Whether Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due-process,equal-protection were violated when Colorado allowed disqualified,prejudiced Chief Judges with a conflict-of-interest to pick the judge to decide Petitioner's case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Facts: Both cases were originally assigned to the ; ; same trial court judge, Chief Judge Bain (J.Bain) . who was extremely prejudiced and disqualified himself. Nonetheless, J.Bain remained “with jurisdiction” and illegally appointed his replacement . judge. The Colorado Court of Appeals (COA) have ~ decided that, throughout its 22 judicial districts and its COA, any prejudiced disqualified Chief Judge, with a conflict of interest, remains with unfettered powers to pick the judge that he desires to decide your case. The judiciary now have the appearance and ability to make highly partisan judicial assignments to influence the outcome of every case. Question 1. Whether Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection were violated when Colorado allowed disqualified, prejudiced Chief Judges with a conflict of interest to pick whatever judge they want to . decide Petitioner’s case? Facts: The judge, with actual bias, found that Petitioner is a fit father, and signed her order on 9/15/16 finding, “(E)ach party has demonstrated an ability to care for their... daughter.” Yet, her Order did not allow M.M. to share any overnights, holidays, or special days with her dad, even during the most critical formative years of her life. The order did not allow Petitioner to travel with M.M. to visit his family or to practice his religion. It did not mandate that Ms. Lee allow M.M.’s dad to be involved in major decisions for M.M.. The 9/15/16 Order was made final on 10/26/20. . ii Question 2. Should a constitutionally minimum . due process standard be established for the initial parenting hearing to protect fundamental liberty _ interests to raise children? Facts: Years ago the parties wanted to end this litigation. If Ms. Lee never brought this action, the state could not inject itself into our lives without criminal conduct. However, the trial court would not let us end the case, even with an agreement benefiting M.M.. Question 3. Whether Colorado violated the parties’ 14 Amendment rights by refusing to enforce their custody agreement? Question 4. Whether remedies shall be afforded to vindicate harm suffered from the violation of unalienable and fundamental rights to parenting . and to deter future violations? ili ; : RELATED CASES , In Re Parental Responsibilities for B.B., , : William Muhr, Petitioner v. Dawna Braswell, ; Respondent, Colorado Court of Appeals,18CA0176 (Announced 3/28/2019), filed 8/30/2019 with trial court in 2012DR2531, El Paso County, Colorado. In Re Parental Responsibilities for B.B., William Muhr, Petitioner v. Dawna Braswell, Respondent, COA, Case Number 21 CA 0326, Cert Denied in 22 SC 517. Judgment entered 1/9/2023. In Re Parental Responsibilities for M.M., William Muhr, Petitioner v. Kristin Lee, Respondent, COA, Case Nos. 20CA2066, 21CA0504 & 21CA0793, Opinion Issued June 2, 2022 by CHIEF JUDGE ROMAN, Cert Denied in 22 SC 0561. Judgment entered 1/23/2023. In Re Parental Responsibilities for M.M., ; William Muhr, Petitioner v. Kristin Lee, Respondent, Colorado Court of Appeals, Case Number 23 CA 0118 (2023)(Pending appeal Re: Ongoing Rulings allowing only Ms. Lee to take vacations with M.M.). In Re: B.B., minor, DOB 12-20-2002, William Muhr, Appellant v. Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Economic Security, Division of Child Support Services, Appellee (State’s Child: Support Enforcement Sanction Action) Colorado Court of Appeals 2022CA391, Appellant’s Opening Brief filed 11/3/2022, Pending decision. In Re: M.M. Appellee Kristin Lee (aka Ellias) and Appellant William Muhr, Colorado Court of Appeals, 2023CA702 (Pending dismissal per 5/23/2023 Order for lack of appealable order). . iv .