Whether the appellate court's modifications and omissions of facts and arguments constitute a fundamental departure from judicial proceedings warranting Supreme Court review

Speedy Trial Act A. In contradiction of Supreme Court Rule 10, was the appellate court ’s avoidance of, through modifications to appellant ’s facts and arguments, so extreme that it “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court ’s supervisory powers ”? B. Given that the three members of the appellate judiciary contributed to denying the appeal, does their order content signal a break in our system of justice? C. Did the appellate court ’s ORDER provide the false detail to the trial court ’s arguments, so to put that court in a favorable light, while omitting actual arguments by the appellant on those same arguments? D. Did the district and appellate courts knowingly side-step detail on the trial court ’s § 3161(h)(7)(C) default, so to protect against a default due to its “congested calendar ” error? E. Once the appellate court recognized, or should have recognized, that the trial court did in fact set the new trial date based upon its congested calendar, did the court err by not dismissing the indictment? F. Did the appellate court knowingly side-step the trial court ’s loss of authority to grant a continuance under § 3161(h)(7)(C) and ends-of-justice errors, so to artificially preserve the court ’s speedy trial clock? G. Did the appellate court knowingly misinform when it stated that, even without a valid continuance, the “70-day speedy trial clock would not have expired ”: then, in violation of § 3161(e) and § 3162(a)(2) proceeded to observe the trial date set out hundreds of unexcused days beyond the 70-day clock? H. Did the appellate court ’s order intentionally omit appellant ’s argument that the trial court improperly included its ends-of-justice arguments within its order to dismiss the § 3161 speedy trial petition, so to dismiss the appellant ’s appeal? 1 I. Did the appellate court knowingly misinform, when it justified the 221 days continuance by stating “the parties needed more time to prepare [for the new trial] ” when neither party moved the court for preparation time, but did request the new trial be conducted “sooner ” than the mandated date? J. Were the court ’s ORDER misrepresentations of the arguments overt, such to convey an obvious lack of concern of reproach from any authority? 2