Federal Courts must defer to state court factual findings unless an evidentiary hearing has been made after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue Miller v. Fenton, 531 U.S. 114, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 U.Ed.2d 1 (2001). 28 U.S.C. § 2254 applies our habeas corpus embraces this deference. Factual determinations by state courts are presumed to be correct, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination shall not be overturned on collateral grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). This is confirmed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) substantial limitations on collateral review which reflects Congress's concern for Federalism. Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 126 S.Ct. 969, 163 U.Ed.2d 824 (2006). Breyer, J. (Concurring). Considerations of federalism require federal habeas courts to show yet further deference to state court judicial rulings. The Supreme Court reiterated that AEDPA created an independent inquiry standard to be met before a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to set aside state court rulings. Uttecht v. Brown, 551 S.Ct. 1254, 3 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007) (reversing Ninth Circuit's grant of habeas corpus relief where the court failed to respect the limited role prescribed by Congress).

Whether the principles of substantial limitations on collateral review in habeas corpus cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 apply to habeas corpus on pending cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; § 2254(d)(2)?

Whether the Appellate Courts in this case failed to apply the Minnesota State Prosecutor's office and the Minnesota State Courts dropped and dismissed the state case with prejudice, respectively, after an Omnibus Motion was filed, because of the unlawful activities of the Minnesota State Trooper involved, which, among other things, fabricated evidence (tube not based on probable cause), withheld exculpatory evidence, and was found to be not credible?

Whether the principle of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to this case, which precludes a party formed in state court or from seeking to undo what substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court based on the losing party's quintessential claim that the state judgment itself violates the users federal rights. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994)?

Whether the principles of substantial limitation on collateral review in habeas corpus cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 apply to habeas corpus cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in light of the state court's failure to respect the limited role prescribed by Congress