Were petitioner's due process & equal protection rights violated when trial court lacked proper jurisdiction?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (1) WERE PETITIONER'S "DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE. LAWS" RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIES VIOLATED, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAD "TRIED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED" PETITIONER WITHOUT PROPER AND LAWFUL JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS : HAD NOT BEEN RETURNED? (2) WERE PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS" RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITES VIOLATED THROUGH PROSECUTORAL MISCONDUCT, VIOLA~ING HIS RIGHT TO A "FAIR AND MEANINGFUL , TRIAL" BY THE LAWS OF THE TEXAS JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? (3) WAS THE JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT VOID. FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: NEW EVIDENCE THAT: INDICTMENTS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND SAID INDICTMENTS“ EX DOLO MALO AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY PLACED FRAUDULENT INDICTMENTS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND SAID INDICTMENTS WERE NOT A PRODUCT OF ANY TERM OF GRAND JURY? DISTRICT ATTORNEY CANNOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE EXCEPT PRIMA FACIE TO THE CONTRARY. (4) DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN: PRODUCE NO EVIDENCE THAT ARTICLE 19.06 T.C.C.P. WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED BY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING PETITIONER'S GRAND JURY SELECTION PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF HIS 6th & 14th AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND DID NOT REPRESENT A FAIR CROSS~SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY IN VIOLATION OF THE JURY SELECTION SERVICE ACT OF 1968. (5) WERE PETITIONER'S "DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND DOUBLE JEAPORDY(ONLY. IF RETRIED)" RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, & IMMUNITIES VIOLATED, WHEN HE HAD TO STAND TRIAL UNDER INDICTMENTS WHICH THE PROSECUTION KNEW TO BE BASED UPON ITS OWN FRAUD AND PERJURED TESTIMONY, CONSTITUTING FRAUD UPON THE COURT? (6) DID THE LOWER TEXAS COURTS ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S WRITS? IN DENYING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING CONCERNING EVIDENCE OF FRAUD? IN ITS "RUBBER STAMPED" RULINGS RESULTING IN A PROCEDURAL BAR? UNDER THE MERGER DOCTRINE IN THE COURT OF CRIMAL APPEALS DENIALS OF MANDAMOUS REQUESTS CONCERNING JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY MAGISTRATE JUNGE'S DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S WRITS AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING DENIALS-ALL MANDAMOUS ACTIONS 2 WERE THE COURT'S WRONG IN DISMISSING AND CAUSING A PROCEDURAL BAR .PETITIONER'S WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AS SUBSEQUENT WRIT APPLICATIONS? “HOW CAN THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER(EXHIBIT) C FIND THAT PETITIONER'S WRIT APPLICATIONS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION AS SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBSEQUENT WRIT BAR BUT THEN RECOMMEND THAT THEY BE DISMISSED AS SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS AND THE SAME FINDINGS OCCUR IN THE TEXAS R NAL APPEALS? IS THIS AN ABUSE OF CRET lige ACSHOWLNGSTHAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN FINDINGS OF, EAW? i