Does the State affirmative defense of Res Judicata defeats Amendment Fifth; Sixth; Eighth, and Fourteenth of the United States Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . T: Does the State affirmative defense of Res Judicata defeats Amendment Fifth; Sixth; Eighth, and Fourteenth of the United States Constitution? IT: Ifa free standing claim show Factual Innocence, or Actual Innocence, should it be allowed to be heard and reviewed in “all” court{s], when the free standing claim shows a manifest injustice of Due Process, and Equal Protection|[s] of the Law, as protected by Amendment 5th, 6th, and 14th of the United States Constitution? IT: Tn a circumstantial case, if record produces speculation on the elements of : charge[(s] and on the evidence, does speculation holds as set forth in O’Laughlin v. O’Brian, 568 F.3d 287, 304,308, and Brown v. Palmer, 441 F.3d 347, 351 and makes a conviction “unconstitutional, contrary, and unreasonable to federal law? IV: Under Schulp v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 330 (1995); holding: the assessment of witness credibility is beyond the scope of [habeas review], “But” when the witness credibility and evidence is flawed should Schulp; be left open to habeas review as Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623, and Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. at 496? V: Ifthe record shows counsel was deficient and resulted in actual prejudice, as held by the United States Supreme Court precedent in Strickland _v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 688, did the lower court[s], in reviewing this claim; violate Constitutional rights of Petitioner when it made exceptions to and by passed Due Process of law as held by 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution? i