Whether the Superior Court of Pennsylvania violated due process and equal protection rights by granting an untimely brief extension and issuing a potentially prejudicial ruling

1) This Argument respectfully ask this Honorable Habeas Court (To Single Out) the November 15, 2022 Egregious Delay of ►^j Appeal where none of the Pa.R.A.P.2112 or Fed.R.App.P.31 were Cited as Authority or Invoked on that November 15. 2022 day after the November 14, 2022 explicit deadline by the Court with Comment (NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED) Brief due by November 14, 2022 had laps. And the Petition specifically ask 'that the Court to please acknowledge that the right to a reasonable timely Appeal is included apaong the protection afforded by The Due Process Clause of The U.S. Constitution when a State does provide for an Appeal. tW Tt\6 PA — Pftugl C/f 'tkfM ‘"Sit3aji Pivef,r4rrsm ~To ~TW Go-J6<Li0ivi&yj4' Xk> Tkfi ? (Ji/Jhia I ? 2) iDo You think that Daily List Number 39 Judges of The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Beyond Any Question, Had A (Current Court Docket Sheet! In Front Of Them When Making (ANY DECISIONS) Concerning Case#fl427 EDA 2022/1428 EDA 2022). Which At This Point Makes It A Clear And Convincing Showing Of An Intentional Cruel And • Unusual Malicious Action. And NOT JUST A MERE OVERSIGHT Committed By The Panel Of (3ffliree Judges Which Violated Appellant Mr.Martin Brown's Constitutional Due Process Riehts/Eoual Protection Rights. (When The Panel Of (3)Three Judges Knowingly Exercised Their Authority Wrongly In Making The Decision To Allow The Appellee Brief To Still Be Hied After Their Court (ORDER) Of January 6. 2023 Which (DENIED) The Appellee Brief The Right To Be Filed)!?j. 3) (Typically, Intermediate Appellate Courts consist of several Judges who sit in Panels of (3) Three Judges) . The Panel Number 4, Daily List Number 39 Judges of The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Beyond Any Question, Knew or Should Have Known that ~ an Action Of Exercising Their Authority Wrongly such as the aforementioned in #1 and #2 by their Court's Panel of (3) Judges would create a potential Constitutional Due Process Violation, and Substantial Prejudice to Appellant Mr. Martin Brown i'next in order You specifically are inadvertently a believer that At the moment Due Process was intentionally Violated in this case 1427 EDA 2022/1428 EDA 2022 the Superior Court Judges ORDER Granting the Appellee an Extension of time to file Brief, a request filed late on November 16, 2022 several days after the explicit deadline of November 14, 2022 set by the Court, with Comment...(NO FURTHER EXTENSION WILL BE GRANTED). Now coupled with the Panel of Judges allowing the Appellee Brief to still be submitted after their January 6, 2023 Court (ORDER DENIED) the Appellee Brief to be filed,,. The February 24, 2023 RUUNG/JUOGMENT ULTIMATE QUESTION Do You think that RULING/JUDGMENT of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania should RIGHTFULLY BECOME (VOID) and there is , none of the State Court's Appellate Administrative Remedies that should be allowed to redress an (Obvious Intentional Judicial Wrongly Action) committed by The Superior Court's Panel of Judges such as the aforementioned that clearly Prejudiced and further raised Serious Constitutional Concerns Violating Mr. Martin Brown's Procedural Due Process and Equal Protection Rights To A Fair Appeal Proces ? (Emphasis Added). ..SEE