Does Delaware's Amended' Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and/or Delaware State Courts' decisions violate Due Process Rights (14th Amendment)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does Delaware’s “Amended” Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (post-conviction motion) and/or Delaware State Courts’ decisions, make or enforce Laws/Rules that “abridge” their citizens privileges and immunities and violate Due Process Rights (14th Amendment), when they “conflict” and intentionally ignore “This Court’s” decisions, US Court of Appeals decisions, Federal Rules/Laws and Delaware’s own ; State Rule/Laws to retain a conviction, despite “New Evidence” contradicting guilt, constitutionality, and integrity of conviction? . 2. Is it a violation of Due Process Rights (5t and 14th Amendment) and/or should exceptions apply when a citizen did not have counsel during his initial collateral proceedings and/or citizen was not lucid during initial collateral proceedings, when procedural bars preclude him from asserting his Constitutional Rights when he is legally knowledgeable and/or has become lucid? 3. If evidence is presented to the jury in trial by counsel for defense, but counsel did not explain the “exculpatory or impeaching value” of this evidence to the jury, would the evidence be considered “New” when the evidence is “Newly Obtained” (from the Court) and the “exculpatory value” reveals Constitutional Violations during trial that would have changed the outcome of the trial? 4. Did Delaware State Courts make decisions in “conflict” with The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's “New Rule of Constitutional Law” supporting Petitioner’s “New Evidence” stating “A conviction must be set aside even if this false testimony goes only to the witness's creditability rather than the Defendant’s guilt?” 5. When there is no physical evidence of a crime, should a conviction be overturned and/or other legal remedies apply “Where a theory of guilt and an equal theory of innocence are supported by the evidence,” when it is more likely than not that a crime did not occur, to “Protect the accused Due Process Rights” and to prevent a “Miscarriage of Justice” from the accused being wrongfully convicted due to false sexual allegations stemming from rebellious teens, politics, revenge, joining the Me Too Movement for attention, money, jealousy or other ulterior motives?