Was Petitioner's conviction a result of a procedure that violates 1st-Amendment, civil-rights, free-speech, public-trial, due-process

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. “Was Petitioner’s conviction a result of a procedure, §17.1-293.1 that violates 1st Amendment U.S. Constitutional Civil Rights to access correct court information, assemble, and free speech of the defendant, public and press? Did the Supreme Court of Virginia create case law for all Virginia courts to do the same by publishing a ruling Herrington v. Comm. 291 Va. 181 (2016) affirming these same procedures without recognizing the incompatibility with the Executive Secretary Of The Supreme Court of Virginia licensed software, that caused the Online Case Information System to publicizes false information to all interested parties about what charge a defendant is indicted, arranged, tried convicted and sentenced, at each stage, on each date and beyond, when there is no other source to get the information?” [See Pg.17;] 2. “Dose this procedure violate the defendants, U.S. Constitutional ,6th &14th : Amendment right to a public trial, from the violation of press and publics Ist Amendment right to assemble, free speech and access to the courts, due to the pervasive reliance on software and the internet, when the Governments software and Online Case Information System publicizes false information about what charge a defendant is indicted, arraigned, tried, convicted and sentenced to, when the interested parties get their information exclusively from these vast networks? Has constructive denial of a public trial occurred?” [See Pg.20;] 3. “Does this procedure also hide, mislead or confuse the Jude, Clerk, Defendant and his counsel, about the charge one is to be tried on, so as to make a defendant unable ; to know the cause and nature of the charge, nor give adequate time to prepare a : defense in violation of 5", 6 & 14" Amendment U.S. Constitutional rights, due : to software that spreads false information in the Circuit Case Management System?” (See Pg.23;] 4. “Does the published case law Herrington v. Comm, 291 Va. 181 (2016) violate the separations of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution 10" & 14'* Amendment, by broadening the authority of prosecutors in Va. giving them more power than a Judge? Can a prosecutor maintain a Judges certified charge/case number and write back in what the Judge just struck from the charge, and present the struck portion as if certified by the Judge? Does a court have subject-matter jurisdiction through a fraudulently conveyed charge, from a procedure that violates fundamental rights? Do these actions raise issues of Collateral Estoppel or Res Judicata?” [See Pg.25;] 5. “Was the Petitioner’s U.S. Constitutional 6 & 14" Amendment rights to have counsel and be present violated, where the Judge issued a new sentences order ex parte 4 years later, when the petitioner was sentenced to 5 years past the statutory maximum listed in the controlling section of the sentence order? Can a court rule “Scribner’s” error to a contested matter ex parte when the error is a direct result of fundamental rights being violated as stated (Supra)?” [See Pg.30;] I