Whether the lack of an adequate recusal enforcement mechanism in Georgia state courts violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED #1 The Georgia Court of Appeals violated codified laws, court rules, case precedent and ethical cannons to bypass the petitioner’s recusal motion. The court denied the merits of a discretionary review, a motion for reconsideration and a motion to cure filing defects without ruling on the merits of the petitioner’s recusal motion. Due to a lack of an adequate and timely enforcement mechanism, the petitioner asked the Georgia Supreme Court to create a mechanism to enforce ethical compliance and review the court of appeals for an abuse of discretion. The Georgia Supreme Court denied the request. Is a lack of an adequate recusal enforcement mechanism, as evidenced by the Georgia Court of Appeal’s ignoring the recusal motion and by the Georgia Supreme Court denial of relief sought, a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? i | : QUESTIONS PRESENTED #2 The petitioner raised a federal constitutional issue on appeal in the state court. The Georgia Court of ; Appeals ignored Georgia Supreme Court precedent by utilizing the jurisdictional compliance with Georgia’s discretionary review requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 to validate the lifetime appointment of an unelected senior judge (e.g. Dunn v. Dunn, A24D0325 (Ga. Ct. App. May 10, 2024). However, the case precedent utilized by the Georgia Court of Appeals to support its _ discretion to deny an exception to jurisdictional requirements was not “appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts” (e.g. Estate of Tomlinson v. Houston Healthcare, A24A0704 (Ga. Ct. App. Aug. 13, . 2024)). However, the Supreme Court denied a request : to review if the appellate court decision that rests on ' a state law justification that is independent of the , federal question was adequate to support the judgment under the Adequate State Ground Doctrine. (e.g. Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 1380 S. Ct. 612, 175 L. Ed. 2d 417 (2009).) : Do the procedural timeframe rules in the State of Georgia’s discretionary review statues render the code section unconstitutional because such requirements deny citizens access to federal constitutional rights on an arbitrary basis as demonstrated by the Georgia appellate courts denying a request to firmly establish judicial procedural rules? ii ~ i Rule 14(B) Statement