Whether the petitioner's substantive due process rights were violated when the courts dismissed his habeas petition despite the existence of an active warrant related to the challenged conviction and sentence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW a I understand the questions are to be short and concise. The concise part is easy enough, short, now that's going to be tough, but I will do the best that I can. This introduction is intended to minimize the length of the statement required with each question, ultimately shortening the question proposed. I'll minimize the questions hopefully enough, to convey the severity of the illegal actions committed by law enforcement used to create this case. Then I'll take it a step further to convey the illegalities that were continued by law enforcement, in concealing the fabrication of the warrant that was used to create this case. The warrant was needed to create the probable cause needed for an arrest. The arrest was needed to obtain a conviction in an unrelated case in which, probable cause to arrest the petitioner over, did not exist. Law enforcement continued the fraud by “backdating” a valid warrant, the valid warrant was placed into the fabricated warrant slot. This action created the false visual image that the fabricated warrant arrested over, was a valid warrant. That all may appear good on paper, like something that can be left alone, setaside, or ignored without any damage being done, because the fabricated warrant appears valid. That's not the circumstance in this case. The State, the U.S. District Court, and the United States Court of Appeals have all dismissed this case because of the time that has lapsed between the expiration of the sentence, and the filing of the §2254 Petition. With the expiration of the sentence imposed being the reason for dismissing the 1 case, that means the warrant over the charges sentenced on, has been executed. . . One of the problems with that lies in the fact that the valid warrant that was “backdated”, and placed in the “spot” of the fabricated warrant, to conceal the fact that a warrant was fabricated for an arrest, is that the valid warrant, has never been executed. . . Ultimately, the fabricated warrant arrested over, on the charges challenged in the _ §2254 Petition, that's been dismissed because the sentence has expired, is ACTIVE again. 2 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) _ The petitioner was arrested a minimum of at least 14 times by Broward County Officials, during the years a Broward County warrant allegedly remained “active” in Broward County. The results of those arrests placed Krott “Under the Thumb” of either Broward County Jails, (serving a county jail sentence), or F.D.O.C., (serving a Florida State prison sentence), for a total of 7-years and 36-days, out of the 8years and 328-days, while the alleged active Broward County warrant allegedly remained active in Broward County. Legally or procedurally, can a warrant withstand the scrutiny of at least 30 N.C.LC., and F.C.LC. warrant searches, or of the defendant being in the custody of the same officials alleged to have possession of an “active” warrant, for about 81% of the time while the alleged warrant allegedly remained active? 2) Between the 6/30/2006 adjudication and sentencing date of the charges under the directive of the fabricated warrant, and the 6/2/2017 filing date of the §2254 petition challenging that conviction and sentence, over 100 entries to and from the respective court's were transmitted attempting to resolve this case. The filing of the timely proceedings ultimately maintained a “live” or “open controversy” status with this case. 3 Did the respective court's violate Krott's substantive due process rights by dismissing Krott's petition for lack of jurisdiction, with over 100 proceedings having been filed maintaining an “open controversy” status with this case ? 3) The State recommends in their jurisdictional claim, that the petition should be dismissed, stating that, the 6/30/2006 sentence has expired long before the 6/2/2017 filing date of the §2254 petition on that sentence. Yes, the sentence has expired, but in an attempt to conceal the fabrication of the 2/1 5/2006 ar