Whether federal constitutional claims were fairly presented under federal law

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED A. If a laymen criminal defendant has presented the general and operative facts supporting Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims in the United States Constitution advanced to the highest state court, and a state court ; acknowledges the federal claims and rules on the claims. Are the federal constitutional claims fairly presented under federal law? : 2. a. Under Federal law if an indigent prisoner has clearly presented and alerted the state courts that “there are multiple issues infused into each claim of this motion he clearly and “respectfully” requested the district court “make adequate finding of fact and conclusions of law as to each issue raised”, then thoroughly defines specific Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations in the US. Constitution throughout his post-conviction claims consistent with his alert to the state courts. Are his federal claims fairly presented for review? b. Subsequently, if a prisoner is not a professional and expert lawyer in his form and format when introducing the claims in a motion. Is that a fatal error in the fair representation requirement, even when the state court acknowledged and ruled on the federal claims? 3. a. Under federal law, is it judicious, proper or legal for the lower federal courts in a Habeas Corpus proceeding to allow constitutional claims other than Fourth Amendment claims when Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were clearly and fairly presented in the same manner and within the body of other claims just as the Fourth Amendment claims were? b. If the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were presented in the same manner as the Fourth Amendment claims, but the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were not dismissed with prejudice and the Fourth Amendment claims were, does federal law allow for dismissal with prejudice of claims that were fairly and fully presented in the exact same way the claims that were accepted and ruled upon? | 4, a. Does federal law allow the lower federal courts to cheery pick, and or, sanction the cheery picking of claims that can be easily denied? b. Does federal law allow the lower courts to dismiss with prejudice the claims that posses inconvenient facts for the government, that may result in an adverse ruling against the government in a criminal proceeding? 5. a. Under the Sixth Amendment, ADEPA and settled law, does a defendant have a right to “accurate” information from appointed counsel, especially if he asks defense counsel for very important, particular and precise information that rests in the body of statutory law? b. Subsequent to that, does a defendant have the right to not accept, and not negotiate on specific concerns and issues critically important to him in a plea? This when inaccurate, and or, false information resting in the body of law is presented by appointed counsel? 6. Under the Fourth Amendment ADEPA and settled law, does a US. Citizen have a right to expect the protections of the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, in computer files housed on a password protected personal computer hard drive in his private home that have not been made available in any form or fashion for any person or entity to access by the US. Citizen? 7. Under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, ADEPA and settled law, does a Citizen have a right to have the critical and fundamental Fourth Amendment elements of knowing, intelligent, willing, unequivocal and specific permission for a warrant-less search and seizure by the government applied to the specific facts, actions, and evidence, and or, the lack thereof in a criminal! case by the courts, and or, appointed defense counsel during the course of a criminal preceeding? 8. a, Under the Fourth Amendment ADEPA and settled law, is it legal for the government (law enforcement), to bypass the warrant requirements and protections of the Fourth Amendment and its settled law to use int