I. WHETHER PETITIONER ,1 OF 60 MILLION AMERICANS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS WAS DEPRIVED BILL OF
RIGHTS PROTECTIONS OF AMENDMENT I ,V ,VI ,IX ,AND XIV. WHERE TRIAL COURT PRECLUDED HIM [49]
OCCASIONS FROM TESTIFYING HIS INNOCENCE, FREELY, WITH NO ENUMERATION. WHILE PRESENTING
A DEFENSE. DOES DUE PROCESS AFFORD STIPULATION AS TO RELEVANT DEMONSTRATIVE I.E MENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS WHICH ARE INFERRING AND PRESUMED IN TESTIMONY.

II. WHETHER CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SANCTIONED HABEAS TRIAL COURT'S SUPPRESSION OF
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH EXPOSES [3] TRIAL DA SUPRESSIONS ,[1] ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL SUPPRESSION ,[1] HABEAS JUDGE SUPPRESSION ,AND [1] HABEAS DISTRICT ATTORNEY
LITIGATION TEAM SUPPRESSION.

III. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ,A SUBSIDIARY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD IMPEDE I.E. DENY PETITIONER XIV AMENDMENT AND EQAUAL
PROTECTION OF PRESENTING A NON PIECEMEAL HABEAS PETITION IN THE STATE COURT.

IV. WHETHER APPELLATE COUNSEL'S NON OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE HABEAS CLAIMS SHOULD
PRECLUDE PETITIONER FROM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS WHEN ALL CLAIMS
PRESENTED ARE PREMISED IN FACTS FROM THE TRIAL FILE WHICH WAS IN A DEAD LETTER FACILITY
FOR 14 YEARS.

V. WHETHER -VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION WHICH ESTABLISHES STRUCTURAL ERROR
STEMMING FROM JUDICIAL DERELICTION OF DUTY AND MANIFEST DISREGARD FOR THE LAW
CONSTITUTE ERROR OF CONSTITUTIONAL MAGNITUDE.

VI. WHETHER CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE SCHLUP GATEWAY
STANDARD WITHOUT GRANTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE PHYSIOLOGICAL
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS ONLY A PHYSIOLOGIST OR PHYSICAL THERAPIST CAN PROFESSIONALLY
PROVIDE IN REGARD TO SHOULDER RANGE OF MOTION DEFICIENCY.

VII. WHETHER FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON FELONY MURDER RULE WHEN ASKED WHEN IS A
CRIME NOT PREMEDITATION BECAUSE NO FELONY EXISTS AND THE CHARGE IS RENDERED ASSAULT
WITH A FIREARM CONSTITUTE DIRECTINGTHE JURY TO CONVICT.

VIII. DOES TRIAL JUDGE DERILICTION COMBINED WITH MULTIPLE PROSECUTORIAL BRADY/NAPUE
VIOLATIONS INVOKE THE BRECHT RULE APPLYING CHAPMAN/SARRAZAWSKI.

IX. WHETHER DETERENCE IS NECESSARY WHEN 'FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE' EVIDENCED AND
CONCEDED TO IN THE TRIAL FILE .THEN INSPIRING MULTIPLE FALSE TESTIMONY COMPEL FULL AND FAIR
STATE LITIGATION TO AFFORD DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION.

Whether petitioner, 1 of 60 million Americans with mental illness, was deprived of Bill of Rights protections of Amendment 1, V, VI-IX and XIV