I.
Should the U.S. Constitutional Fifth Amend requiring indictments be applied
to the States, thereby overturning precedence from 1884; Hurtado v.
California, 110 U.S. 516 (l884ft.

II.
Must Aggravating factors be presented to a State grand jury and be in the
State indictment in order to have Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) over
aggravating factors used to enhance a State sentence?

III.
If the Trial Court does not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) over a
defendant or case and they are convicted by a jury, does this make him actually
or factually innocent of the crime, thereby allowing lower courts to disregard
time and other procedural violations in challenging his conviction?

IV.
Does Lack of Notice to an indigent, Pro Se criminal defendant, of the Court 's
time frames and other procedural requirements by any Court or Federal, State
or local government official, and in so doing causing a procedural default due
to defendant not knowing of time/procedural requirements, violate 14th
Amendment Due Process, equal protection (poor vs. rich people with lawyers)
and/or access to the courts, or any other Constitutional violation?

V.
Can a State or any Court prohibit the requirements for sentencing under
Apprendi because of time or procedural requirements/violations (other than
retroactivity); in other words, if a defendant squarely falls under Apprendi but
the court sentences the defendant outside of what Apprendi requires and the
defendant never objects or becomes aware of it until years later, can a court
default the request for resentencing under the Constitutional requirements of
Apprendi, thereby requiring the Defendant to completely serve this knowingly
unconstitutional sentence?

Should the U.S. Constitutional Fifth Amendment requiring indictments be applied to the States, thereby overturning precedence from 1884; Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)?