Whether the Minnesota courts erred in denying Mr. Odell's post-conviction relief petition based on damaging letters from the state's expert witness, violations of Mr. Odell's constitutional rights, and the application of the time-bar exception

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : (1)Article from Summer 2016 issue in Cure-Sort News Vol. 25, Issue 3 under heading, Letters From Across the Nation, which are damaging. Info found at www.cure-sort.org on Mr. Farnsworth, Mr. Odell’s leading expert. Can all letters be looked into? . (1)In this article from Letters From Across the Nation, which are damaging letters across the U.S.A., from Mr. Odell’s state expert Mr. Farnsworth who persuaded the courts against Mr. Odell, who in this article, in light of all the evidence Minnesota Courts need to be questioned now from 2016 news? (2) As well as Mr. Odell’s public defenders. Mr. Farnsworth violates his clients Constitutional Rights of the State and Federal and Minnesota gets away with this and protects him according to this article. (3) In Mr. Odell’s earlier 7pg. Petition for Post-Conviction Relief started in 2017-2018 in the exception:on this 2016 article on 590.01, subd. 4(b) (5)’s (2008). Why was it time:barred, when Mr. Odell started his post-conviction claim on this in 2017? ., (4) Now in the U.S. Supreme Court in Gassler v.,State 787 (4)(b) (2008), provides that if a petitioner can satisfy any of the five exceptions the time bar does not apply. Now Mr. Odell would like to use any Federal case laws and decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court to proceed? (5) Mr. Odell’s latest A 19-0059, on why Judge Lillehaug with all due respect brought up Mr. Odell upon newly discovered evidence (rules) may not be brought up for impeachment purposes on Minn. Stat. 590.1, subd. A(b)(2)? 1.) Mr. Odell never brought up newly discovered evidence standard or 2.) Impeachment in any of his appeal work everl: :.": . (6) Also in Gassler v. State 787 even though the trial court could consider the exception without establishment of newly discovered evidence. Mr. Odell would like to use any Federal case law and decisions from the Supreme Court to proceed? ve (7) In Gassler v. State 787, The post-conviction céurt erred when it failed to consider whether Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.'4 (b) (5)’s (2008) exception to the statutory time bar permitted appellant’s postconviction to be heard. Federal Ruling now? » (8) Bryan Leary who was part of Mr. Odell’s defense counsel at sentencing was recently in the Minneapolis Star & Tribune paper for a client Nathan Lehman and Bryan Leary took a “straight plea” for 61 years instead of prosecutions 41 year “plea” deal. Client was civilly committed 2 weeks prior. a * an 210573-Darren Odell CR i wie 8 (9) Why Nathan Lehman could represent himself without taking a prosecution “plea deal” of 41 yrs. and self incriminates himself for 61 yrs. And yet prosecution knew that Nathan Lehman was Civilly Committed Mentally Il just 2 weeks before this crime and thus gave him a “plea deal” for 41 yrs. (1) Mr. Odell is now questioning with all due respect to Bryan Leary his professionalism as a public Defender and getting over on his client as well who is mentally ill and no one questioned Bryan Leary’s outcome and Mr. Odell’s defense of Bryan Leary getting around the American Bar Association Standards for the Defense Basic guidelines which are found in United States v. DeCoster, 487 F. 2d 1197 (1973) The Supreme Court has, for example, recognized the attorney’s role in protecting the client’s, privilege against self-incrimination. Federal Ruling now on Mr. Odell. (2) And yet defense would not let Mr. Odell participate in his own defense what so ever whether incompetent or competent. And even none of Mr. Odell’s court proceedings of yes or no questions in court was not allowed by his defense team, to question Mr. Odell ‘effectively in open court. Thus . Mr. Odell did waive his right to a jury trial at the end of his proceedings, putting everything on his public defenders as the right thing to do, by the public defenders recommendation on this. : (11) Mr. Odell is not defending this felon any way,*but to show the courts that his professional ethics are as bad as Mr. Odell’s leading doctor Mr. Farn