1] Did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abuse its discretion when it refused Review after Petitioner discovered approx. 20-25 min. of Cross-Examination testimony,, from the State's ONLY Witness on guilt/innocencefhad been Edited/Omitted from the Appellate Officii Transcript; and, the edited/omitted testimony contained explicit statements which proved ACTUAL INNOCENCE as a matter of Fact and Law?

2] In light and consideration of 40 years of Stare Decisis and the increasingly chaotic body of Case Law developed therein; is the term "lewd exhibition" in child pornography statutes proven to be absolutely unworkable'under the principles set forth by the Court in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 605-06(2015)?

3] Did the Trial Judge abuse his discretion when he refused the Petitioner, compulsory attendance of subpeonaed Witnesses SOLELY on the Judge's assertion:
"I'm not going to make anyone come to my Courtroom who does not want to be here;"
in violation of Petitioner's Constitutional Right to such in Due Process?

4] When a term is codified as an element of a criminal offense, and that term has meaning solely and exclusively based on and rooted in a religious mythology unique to ONE Religion's edict; does it violation 'Separation of Church and State' when said term is applied subjectively to a Citizen NOT ADHEREING TO the Religion from which the term comes and attains its meaning?

5] Does applying an ad hoc, case-by-dase determination rule?in which Fact Finders are permitted to exercise exclusively their own personal perspectives!to determine what constitutes an Element of the charged offense, with absolutely no ..guidance nor limitation from either the Trial Court or Legislature, constitute a violation of the "Fair Notice" Doctrine and/or the Rule set forth by this Couft in Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 393(1926) , and cited in Johnson, supra?

6] When a Pro Se Appellant proceeding in forma pauperis discovers and alleges there are substantive ommissions in the Trial Transcript which contained evidentuary testimony that proves ACTUAL INNOCENCE; doeslit violate the Appellant's DUE PROCESS on appeal to NOT order an investigative review of the ORIGINAL audio recording of the Trial testimony in question?

7 cont.] Where the factual determination of what is/isn't "lewd" can literally be made based SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY on the Fact Finders' RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL indocrination/programming from Birth onward (i.e. perspective inherently ingrained in their Societal biases); does it violate the U.S. Constitution's First (separation of church and state), and Fourteenth Amendments (equal protection, privildges and^rights under the laws) to permit individual Citizens to be tried by a Jury of exclusively made up of a Culture/Religion with a history KNOWN to be hostile toward the Culture/Religion from which the Defendant originates, when the central Element of the charged offense's MEANING is malleable and differs dramatically between the two opposite Cultures/Religions?
Restated ; when the key Element of a criminal offense is such that it's MEANING is variable and depends on HOW.a fact finder PERCEIVES it base on their INHERENT BIASES borne of lifelong Cultural/ Religious indoctrinations; Does allowing a Citizen from Sociocultural

Did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abuse its discretion when it refused review after discovering omitted cross-examination testimony that potentially proved actual innocence?