1. Where petitioner is actually innocent and being held in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, where such petitioner denied his Due Process of law, 1. where petitioner On or about January 4th 2010 petitioner was given a polygraph examination by Tamera Jessen-Iverson as part of a psycho-sexual evaluation conducted by William Davis, Psy.D.., a Clinical psychologist. The polygraph concludes that there was no significant reaction to the relevant issue questions tested in this exam and that in the examiners opinion petitioner was truthful in his responses.

2. Where petitioner was denied his right to 'Due Process of Law' in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, when trial counsel failed to object to the experts diagnosis with no evidence, where such petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, (1) where trial counsel failed to object, move to strike and move for a mistrial when prosecution expert witness. (2) Where Kerri Hecox testified as follows: "Q: In fact, in your opinion was this was highly concerning for sexual abuse. A Yes" Trial counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's question and witness Hecox's response as it was inadmissible speculation under Oregon case and Oregon evidence code 401 and 403, impermissible bolstering of K.N. 's credibility under OEC 608, and as a violation of the rule that one witness will never testify about the credibility of another witness. Counsel should have further moved to strike this testimony and moved for a mistrial alleging a violation of petitioner's right to due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Cons. Because no physical evidence corroborated the accusations of K.N. against petitioner, it is probable that this testimony affected the result of the verdict against petitioner.

3. Where petitioner was denied his right to 'Due Process of Law' in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, when trial counsel advised petitioner NOT to take the stand and would defend petitioner on the theory of a shoddy investigation, where such petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and due process of law,

4. Where petitioner was denied his right to 'Due Process of Law ' in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, when both trial and PCR, counsels failed by NOT calling Dept, of Human Services emplyee, Marcy Stenerson, who authored a prior unsubstantiated report violated his 6th, and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. (1) where trial and Post-conviction counsels were aware of report written by Marcy Steneson, from the Department of human Services. (2) where Ms. Steneson had been contacted prior to the allegations of this case about an incident of a prior sexual assault.(3) where "Her conclusion of the investigation and allegation was "'could not be substantiated This is clear evidence of a prior false allegation, which is authorized and admissible in Oregon Courts. This would have caused a different out come in the trial.

5. Where petitioner was denied his right to 'Due Process of Law' in violation of the Sixth Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, when both trial and PCR counsels failed by not raising the issue of mistaking identity at tria, where such petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, (1) where

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause