Whether a state trial judge's failure to recuse himself despite a financial interest in a party's law firm, combined with sua sponte ordering of unnecessary proceedings and awarding attorney's fees to that party's former partner, violates the Due Process Clause and whether the absence of a mandatory right of appeal in state court proceedings raises a federal constitutional question

No question identified. : As grounds, it is stated: The proceeding below concerns an award of $3,937.50 in attorney’s fees against Applicant by New Hampshire trial court Judge Charles Greenhalgh that Applicant alleges was a violation of Applicant’s procedural and substantive “due process” rights; and, moreover, further likely rises to the level of outright judicial misconduct. On March 20, 2023, Judge Greenhalgh ordered, sua sponte, and not at the request of any party, that a trial court hearing be held on May 12, 2023 in Applicant’s family law case, wherein there was no justiciable controversy properly before the trial court. At the May 12, 2023 trial court hearing, Judge Greenhalgh then suggested, sua sponte, that opposing counsel Leslie Leonard ought to be awarded attorneys’ fees for attending that unnecessary hearing. Attorney Leslie Leonard is a partner/director at Judge Greenhalgh’s former law firm, Cooper Cargill Chant, P.A., located in Conway, New Hampshire. Judge Charles Greenhalgh and Attorney Paul Chant (vice-president of the New Hampshire Bar Association) are both currently owners/managers of Cooper, Chant, and Greenhalgh Enterprises, LLC, a related real estate holding company. The nature of Cooper, Chant, and Greenhalgh Enterprises, LLC is described in more detail in a letter written on July 25, 2023 by Judge Greenhalgh to the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee, in response to the Committee’s Complaint, No. JC-23-053-C, and accompanies this application. Despite this apparent conflict of interest, Judge Greenhalgh did not recuse himself in the trial court proceedings below. Cf. Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). Unlike the vast majority of states, in New Hampshire, there is no mandatory right of appeal from many trial court proceedings. Nevertheless, the question of whether an appeal in the state system is one of right or of discretion is also a federal question. State v. Cooper, 127 N.H. 119, 129 (1985), citing Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985). Despite the docketed complaint by the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee, on subsequent appeal of the award of $3,937.50 in attorney’s fees to Judge Greenhalgh’s former law partner, for a completely unnecessary trial court hearing ordered sua sponte, and not at the request of either party, the New Hampshire Supreme Court declined certiorari for review in this case.! Pursuant to Part II, Articles 17 and 38 of the New Hampshire Constitution, the New Hampshire legislature has the power to impeach judges, but this power A denial for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that an appellate court approves the decision of the lower court. However, such a denial “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 85 (1995). The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval of a lower court’s opinion were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912 (1950), in which this Honorable Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case. See also State v. Cooper, 127 N.H. 119, 125 (1985) wherein “a declination of acceptance order [by the New Hampshire Supreme Court] expresses no opinion on the quality or correctness of either the decision below or the arguments to be advanced by counsel on appeal.” 3 has been exercised only twice in New Hampshire history, originally in 1790 against Justice Woodbury Langdon, and more recently in 2000 against Chief Justice David A. Brock. Former New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Lynn presently serves as an elected member of the New Hampshire legislature, and chair of the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee, but has only recently been made aware of the relevant judicial misconduct complaint, and only after the New Hampshire Supreme Court declined to review the case. Consequently, it is now possible, albeit rath