Imagine a prosecutor telling a criminal defendant: yes, you were not given a trial, and I admit that.
But the decision not to give you a trial (even though you are entitled to it by law) was made, and, therefore, all your claims that you are entitled to a trial are now moot.
And - after all, you have a remedy of addressing the court at sentencing, so you were not deprived of any rights.
Yet, here is what my disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini stated to the court in her May 15, 2015 affirmation, under oath:
That is exactly the same as the insane hypothetical above - Mary Gasparini believes that, if a court ordered not a judge, but referee Sirkin, to hold an evidentiary hearing, if Sirkin refused to do that, thus defying a court order and engaging in a crime of contempt of court (with Mary Gasparini's whole-hearted support) - and because Sirkin refused to do what the court ordered him to do, in Mary Gasparini's opinion, the issue of whether I am entitled to the evidentiary hearing and whether the court has authority to proceed when no such court-ordered hearing was held, is somehow "moot".