LOUDERMI. 1OS S.CT. 1487(198S), AM I NOT ENTITLED TD THE RIGUT TO OUE AROCESS?

ACCORDING TO THE UMITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENOTONT V AND SMITH V. PUILLIPS, SS U.S. ,209.224 102 5.CT. 940,949. 71 L.Ed 2d 78 (1982), Am 1 00T EMTIT1ED 0 PROTECTIOn FROM A BIAS JURY TO WUICH DOCTRINE EXTENDS B COVER IMPHED BIAS?

DID NOT THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APEALS OWE ME THE MIMISTERIAI DUTY OF AVIDING A FUll AnO FAIR HEARING AS An ARTICIE ILL COURT?

ACCONDIMG TO 28 USCS § 22S3 (L)(Q) AND : SIACK V. MCDaNIGL, S29 U.S. 473, 483 200O) DOES MM IMPUED BLAS CLAIM WINH APPROPRLATE SUAfAING EVIDENCE NOT CONSTITUTE THE SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENAL OF A CONSETUTONAL RIGHT?

0 DOES A COURT HAVE A DUTY O RECOGNIZE EVIDENCE IN A DEFENDANTS FAVC ?

WAS IT ABUSE C DISCRETION FOR SUDE HIGGINSON OP.NE In CONFICT O: REMMER 6.3d 3285CR 200) 6A DAVS,893 F.3 2825 CR 2018; A0 ANES V. KERNER 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ?

J I IT FUNDIMENTALLY UNFAIR WIEN PROCEDURAL DUE AOCESS IS HINDERED THEREBY CREATING CONDITIONS WLICH PREDUDICE A PROSE ITGANT?

S, AS STATED In THE CPINION BU THE FIGTH CIRCUIT COA, IMPLIED JUROR BIAS CLAIM A OPEN QUESTION OF CLEARL GTABISHED FEDERAl LAW, AND IF SO, ISTH SUPRETE COURT OF Bt THE UMITED STATES CAPADTE AND WLING TO ADDRESS TLE ISSUE BH ESTABLISHING A STANDARD FOR THE COURTS TO FOLLAW AS APPARENTY Is NEEDED AND/OR NECESSARY?

Is it Fai TO HvE an officEn o iE Cor on tLe duy, lEr Abone As Juy FoReman?

Whether the petitioner was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the protections of the Takings Clause, as established in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)