Does a judge's deeming 'moot' a respondent's request for a filing extension constitute a pre-judgment on the still-open opportunity for reconsideration?

“State courts, in appropriate cases, are not merely free to — they are bound to — interpret [and not flout] the United States Constitution. ” tArizona v. Evans . 514 US 1, 8 (1995).) This mandatory directive to State courts is ignored with no accountability, free-for-fall (including other “guaranteed ” rights) in State courts —together with the Feldman MISTAKE (the omission of the word, “highest, ” on p. 464 of DC v. Feldman : sentence beginning, “these provisions ”) is the root cause of George Floyd ’s death and countless other ruinations and terminations of lives. The Sixth Circuit has aptly described the Feldman MISTAKE as a “quasi-magical means of docket-clearing ” (e.g. Hohenberg v. SHELBY COUNTY. TENNESSEE. 68 F. 4th 336, 340 (6th Cir. 2023). It has “cleared-out ” a great many lives by their termination at the hands of corrupt state officials —judges in particular. There were many more egregious due process violations in “Frankenstein ’s MoCo laboratory of novel due process creations, ” 1 but since this petition will be DENIED (among theThe due-process German v. Jordan et al, 8:22-cv-02695 Dist. C.t Md Dkt 6 2 thousands of other denials in this broken system that maximizes inefficiency and lawyer job-security over the Constitution), one question here will suffice to add to the expanding record of which I will discuss in upcoming presentations in Germany and elsewhere in Europe 2 concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine and, in particular, Ukraine corruption, which on a properly adjusted basis pales in comparison the US courts. 1. Does a judge ’s deeming “moot ” (because “this Court dismissed the [petitioner ’s] captioned appeal ”) a respondent ’s request for a filing extension for opposition to the petitioner ’s appellate brief constitute a pre-judgment on the still-open opportunity for the petitioner to file for “reconsideration, ” as stated in the judge ’s own previous order? 2 The HTT (Holier Than Thou) factor 3 YES, because a neutral judge would have simply waited 11 days to see if the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. But generally —and Montgomery County courts in particular — are, in important ways, the most corrupt in the US, no consideration is given to “neutrality, ” because the only consideration is preserving and protecting lawyer fees. This is one small, focused but telling example —easily understandable to the public, who will be the ultimate judge —of a court system ’s avoidance (by hook or crook, with emphasis on the latter) of the merits of a case that exposes court-corruption in particularly glaring terms. Court corruption is the root cause of every major US domestic problem, and a major reason is it is the pinnacle of white-collar crime. It sets the standard for all financial crimes, and lawyers are nearly always involved in those, crime —white collar or otherwise —pay attention and are emboldened to shoplift (a non-violent, quasi-financial crime) or pass bad checks or counterfeit bills; and these are “gateway drugs ”because Maryland courts Those inclined to 4 to violent crimes. Anyone who watches the news hears about “minor offenses ” as precursors to headline crime. . (“"[J]ustice must satisfy the appearance of justice." (citation) It follows that public perception of judicial integrity is "a state interest of the highest order." ” fWilliams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. 135 S.Ct. 1656, 1666 (2015).) And it should be a federal interest (or “state ” in the general sense of “power of the state ”), but the evidence is overwhelming that it is of no concern to courts, which merely issue summary (or boilerplate) DENIALS of the most glaring court-corruption cases. So, while there was a broad array of due process violations in “Frankenstein ’s MoCo laboratory of novel due process creations, ” this one question is enough to make the point to the public on the public record, whose opinion in the end is the only opinion that counts.