(1) statute of limitatiors Begins To Run where lrgery And facts To Injury were when Belatedly Discovered Due To Respondents Fraudulent concealment From The Injured Party (Petrtioner) In A Timely limitations Began To Run In This Case Due To Respondents' Fraudulent Concealment:

(2) whether The Intentional And Deliberate Creation, Introduction And use of A Known fabricated And Falsifed Evidence Fraudulentty Concealed And used To Renove Petitioner From General Popudation (GP) And used To Place tim into Administrative segregation And Into A special security Housing unit "High lisk Potential (Hap) status," For Sioe - yedrs - Ten - Months- Eight - Days Abosent misknouingly Created And lntroduced And used ? As It was In This Case And for this court To Determine If This arcumstance is A Continuing vielation?

(3) Constitutional Pights?

(4) nces In Their custody And Refusal To Answer Relevant Discovery Requests In This Case that Could Have Either Proven or Disproven This case Must Be Held Agairist Them ln The sense That The Evidences were Not Favorable To Respondents, And whether Their Refusal must Construe The Evidences As Established Facts in Favor of The Petitioner For The purpose of The case ? As Ite was. In This Case And for This Court To make This Determination In This Case. of Prison operations.And If Prison Administrators Have The Aulthority To Do such Act without Infringing Petitioner's United states Constitutional Rights - As Found By The magistrate Judge And Dismissed As Immaterial for limitations Purposes And Adopted By The District court Judge? As It was 'In This Case And For This Court To Determine whether This Act By Respondents Violated Petitioner's united states Constitutional Rights.

(6) Telephone) without A shred of Evidence To support The charge or Its Guilty Finding And sanctioning Petitioner To 15 Days Disciplinary Detention And 3o Days Disciplinary segregation while Already On the uttra furitive HRp statis Housing can stand without A shred of Evidence or some Evidence on The Record To support This charge And its Guity Finding, And whether this was The Normal Daily Routine And Function of Prisor Operations- And if Prison Administrators Have the Anthority To carryont. such tat without Infringing Petitioner's, United states constitutional Rights. whether ioner's united states constitutional Rights- (t uld Have Been Considered To Help And Better fresent And shar pen The Issues on Appead For the iele.

When does the statute of limitations begin to run where the injured party was unaware of the respondents' fraudulent concealment?