(0) Original questions in natural form provided as (appendix Z-l) before instructed
reduction of them by this court. Petitioner is pro-se and mentally disabled and has here made
his best attempts to reduce length.

(1) Would not granting Certiorari and ignoring this appeal be a danger to society and Petitioner,
since a medically documented "reoccurring " type of insanity is proven by evidences to be the
cause of the offense against society and no inquiry or treatment whatsoever has ever been
conducted by anyone concerning the matters?

(2) Actual innocence. There is conflict among the Circuit Courts regarding Petitioners
multiple forms of innocence:

(a) Can insanity and the affirmative, complete defense thereof (18 U.S.C. § 17), be used to
support a claim of actual innocence rather than legal innocence, as most courts in America hold,
agree, assume, or "leave open " that it can and/or does?

(b) When a necessary particular criminal element of an offense is proven by evidence to
have not been committed and/or is not satisfied/proven, which renders one not guilty of the
crime of conviction, but only a "lesser offense ", can such form of innocence be used to support
a claim of actual innocence as most Courts and Circuits in America hold, agree, or assume it can,
rather than legal innocence?

(c) Can insanity, and evidence thereof, which would confirm inability of one to form the
requisite particular criminal intent necessary to a particular offense, and in which would confirm
the particular criminal intent to have not existed in the mind of the person during such offense,
be used to support a claim of actual innocence?

(3) Is the denial of the insanity defense as actual innocence medical negligence? Is ignoring such
innocence claim involving insanity on its face medical negligence?

(4) Once insanity has been established and proven by evidence to be the cause of an offense, and
it is provided to a court for a first time, is mandatory commitment, inquiry, and treatment
required by law, or, is continued confinement and punishment with no inquiry; does it matter
when such evidences and facts are discovered and provided to a court?

(5) Should an affirmative defense of insanity be honored even as a freestanding claim of actual
innocence when it is first introduced into a case for the sake of the immediate safety and
treatment of the not guilty by reason of insanity, so that the safety and treatment are not hindered
by the continued delay of the resolve of the constitutional violation involved with the conviction?

(6) Is it constitutional for any court or State to make no inquiry and take no responsible action
when evidence of insanity is provided to them and brought to their attention? Is such lack of
responsibility safe for society and for those who suffer insanity; is such lack of responsibility
inhumane?

(7) Once it has been established by evidence that insanity was the cause of an offense, should the
burden, responsibility, and duty fall upon the courts to notice and correct the errors at issue, or
should such burden remain on the person who suffers and suffered insanity?

(8) Is the failure and continued failure of the courts to honor the evidence of insanity as actual
innocence and to continue to let the issue and evidence remain un-inquired into and ignored
medical negligence, inhum

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for violation of their First Amendment rights