Whether a court can convict an American citizen without trial after pleading not guilty, whether a judge can rule on matters during a recusal action, whether a state can levy additional taxes on a parent for medical benefits, whether a state can be a necessary party in a divorce case with criminal evidence, what framework applies when criminal statute violations occur in a civil case, and whether an appellate court can exclude designated case record materials

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a court of law can convict an American citizen of a criminal charge without a trial, if such citizen has pled not guilty, and such'citizen has not agreed to any plea deal. . , 2. Whether a presiding judge in a court case can continue to rule on pending ' matters and subsequently memorialize such rulings into final, appealable orders once a party has initiated, and has yet to exhaust, recusal action upon such a presiding judge. : : 3. Whether a State in the United States can levy an additional tax on a divorced or paternal obligor parent who already pays federal and state iicome taxes for state medical benefits, that are subsidized by federal funding through Medicaid, that insures a divorced or paternal obligor’s children on such medical benefits. 4. Whether a state through its government departments, can be a necessary party in a divorce or paternal court case, when credible and incriminating evidence arises implicating for a state, for violations of federal and/or state criminal statutes associated with enforcement of child support within a divorce or paternal case. 5. What framework a court of law must follow in conducted proceeding(s) and procedures, when credible evidence exists, that violations of criminal statutes took place within an ongoing civil court case. ii ; 6. Whether an appellate court, or a lower trial court being appealed, can exclude materials on a case record an appellant has designated for the record of appeal, including materials that were before the trial court being appealed, on the date of ruling appealed and subsequent order that memorialized ruling appealed. 7. Whether certain Oklahoma statutes Petitioner challenged on constitutional ; grounds in appeal with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, violate the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Origination Clause, Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States. . ii