Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. Nancy Strong, et al.

According to Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016) (“Williams”), is Rule 10B of the Rules of Tennessee Supreme Court (“Rule 10B”) a structural constitutional violation, 1 guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, Clause (“Fourteenth Amendment”), because Rule 10B, imposes conditions that shift, from the State of Tennessee to litigants, the burden of providing petitioner access to a judge with a state of mind equal to the minimum Williams requires for any judge to be constitutionally qualified to adjudicate petitioner’s case?

Is an inalienable characteristic of a structural constitutional right that it is impossible for a litigant (as is petitioner) to waive and for the State of Tennessee to forfeit?

Per petitioner (a litigant), for a judge to be constitutionally qualified to adjudicate a litigant’s case, must the judge not appear to have a state of mind (“psychologically wedded”) described in Williams?

Per Williams, is the right of a litigant to a constitutionally qualified judge a structural

Structural constitutional rights. Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (2021); Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (2017); McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018); Glebe v. Frost, 574 U.S. 21 (2014); United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597 (2013); United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010); United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006); Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006).