Respondent Daniel Redington, Warden, Northeast Correctional Center through counsel of record have been untruthful, in all the courts > denying Petitioner due process of law, as a right to fair and impartial trial before a jury of his piers. Respondents' misr'proceedings include violations of ^presentation of the facts in United States Constitutional _ rights , under the Bill of Rights, Am endments 1,4,5,6,8 and 14. The State's prosecutors engaged in sub ornation of perjury to coverup spoiliation of evidence, used Peti tioners' religious conscience against him at trial, suppressed ex culpatory evidence, violating Brady, witnessed to perjured ev idence not in the record, shifted the bburden of prosf to petitioner, and in at least one instance were inebriated during proceedings.

Further, the trial court, is an alcoholic, who has admitted guilt to alcohol related crimes, allowed the Prosecutor Catherine Crowley to conduct proceeding inebriated, while he was inebriated himself. Catherin Crowley was fired by Jefferson County, Missouri for being inebriated during a proceeding.

Petitioner, moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.RV Civ.P., which was denied by the district court as unavailable to the habeas petitioner. Further, petitioner properly served a Ru le 36, Fed.R.Civ.P. , upon the parties, who .failed to respond prop erly under the Rule. The district court granted the admissions into evidence, but refused to hold the proper standard of law and apply the admissions as binding upon the State.

Petitioner motioned the district court to accept medical evi dence from the Department of Veterans' Affairs archive as evidence meeting the Actual-innocence standard. The district court accepted the evidence into the record, unapposed by the State, along with an affidavit from the POTUS's agent, Mr. Ivey*, that the evidence was witheld from Petitioner in violation of the FOIA, by a VA fault. And thereby unavailable at trial. The district court in denying the petition stated, actual-innocence is an unsettled matter of law by this court.

1. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, err in not granting COA to the following claims ??:the prosecut or's comments during closing argument improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense;.(2) the trial court abased its discretion in overruling Watson's objection to instruction No. 9(note the judge is an alcoholic, who plead guilty to alcohol related crimes and allowed the lead pros ecutor to conduct proceedings in the inebriated state)| (3) the trial court erred in allowing testimony from Watson's son regarding Watson's alleged physical abuse; (4) trial co unsel was ineffective in failing to introduce medical rec ords to prove-Watson suffers from erectile dysfunction ;(5) the prosecutor in subornation of perjury event, used Watson's ethnicity and religious conscience by asking the witness!, why Watson disliked .the' victim's husband; (6) the prosecution stole valuable property and exculpatory evdience from Wat son's home; (7) the State's witnesses committed perjury; (8) the prosecutor relied on facts outside of the evidence dur-r ing his closing argument ;(9) the police should have preve nted the victim from deleting her Facebook account and em ails; (10) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit erred in not granting a certificate of appealability on the petitioner's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and actual innocence