1. Since the District Attorney/State orchestrated fraud with (4) four witnesses assuring the Elements of the Crime were buttressed so that the jury would not find negation of proof required to find the Petitioner/Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this should be considered Fraud on the Court. Should the United States Supreme Court use its inherent authority to act sua sponte and vacate the prior decisions of the lower courts?

2. Did the First Court of Appeals violate the Petitioner's Right to a Fair Trial under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Right of Confrontation under the 6th Amendment by omitting analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), plain error under United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993), Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, (1972), when informed that the District Attorney and SANE Nurse colluded to provide Undiscoverable Fraudulent Medical Evidence and other Fraudulent Statements to the jury?

3. Did the First Court of Appeals violate the United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Section 2, by misinterpreting Texas State Precedent regarding Fraudulent Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument and omitting Petitioner's Federal Law Arguments under 6th Amendment Right of Confrontation and the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause? Chapman, Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974) and Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986).

Should the United States Supreme Court use its inherent authority to act sua sponte and vacate the prior decisions of the lower courts due to alleged prosecutorial fraud?