Joseph Basso v. Jose Rodriguez, et al.

As a Question of First Impression, consistent with Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016), and Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986)) does the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment examinable through established constitutional, statutory, and ethics rules, apply to disqualify or otherwise require an evidentiary hearing, when it is serendipitously discovered for the first time during a state court appeal, heightened with strong proof this matter constitutes “extreme facts” rising to a Constitutional level, when the single-page final judgment order, purportedly entered by a qualified retired senior judge assigned the case, was instead under the objective test in Caperton, done by an apparent categorically ineligible for recall former jurist also practicing law as an attorney?

Should Summary Reversal and Remand be issued after the Maryland Supreme Court, recently adopted the need for greater specificity in Statutory Attorney Fee “Memoranda” in Sugarloaf All. v. Frederick Co., No. 32, Sept. Term 2025 (Dec. July 14, 2026), specifically argued below by Petitioner as legal error?