1. Should the established, freestanding public records rights be revisited for settling the
states conflicting, questionable lawful authority to fraudulently conceal evidence that
proves substantive, procedural rights violations falsely imprisoning a criminal defendant,
the state court lacking any compelling government interest, evidentiary privilege or subject
matter jurisdiction?

2. Do established laws protect and prevent the indefinite suppression of public records that
show fraudulent prosecutions of non-existent crimes, impeachability of all prosecution
witnesses, an insufficiency of evidence to sustain any conviction and the lack of any lawful
authority by non-elected, appointed judges and prosecutors to perpetrate and conceal
unconstitutional processes facilitating extrinsic fraud and false imprisonment?

3. Do established Federal and International laws enforce the right to a fair, speedy trial and
correct the deprivation of that right, perpetrated through trickery, deceit, extrinsic fraud,
depriving face to face confrontation, material evidence of impeachability and actual
innocence?

4. Does the deprivation of selfrrepresentation/access to courts, with the purpose of
preventing challenges to rights violations, entitle the victim, through established law, to
review of the disqualified challenges and or dismissal of criminal charges and release from
custody?

5. Does established law protect an enforce rights violated through vague, ambiguous,
conflicting state legislation, non-elected appointed officials and prolonged ex-parte
influence/inadmissible evidentiary support and arguments?

6. Is this court obligated to revisit, under stare decisis, impact of actuality, highest level of
controversy, the internal constitutional conflict between the 9th and 14th Amendments for
vague and ambiguous wording in the 9th Amendment, violating International law, when the
application results in arbitrary detention perpetrated by non-elected, appointed judges and
assistant prosecutors falsely claiming a lawful authority?

7. Does the manifest disregard of established laws and rights, through intentional plain
errors and the abuses of discretion, by federal appellate and district judges, require the
enactment of legal precedent to correct and settle the variations in issues leaving
discretionary authority unbound to deprive rights condoning and concealing fraud on the
court by the court.

8. Does stare decisis, established laws and rights, prevail over judicial political
partisanship, concealment of fraud by unlawful rulings, and judicial immunity facilitating
and authorizing abuses of discretion disregarding federal rights doctrine, state evidentiary
breach of contract laws, new light evidence, fundamental miscarriage of justice doctrines?

9. Where the courts have shown the appearance of bad faith, bias and political
partisanship, disregarding stare decisis principle, but has an intent to divert petitioners
case to the United States Supreme Court for the proper administration of justice, only the
highest court can render, does this not obligate this court to review, rule and prevent a
fundamental miscarriage of justice for either a bad faith obstruction of justice, or
diversionary, scenario, regardless of the good or bad faith of the judiciary?

10. Will this court accept the duty to acknowledge Petitioner's proven, supported,
allegations and the deprivations of rights under color of law, as his final adequate remedy,
and fully resolve the entanglement/dilemma in favor of the American

Whether established public records rights should be revisited to address fraudulent evidence concealment and potential rights violations in criminal proceedings