1. Per Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 195 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2016) ("Williams"), because Petitioners' Fourteenth Amendment right to have a trial judge (Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 617–18 (1993); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533 (2004); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 248 (1980); North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328, 345 (1976); Ward v. Vill. of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57, 61–62 (1972).) who has no appearance of undermined neutrality is a structural right (Williams, 136 S. Ct. at 1909 ("An unconstitutional failure to recuse constitutes structural error . . . 'not amenable' to harmless-error review, regardless of whether the judge's vote was dispositive." (citing Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 141 (2009)))); see also Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1907–08, 198 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2017); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999); Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger, 580 F.3d 403, 410 (6th Cir. 2009); State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008); Cottingham v. Cottingham, 193 S.W.3d 531, 537 (Tenn. 2006); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535 (1927).), is it constitutionally impossible for rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court to place unreasonable restrictions on Petitioners, which if not complied with, are considered a waiver of Petitioners' right to raise a question about having a judge who is burdened with the appearance of an undermined neutrality adjudicate Petitioners' case?

2. Because the COA 2021 Opinion affirmed the trial court's denial of Petitioners' motion to recuse, for no reason other than a so-called waiver by Petitioners, for noncompliance with Rule 10B § 1.01 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee ("Rule 10B"), as applied by the COA 2021 Opinion, is Rule 10B a violation of Petitioners' structural constitutional right?

3. As applied by the COA 2021 Opinion, did Rule 10B unconstitutionally impede, obstruct, and deny Petitioners' access to Petitioners' structural right to be judged by a trial judge as to whom there was no disqualifying pre-case state of mind (Williams, 136 S. Ct. at 1906 ("There is, furthermore, a risk that the judge 'would be so psychologically we

Whether the Tennessee Supreme Court's Rule 10B unconstitutionally impedes Petitioners' structural right to an impartial judge