Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio erred in refusing to accept jurisdiction of appellants' memorandum, despite the fact that the appellate court erred on October 7, 2020 in denying a motion to set aside a magistrate's order

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . How Come the SuPreme Court of ohio in Case No. 2081-0023 refused to accePt Junsdickon of aPPetlants” Memoranduna” KNowing the FACT +hAx the APPe\late Couat exced on OCT. A% 20280 (Ex. C-3BVournad Enivy denying A Motion to Sek ASide MaGistrAted Order: from +the (D-4 oct, 2, A020 MaGistrates ordec. When aPPellant timely Stam hed Filedin Ten days oct. a Ala ( £-SMotioN For heave For APPIi cation for Recondideration Pursaunt +o Ohip APP. R. Qlola)(4)(a) (bY) has been Filed AS +he MnathemadtiCall’ Correct in Ten days for APPellaie Court 40 Veconsider their JudGement of OCT. 72080 MaGistraks order: Not A motion to Sct ASidé maeistrated order? April 23, ACQ2ACAPPx, Av Sudeemen x of Xne Sutteme Couey ef Oc eccred by refusing to accertdurisdictian of Memorandum, KNOWING thar APPellode Court erred an OCT.A%A0RO 6 APPX.B-A Journal EarcY), denYin& AMOTION to Sex a side maaisirarea ordee, from the (apex. CB ocr. 7, 2020 MAGBISeles ordes. When APPetlant +imeli StamePed in ten dais (APPX.D-4 067, ALL ACIO Motion for APPlicathton far Becon Sideration PursAunt to Ohio APPR. Ab CA) (4) CadLbd CO, Nas been Filed AS the Mathematically Correct in Ten days For the APPetlate Court to fecen sider theic Judgennen* of the CAPPX. C73 OCT. 7, AAO MaAGistrates order). Rnd notthe motion +o Set a vide MAGIiSkraxes acder thar denied to Grant APPcllants Molioa Yor Leave Yo File Wand wri ten AcPLy Brief. Due to Pandemic. PCr Libres is Shi\closéal. The. Arvil 23,2080 (APPx.A-LJournal Enic/) violates APPellavis US.Const Amed. =< riGht to Redress Greivance in the Courtof Lauband VWolntes U.S. Const, Amend: XIV Baht to due Proceay ia the Cour’ & law and Eaual Pwtection of Biahts for Peeson wiithinik’s Jurigdrcrion,