Whether a state court's denial of a jury trial and imposition of an excessive supersedeas bond without an appeal or review mechanism violates constitutional rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When a state court with no jurisdiction is dealing with an uncured first breach then abuses its discretion to illegally in violation to Bill or Rights and State Constitution deny timely requested jury trial and then violate O.C.G.A. to impose an illegal supersedeas bond, that in itself is additionally delusional excessive amount as New York v. Trump that shows a national conflict , is it unconstitutional for there not to be an appeal/review mechanism within the Georgia Court system to review the judge’s illegal supersedeas order to obtain justice? 2. When there is admitted by courts conflict between the federal courts and state courts on such all-important matters such as jurisdiction per Petitioner’s DeKalb GA 18CV4742 and Supreme Court of Georgia S24C0012, and the Federal Courts have refused to uphold its jurisdiction “do not disturb state orders”, how can the conflict of jurisdiction be resolved if state refuses to address its own nullity, contemptuous orders per Yellow Freight System, Incorporated v. Donnelly, (1990) and ROBB v. CONNOLLY (1884) to close the loophole of conflicting oppositional jurisdiction? 3. When there is proven First Breach, do the appeal courts have to proactively consider as the number one priority over all others the First Breach because uncured First Breach makes Supersedeas and all other matters MW moot per PAUL E. MALONE, SR. & FAITH LANIER MALONE, Flaintiffs, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants. Case No. 1:14-cv-193 (WLS) United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division. May 12, 2016. “cannot enforce any part of contract until cure first breach”? 4. Did the Supreme Court of Georgia err by not honoring request to explain its position if chose to deny a certiorari that was asking court to review the constitutionality of state law that there is no appeal or review of a supersedeas so empowers a lone county judge to rule contrary to Bill of Rights and Georgia right to jury trial, Supreme Court of U.S. JHSINOSKT, USCA4 JOHNSON (homeowner class action winning member), USCA11 ruled Mortgagees first-beached contract, DCN.GA MALONE, 0.C.G.A. §, ete. ? INTRODUCTION This is the state courts of previous federal courts cases. New York v. Trump is proving the national conflict and unconstitutional “Lawfare” misuse of illegal supersedeas bonds required to get justice for an appeal! Supersedeas Order was meant to prevent misuse of judicial system through appeals that burden courts, but now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme where wealthy corporations with powerful multistate law firm debt collectors defraud/corrupt judges to misuse supersedeas to prevent truth and justice from prevailing on appeal. This misuse of supersedeas not only violates iv : Constitutional rights and defrauds the judicial system of appeal rights to uphold Spirit and intent of law. Regrettably, Homeowner had to deal with getting J]QC to remove corrupt two DeKalb judges for ordering their court reporters to illegally alter transcript to prevent appeals. Instant appeal deals with a judge violating state constitutional right for jury trial, refusal to correct clerical error, refuse quash hearing, etc. It is unconstitutional for a lone judge to have absolute power of no appeal or review. Petitioner “Homeowner” has suggested to Supreme Court of Georgia that there be a panel of three independent of : courts forensic experts that are paid for by the appealing party to review a judge’s supersedeas order on basis of law and values to avail justice for appellants and prevent abuse. This upholds intent of supersedeas to prevent burdening courts of frivolous bad faith appeals while protecting Constitutional right for legitimate appeals. New York v. Trump allowed an appeal review but Georgia has no such appeal of review and Supreme Court refused the request if deny the certiorari to legally explain its denial despite Homeowner citing a case wherein an admitted an