Kim Blandino v. Nevada, et al.

Whether this Court’s decision in Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017) which concerns a structural error of the Constitutional denial of an impartial judge in a criminal case under the fifth and fourteenth amendment due process clauses requires correction or vindication before a trial or conviction where all the facts of the disqualifying issues are fully developed.

Whether a criminal Defendant as an individual that exercises his right to Establish himself as a religion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in the free exercise thereof in his belief and practice is called by his Creator to investigate judicial corruption, can be required to go through pretrial and trial by the very judges that he is investigating and which these same judges have knowledge of these ongoing investigations consistent with the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Whether a State’s appellate and highest court can refuse to apply Supreme Court precedent such as in Rippo. Withrow v. Larkin. 421 U.S. 35, 47. 95 S.Ct.

43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975) and Williams v. Pennsylvania. 579 U.S. . 195 L.Ed.2d 132 (2016) again and again and still'be given deference and it not be held , that bringingAhe issue to said state courts is not only establish futility that it is . also an exercise in futility