1. Does AEDPA v deprive federal courts of the power and obligation to review claims—Not previously known and could NOT have been known through reasonable diligence but were promptly raised after the basis was discovered — that a defendant was convicted under void state statutes which violate federal constitutional law and that did NOT apply to the alleged conduct of the conviction case?

2. Did both the Ninth Circuit and district court ERR in concluding that they barred the void for vagueness claims, and denial of jury trial and notice of charges claims, the basis of which was NOT previously known by Cervantes?

Does AEDPA deprive federal courts of the power and obligation to review claims not previously known and could not have been known through reasonable diligence but were promptly raised after the basis was discovered - that a defendant was convicted under void state statutes which violate federal constitutional law and that did not apply to the alleged conduct of the conviction?