Whether the Tennessee Supreme Court's Rule 10B unconstitutionally impedes Petitioners' structural right to an impartial judge

Questions Presented 1. Per Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 195 L. Ed. 2d 182 (2016) (“Williams”), because Petitioners’ Fourteenth Amendment right to have a trial judge (Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 617-18 (1993); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533 (2004); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 248 (1980); North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328, 345 (1976); Ward v. Vill. of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1972).) who has no appearance of undermined neutrality is a structural right (Williams, 136 S. Ct. at 1909 (‘An unconstitutional failure to recuse constitutes structural error .. . ‘not amenable’ to harmless-error review, regardless of whether the judge's vote was dispositive.” (citing Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 141 + (2009))); see also Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 8. Ct. 1899, 1907-08, 198 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2017); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999); Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger, 580 F.3d 403, 410 (6th Cir. 2009); State v. Rodriguez, 254 8.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008); Cottingham v. Cottingham, 193 S.W.3d 531, 537 (Tenn. 2006); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535 (1927).), is it constitutionally impossible for rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court to place unreasonable restrictions on ii Petitioners, which if not complied with, are considered a waiver of Petitioners’ right to raise a question about having a judge who is burdened with the appearance of an undermined neutrality adjudicate Petitioners’ case? 2. Because the COA 2021 Opinion affirmed the trial court’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to recuse, for no reason other than a so-called waiver by Petitioners, for noncompliance with Rule 10B § 1.01 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee (“Rule 10B’), as applied by the COA 2021 Opinion, is Rule 10B a violation of Petitioners’ structural constitutional right? 3. As applied by the COA 2021 Opinion, did Rule 10B unconstitutionally impede, obstruct, and deny Petitioners’ access to Petitioners’ structural right to be judged by a trial judge as to whom there was no disqualifying pre-case state of mind (Williams, 136 S. Ct. at 1906 (‘There is, furthermore, a risk that the judge ‘would be so psychologically wedded’ to his or her previous position ... that the judge ‘would consciously or unconsciously avoid the appearance [pre-case] of having erred [precase] or changed [a pre-case] position.” (emphasis added).) that risked (Williams, 136 S. Ct. at 1905-06 (“This objective risk of bias is iii reflected in the due process maxim that ‘no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.”) (emphasis added).) the appearance (Williams, 136 S. Ct. at 190809 (“Chief Justice Castille's significant, personal involvement in a critical decision in Williams's case gave rise to an unacceptable risk of actual bias. This risk so endangered the appearance of neutrality that his participation in the case ‘must be forbidden if the guarantee of due _ process is to be adequately implemented.”). (emphasis added).) of undermined (Williams, 136 S. Ct. at 1902, 1909 (“A multimember court must not have its guarantee of neutrality undermined, for the appearance of bias demeans the reputation and integrity not just of one jurist, but of the larger institution of which he or she is a part.”) (emphasis added).) neutrality? 4. Per Williams’ standards (gleaned from the information used by the Court to disqualify Chief Justice Castille), was the affidavit (APP 94-102) filed by Petitioners to establish that the trial judge was disqualified insufficient because, as the trial judge ruled, the affidavit was “supposition” and “innuendo” (thus not evidence)? (APP. 28 n. 6, 387, 80-84) (emphasis added). iv Herein Petitioners use “pre-case state of mind” as a parallel to what Williams refers to as a judge being “psychologically wedded.” Petitioners interpret “psychologically wedded” to enco