Does the judiciary's failure to provide a fair trial and hearing violate due process and erode public confidence in the courts?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ‘ The Supreme Court has recognized in a variety of contexts that the judiciary's legitimacy and efficacy derives largely from the public's confidence in its fairness and fidelity to the law. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 752 (1999) Public confidence [is] essential" to the judicial branch. United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 188 (1974 (Powell, J., concurring)). That public confidence is being eroded by activities such as those at issue in this case and in other cases like it. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 468. Due process requires a fair trial before a judge without actual bias against the defendant or an interest in the outcome of his particular case. This case was filed in the Appeals Court Ninth Circuit under 28 US Code § 1292 Interlocutory Decisions after the District Court Riverside County concealed the case for five months without assigning a number after petitioner filed on December 15, 2020. The confidence of the petitioner doubts the fidelity of the local judiciary to the United States Constitutional Amendments. In the Constitution Annotated > Article I > Section 10 > Clause 1 > ArtI.S10.C1.5 Contract Clause“Obligation Defined reads:“ A contract is analyzable into two elements: the agreement, which comes from the parties, and the obligation, which comes from the law and makes the agreement binding on the parties. The concept of obligation is an importation from the civil law and its appearance in the Contract Clause. Actually, the term as used in the Contract Clause has been rendered more or less superfluous by the doctrine that [t]he laws which exist at the time and place of the making of a contract, and where it is to be : performed, enter into and form a part of it. Hence, the Court sometimes recognizes the term in its decisions applying the clause, and sometimes ignores it. In Sturges v. Crowninshield, Chief Justice Marshall defined : ’ obligation of contract as the law that binds a party to perform his ° undertaking, but a little later the same year, in Dartmouth College v. ! Woodward, Chief Justice Marshall set forth the points presented for | consideration to be: 1. Is this contract protected by the constitution of | the United States? 2. Is it impaired by the acts under which the | defendant holds? The word obligation undoubtedly implies that the | Constitution was intended to protect only executory contracts—i.e., contracts still awaiting performance. (A contract unpaid). A breach of a Contract goes beyond a Constitutional violation trespassing the 42 U.S.C §1983. “Deprivation Of Rights. Under the US Constitution Annotated Fourteenth Amendment -Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection ) Procedural Due Process Civil, Section 1: First, procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel. 1) Notice must be sufficient to enable the recipient to determine what is being proposed and what he must do to prevent the deprivation of his interest. 2) Hearing. "[Some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property (or liberty] interest." This right is a "basic aspect of the duty of the government to follow a fair process of decision-making when it acts to deprive a person of his possessions. 1. Does justification exist by the United States District Court and the Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit to deny the petitioner the right of being heard and apply the correct laws under the 42 U.S.C §1983. “Deprivation Of Rights when Allstate Insurance Company has violated a Good Faith and Fair Dealing Covenant leaving a victim of a hit and run without the just covenant ? Sutherland V. Barclays Am