I. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABDICATE ITS CLEAR LEGAL DUTY TO EXERCISE ANCILLARY JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS OF FRAUD ON THE COURT, ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY RECHARACTERIZING PETITIONER'S RULE 60(d) MOTION AS A SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND EFFECTIVELY SUSPENDED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CONTRARY TO US CONST AM ART 1, SEC 9, C12.

II. DOES THE REVERBERATING EFFECT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FRAUD ON THE STATE COURT REGARDING THE LACK OF DNA EVIDENCE CONSTITUTE FRAUD AGAINST THE HABEAS COURT WHERE THE STATE'S LACK OF DNA EVIDENCE CLAIM WAS ADVANCED TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND RELIED ON, IN PART, TO DENY HABEAS RELIEF?

Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant civil-rights, due-process, and equal-protection laws