Did the district court judge violate my right to Due Process of Law, factually loose jurisdiction, and create void proceedings?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . A. Re: The State District Court Judge 1. Did the district court judge violate my right to Due Process . of Law, factually loose jurisdiction, and create void proceedings : when he granted leave to file the information document as the instrument of indictment, in the states case against me, without previously conducting an adversarial hearing comparable to a . ; . Preliminary Examination, as mandated by the ‘intent of the Delegates who framed Article II, Section 20, Initiation of Proceedings,' : regarding the constitutionally acceptable proceeding to be utilized : during the Information Process? ; : 2. Did the ‘intent of the Delegates' who framed the 1971-72 Montana Constitution form the basis for all State Law; and if the ‘intent of the Delegates is the foundation for all law', did the , state district judge err in disregarding the evidence substantiating the ‘intent of the Delegates’ énsuring;: that a defendant in a felony case would be assured an open courtroom hearing, either a prelimianry examination before a magistrate or an adversaril : hearing before the district judge prior to any, determination as whether to ‘grant leave to file the information' or whether to . deny the state's application? 3. Did the district judge have the duty to know. the ‘History' of Taw §46-11-201, MCA, the legislated 'statute' under which he ‘acted' during the flawed ‘indictment by information process? i. and did the disregard of the 'Framer's intent' regarding the necessity for either a preliminary examination or a hearing comparable to such preliminary examination prior to the judge making any determination regarding whether to grant leave to file the information document as the instrument of indictment, or whether to dismiss the prosecutor's application.deny me my Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process of Law and my Thirteenth Amendment right to be "duly convicted" by a court of competent jurisdiction? 4. Did the state district judge violate my rights under both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as violate clearly established Supreme Court of the United States holdings regarding the mandatory recusal by a judge who acts in the “accusatory process" of a felony case? 5. Did the state district court judge violate my Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed right to due process of law when, on February 12, 2016, he denied my third petition for Postconviction Relief by stating that the newly discovered evidence I presented, being verbatim copies of pertinent state records proving that the judge had acted contrary to the “intent of the Delegates" during the unlawful indictment by information proceedings utilized in the “state's case against me, when he labeled the evidence as being "a purely legal argument concerning the procedure by which he was charged", when in fact the "records copies" were !!tangible.mater: ial evidence of corrupt practices? . . 6..: Did the state district judge act in violation of clearly ‘established Supreme Court of the United States law by having failed ii, , ‘to provide an attorney to prepare and argue my claim of ineffective representation of trial counsels when I raised that issue in my : Petition for Postconviction Relief? B. Re: The Office of the State Attorney General 1. Did the state error and violate my right to due process of -law in rejecting its own “foundation of state law" as based upon ; the State Records regarding the "intent of the Delegates"? 2. Did the Montana State Attorney General knowingly violate my right to due process as guaranteed by Amendment Fourteen and my right to be "duly convicted" under Amendment Thirteen, as well as engage in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to adhere to the “intent of the Framers" regarding the constitutional proceedings required during the information stage of the accusatory process in preparation for prosecution of this Petitioner? : ; 3. Did the state attorney general's failure to adhere to the intent of the Delegates regarding the c