Whether a state court judge's secret, unilateral appointment of a successor judge without public record or independent oversight violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

No question identified. : William Muhr 11975 Hanging Valley Way Colorado Springs, CO ZIP Code 719-648-6230 muhr@pcisys.net October 30, 2025 The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States One First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20543 Re: Application for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning M.M., a Child, and Concerning Kristin Lee a/k/a Kristin Ellias, Appellee, and William Muhr, Appellant; El Paso County Case No. 2016DR30155; Colorado Court of Appeals Case No. 23CA1367; Colorado Supreme Court, Case No. 25SC168 (cert denied Aug. 4, 2025) Dear Justice Gorsuch: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, I respectfully request a 60-day extension, until January 2, 2026, to file my petition for a writ of certiorari. Good cause, excusable neglect, and the fundamental national significance of the issues in this case necessitate this request. On October 27, 2025, I received for the first time the enclosed letter from the Colorado Supreme Court (dated October 20, 2025, attached as Exhibit A). This official confirmation exposes that the trial judge presiding over my case never had lawful appointment—an extraordinary jurisdictional defect that fundamentally transforms the posture of my petition. Until now, this fact was actively concealed despite recurring, diligent inquiries by me and formal requests to multiple state actors at every available level. The constitutional question this presents is one of national and federal consequence: Whether a disqualified, conflicted state judge may personally select and appoint their own successor, in secret and without any public record or independent oversight, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This is not simply a local matter. If permitted, such unchecked assignment power enables secret manipulation of judicial proceedings nationwide, undermines the integrity of the courts, and permits retaliatory or biased appointments that erode public trust. This new evidence directly supports critical arguments that now form the very heart of the federal constitutional challenge to Colorado’s process. It enables me, for the first time, to present a clear, well-supported petition showing how this precedent threatens due process protections for litigants across America—especially in state cases that implicate federal constitutional rights, and which may arise from courts of last resort in other states. This issue warrants the United States Supreme Court’s attention to resolve existing splits in lower courts and to safeguard transparent, impartial procedures nationally. The harm inflicted here is ongoing and irreparable. On September 9, 2025, I filed a motion in the trial court seeking immediate and expanded parenting time with my daughter—a request of urgent importance to her emotional well-being and my rights as a parent. This crucial motion is currently pending before a judge whose lack of lawful appointment has now been officially confirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court’s letter of October 20, 2025 (attached as Exhibit A). Critically, despite my repeated challenges, neither the Colorado Court of Appeals nor the Colorado Supreme Court addressed or corrected this foundational jurisdictional defect when denying relief, including upon denying certiorari review on August 4, 2025. I did not seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court at that time because the evidence of this jurisdictional defect was actively concealed and only brought to light by the state’s highest court after their own discretionary review had concluded. The appearance of this letter not only substantiates my claim of ongoing constitutional harm, but provides a viable concrete federal question—whether the Due Process Clause is violated when a recused judge selects his own successor and the new judge acts without official appointment or public record—making this a case of urgent national importance for this Court’s attention