(1) Do THE RULINGS OF BOYKIN v_ ALABAMA, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), AND PEOPLE v JAWORSKI, 387 MI 21 (1972), VIOLATE PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, BY FALLING SHORT, ONLY REQUIRING THE COURT TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT OF JUST THREE (3) OF SO MANY CRITICAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WAIVED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY, MAKING HIS GUILTY PLEA UNKNOWING AND INVOLUNTARY? [NOTE: THERE WERE EIGHT (8) CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OCCURRING BEFORE PETITIONER'S PLEA, FOUR (4) OBVIOUS IN THE CouRT RECORDS, THE OTHERS COULD HAVE (SHOULD HAVE) BEEN DISCOVERED WITH PROPER INVESTIGATION BY TRIAL COUNSEL; THIS APPLIES TO APPELLATE COUNSEL TOO!]

(2) DID THE MIHIGAN TRIAL COURT VIOLATE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, BY MISINTERPRETING MCR 6.504(B)}(2)'s -AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE, WHICH STATES IN RELEVANT PART: ['IF IT PLAINLY APPEARS FROM THE FACE OF THE MATERIALS DESCRIBED IN (B)(4) THAT A DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF, THE COURT SHALL DENY THE MOTION WITHOUT DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE ORDER MUST INCLUDE A CONCISE STATEMENT FOR THE "REASONS" FOR THE DENTAL.], WHERE THE WORDING OF (B){2) ALLOWS THE TRIAL COURT TO CHOOSE TO NOT GIVE THE MOTION TO THE PROSECUTOR, AND, GENERATE THE OPINION WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR'S RESPONSE (CIRCUMVENTING THE "SEPARATION OF POWERS" REQUIREMENT); AND, DID THE TRIAL COURT ALSO VIOLATE THE "FINALITY REQUIREMENT" OF 28 USCS § 1291, WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ONLY RESPONDED TO ONE (1) OF TWENTY FOUR (24) ISSUES PRESENTED IN PETITIONER'S MCR 6.500 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; AND DID THE. MICHIGAN AND FEDERAL COURTS VIOLATE § 1291, FAILING TO ADJUDICATE ANY ISSUES ON THE MERITS?

Do the rulings of Boykin v. Alabama and People v. Jaworski violate the petitioner's constitutional and due process rights by requiring the court to advise a defendant of only three of the many critical constitutional rights waived when pleading guilty, making the plea unknowing and involuntary?