Whether a party is entitled to a new trial for violations of their 5th, 13th, and 14th Amendment rights when the state judge presiding over the case is donating to the political campaign of the defendant chairman

QUESTIONS PRESENTED May a party who appears before a state judge who at the same time is donating to the | political campaign of the defendant chairman be entitled to a new trial for wilful violations of his | 5th, 13th & 14th amendment rights. For in all instances the state judges’ “conflicts” is reflected | in their rulings/orders May a party who is denied Fair and Impartial adjudication of his (federal civil rights) , claims, by state judge, deprived of his basic due process and equal protection rights, upon filing a Motion to Reopen case per NH statute be entitled to new-assigned judge to be also free, of all | conflicts of interest: pecuniary-personal motives, the very basic for said motion to reopen. This new J Delker also had conflict of interest with defendant’s Chairman, Lamontagne, who, per then NH AG Mclaughlin, provided them information (in the catholic abuse cases). May a party be entitled to seek redress from the [NH] state’s highest court for Due Process and Equal Protection and upon that denial and deprivation for relief then seek and petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the United States Supreme Court for full vindication of his May the state of NH be required to protect substantive due process and equal protections tights and adhere to provisions of 28 U.S.C S 455(a). In Allied Signal, 891 F.2 970, US Supreme Court held “if the factual basis established by the moving party provides what and objective, knowledgeable member of the public would find to be a reasonable basis for doubting a judge’s impartiality, then recusal under 28 U.S.C S 455(a) is required.” Is not NH required to adhere to statute(s) and case law to satisfy an Equal Protection clause and Due Process of law, guaranteed, provided and protected to all. I May NH adhere to Circuits and US Supreme Court stare decisis in US v. Snyder, 235 F.3d 46 (ist Cir. 2000) the court stated that the “duty to sit does not exert equal weight with avoiding appearance of impropriety.” For undisclosed conflict of interest constitutes theft of honest services. Does Not Fraud [on court] violates due process of law, and terminates the “intangible Tight to honest services” promised to the People. 18 U.S.C. § 1346. “A conspiracy to Obstruct an individual's legitimate efforts to seek judicial redress for such a claim interferes with the individual's Due Process Right of access to the courts”. Bell, 746 F.2d 1261 May the US Constitution also protects “the right of individuals to pursue legal redress for claims which have a reasonable basis in Law.and Fact is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments”. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 741, 103 S.Ct. 2161, 2169, 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983) Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1261 (7th Cir.1984). May a plaintiff be able to vindicate his federal substantive rights as defendant, its executives, agents and (state upon discovering the deep connections of said conspirators to violate his substantive rights in an artifice to defraud in a fraudulent foreclosure(while current on our mortgage) as illegal retaliation. The pattern of misconduct evidenced a series of mortgage/financial institution fraud and conspiracy to commit bank loans/financial institution fraud by said executives and their co-conspirators. May not at all times, an impartial trier of facts free of all “conflicts of interest”; personal, pecuniary and familial be a constitutional guarantee to a free, fair and impartial (free of biases and/or prejudices) tribunal to achieve the US constitutional rights guarantees! For at all cases/times St Mary’s control-conspiracy in the state [NH] looms. 2