1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENTS WERE INVALID FOR FAILURE TO RESOLVE NUMEROUS PREEXISTING FUNDAMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS?

2. WHETHER THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LACKED STANDING TO PARTICIPATE AS A PARTY-RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND APPEAL A § 2254 HABEAS JUDGMENT GRANTED AGAINST THE STATE?

3. WHETHER THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN HEARING A MOOT AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ISSUE?

4. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO VACATE ITS 1/17/2006 JUDGMENT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND ORDER PETITIONER UNCONDITIONALLY DISCHARGED?

5. WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT LACKS AUTHORITY UNDER HABEAS CORPUS RULES 2(a), 2(c) AND THE MODEL § 2254 FORM, TO SUPPLY A HABEAS PETITIONER WITH AND REQUIRE USE OF A § 2254 FORM LISTING THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AS AN ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT?

6. WHETHER THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS WERE PRECLUDED BY MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137, 178 (1803) AND DAY V. McDONOUGH, 547 U.S. 198, 199 (2006), FROM APPLYING THE AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO THE GRANTING OF A MERITORIOUS § 2254 HABEAS PETITION?

Whether the court of appeals judgments were invalid for failure to resolve numerous preexisting fundamental jurisdictional defects?