1. Whether the importance to the public of this issue, does
the word " cannot " still retain its meaning, when it is on
record, the "altering" of "facts and evidence" done intent
ionally, purposely, willingly, with full knowledge what is
being presented to the court is by means of "bad faith" and
"ill intent" found out only years later during years of in
carceration, should those prosecutors and/or law officials
be immune?

2. Should the HECK Rule be modified when it found out by
irrefutable evidence in the form of photographs and DNA
Lab reports, or other conclusive exculpatory evidence found
years later during a post-conviction stage, because prosecut
ors (i) abused the adversary process by presenting False DNA
results and False destruction of evidence scenarios, causing
the [*2] defense to assume mitigating exculpatory Brady facts
did not exist while suppressing evidence opposite the scenario
they presented to the jury (ii) capitalized on their conceal
ment and fabricated scenarios repeatedly, and (iii) when the
jury requested that evidence, took steps to remove that
evidence that would have been opposite their theory outing
their misleading of the jury, and denying that evidence, once
again only found out after years of incarceration, should
immunity still be provided when steps are currently still
active, denying a full "habeas" review?

3. The question of great importance to this Supreme Court
of The United States of America, is the question of tyranny,
and what differentiates us from a totalitarian run justice ;/
system wherein a person's liberty and freedom can be removed
fromian entity that has learned over years of trial and error
to utilize "due process" tactics of suppression and fabrication,
with little or no repercussions, even it is repeated, and will
this Highest Court with the authority to correct, be "[t]he
only Maxim of a free government ought to be, to trust no man
Living with Power to endanger the Public Liberty," [P.J.A.],
and, "[B]ut let no person say what they would or would not do,
since we are not judges for ourselves until circumstances call
us to act," [F.L.A.A.], as this opportunity to correct is
presented?

Whether prosecutors who intentionally alter facts and evidence with bad faith should be immune from legal consequences when exculpatory evidence is discovered years later during post-conviction review