Does the right of appeal to the Court of Appeals under ORS 221.360 include a judicial determination of the constitutionality of a municipal city ordinance under which a person was convicted, as required in ORS 221.370, while also ensuring due process and equal protection rights are protected?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ian McElroy was secretly, unconstitutionally convicted July 26, 1999 on three separate criminal citations by a City of Corvallis Municipal Judge who lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a purely state administrative building code civil penalty dispute. In ways that shock the conscience, the Judge, acting alone from his private chambers, denied a trial and all means of due process, then secretly entered three convictions against McElroy to his harm and without his knowing of the Judge’s actions. For lack of jurisdiction and other causes, the convictions entered are . void ab initio—legal nullities that remain void to this day to McElroy’s harm, including Respondent City’s recent attorney fee judgment entered against him June 7, 2023, for $4,786.50 for having exercised his right of appeal to the Court of Appeals under ORS 221.360. [See App.26a.] By motion and appeals under ORS 18.082(1)(e) and ORS 221.360, McElroy made his way to Oregon’s Court of Appeals. In 2022, however, the Court in a series of shocking violations of due process, dismissed McElroy’s appeal on false claims of lack of jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s general judgment. , THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Does the “right of appeal” to the Court of Appeals, as provided in ORS 221.360, include a judicial determination of the constitutionality of a municipal city ordinance under which a person was convicted, as required in ORS 221.370, while also ensuring both due process and equal protection rights of that person are protected, thereby compelling the Court of Appeals , to exercise its statutory jurisdiction “in all cases,” ii including Petitioner’s timely appeal, precisely as the Court recently explained and upheld in Westhaven : LLC v. City of Dayton, 316 Or. App 641, 504 P3d 1279 (2021)? 2. Do ORS 2.570(6) and parallel appellate rule ORAP 7.55(2) prohibit the Appellate Commissioner, a non-judicial officer, from granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss appeal on substantive merits of the case then issuing an “Order Dismissing Appeal,” as the : Court itself explained is impermissible in Bova v. : City of Medford, 236 Or App 257, 236 P.3d 1279 (2010), thereby depriving Petitioner of his right of appeal under ORS 221.360 based on errors of law from the circuit court below?