecutors) are well aware that the courts cannot, and do not, possess the requisite subject-matter jurisdiction due to the Graft paid by the Private Prisons to the judges for convictions with prison sentences. : 5