Whether a criminal defendant's right to an impartial judge under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires correction before trial or conviction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether this Court’s decision in Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017) which concerns a structural error of the Constitutional denial of an impartial judge . in a criminal case under the fifth and fourteenth amendment due process clauses requires correction or vindication before a trial or conviction where all the facts of the disqualifying issues are fully developed. , (2) Whether a criminal Defendant as an individual that exercises his right to Establish himself as a religion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in . the free exercise thereof in his belief and practice is called by his Creator to investigate judicial corruption, can be required to go through pretrial and trial by the very judges that he is investigating and which these same judges have knowledge of these ongoing investigations consistent with the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. ; (3) Whether a State’s appellate and highest court can refuse to apply Supreme Court precedent such as in Rippo, Withrow\vs Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456,.43' Li Edi2d' 712 1975), and. Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579°U:S: 195 Dida 13916016) again and again and SillBe given deference and it not be held ", that bringing ’the issue to 'said state courts 18’ not only establish futility that itis | <a [1