Due-process,forcible-rape,kidnapping,brady-violation,dna-evidence,void-judgment

QUESTION PRESENTED (1) In this case the defendant factual guilt of Forcible Rape and Kidnapping has never been established in any fashion permitted by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment: because under a void judgment a guilty plea cannot be sustained, and because it cannot be harmless error, wholly to deny a defendant a jury trial and allow a guilty plea to be entered solely on the consent of the Trial Judge, Prosecutor and the defendant's attorney, when the defendant did not expressly admit in open court that he intended to rape the 22 year old woman without her consent and by force and that he removed her without consent, and because a guilty. plea cannot be sustained that the government obtained by arbitrary acts of torture. Thereof, does Ir. Weeks have a Federal Due Process Clause Right to be provided a corrective . Judicial Process for the relief before the State Court or before this Court since the State Court has deprived petitioner of his liberty without due process of law. QUESTION PRESENTED (2) Since the Court in Weeks v. State, 140 S.W.3d 39, 42-50 (MO. banc 2004) found that ih. Weeks did not personally describe the events that found the basis of the charge Id at 42-43, found the Prosecutor received the SEMO Lab reports that eliminated It. Weeks as the rapist Id at 42-43, at 47, and found the prosecutor used C.R. Longwell who was not trained or certified in DNA testing to analyze the DNA samples and mislead the Courts about the rapist did not ejaculate Id at 50; and direct Ir. Weeks to file a State Habeas Corpus ltion to challenge the alleged Brady v. Maryland, violations. (A) was it plain error for the state court to not issue the writ of habeas corpus, hold the evidentiary hearing; explore the Brady violation, and explore chain of custody of evidence samples to be tested and remove the Prosecutor from being in control of the New DNA procedure, and allowed petitioner his own DNA Analyst free of the State's influences to perform a DNA analysis of the DNA evidence in question? (B) Was Mh. Weeks Due Process Rights violated under such arbitrary Government actions? QUESTION PRESENTED (3) If the United States Constitution must govern the case against the American Citizen to imprison him or her and the State falsely imprisons the person under a void Judgment for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction and (Acts) in a manner inconsistent with the Due Process Clause of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment. Is (A) Respondent's Commitment Order null and void? And is (C) Does this Court have original Jurisdiction in a case not authorized by the Constitution, to restore freedom to Petitioner? Pursuant to Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 645 at 2253-2257 (1976), and Daniels v. Williams 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986) and Fay v Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 423 (1963). QUESTION PRESENTED : (4) Can the State of Missouri imprison petitioner without a valid indictment or valid felony information presentation, deny him the fundamental : due process of law rights and torture him for 30 years under a void judgment, : (A) Can the state claim a legal interest in such a fundamentally unlawful act to imprison the petitioner and is such an act merely erroneous or void? (B) Does petitioner have a due process right under the 14th Amendment to challenge the Police and Prosecutor misconduct in a Court of Law? And (C) Can the State use a DNA test to support guilt without first allowing petitioner to challenge it in a Court of Law under the protection of the Confrontation Clause? And (D) When the State has denied petitioner a Court hearing on the chain of custody on the evidence analyzed by the Laboratory, can there be a DNA test from a legal standpoint? QUESTION PRESENTED (5) Can the State of Mississippi arrest petitioner under a void Parole : Warrant after the sentence for non violent crime expired, unconditionally release petitioner to Missouri, wait 25 years to revoke the Parole and issue a warrant for his return to custody under a sentence served in full and