Whether the state court's fact-finding process was undermined by ignoring evidence supporting the petitioner's claim

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) determined that the state-court fact-finding process is undermined where the state court has before it, yet apparently ignores, evidence that supports petitioner's claim. This Court’s rulings in Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 7 (1967) , Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 681-82, 686-692, Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959) , Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957), and a New York case. People v. Savvides, 1 N.Y.2d 554, 557; 186 N.E.2d 853, 854-55; 154 N.Y.S.2d 885, 887; United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103-104 (1976); Busby v. Davis, 892 F.3d 735, 749 (2018); and Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 113, speaks of the detriment to a defendant’s case when a state presents false evidence, perjured.testimony, and affects the jury’s opinion of a witness’s credibility to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence (and where defense counsel knowingly does nothing to defend his client to refute the presentation of the false evidence and perjured testimony by the state nor presents the evidence or witnesses to), which makes the case not only fundamentally unfair, but also violates his or her 6 and 14° Amendment rights. Petitioner did not commit the Colorado robberies, did not send a fax change of address, Respondents did not have “reasonable suspicion” to look for Petitioner at his residence because of a false tip that he was going to commit an armed robbery of the Timbers Bar, and was not at 9421 Shellfish Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada when he was arrested. These were the false facts that Respondents relied on to convince the "jury to convict Petitioner and for which his trial counsel did nothing to refute the evidence nor advocate for his defense. Though Petitioner focuses and presents evidence just on Grounds 1.2, 1.3, 1.8, 1.15, 7, and 8, all the constitutional claims in Petitioner’s state and federal writs would be debatable among reasonable jurists, and they would also determine that the district court’s “procedural ruling” was incorrect that the state court’s ; ruling was an unreasonable determination of the facts on all grounds given the evidence presented by Petitioner. How much falsified, destroyed, and/or hiding of evidence and facts, perjury by Respondents’ witnesses, and ineffective assistance of counsel (including a conflict of interest) does Petitioner need to present to satisfy the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2) and 2254(e) before a court will determine that Petitioner's 6" and 14" Amendment constitutional rights were and continue to be violated based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2) and that his liberty has been and continues to be denied? . i : The Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada and USS. District Court of Nevada for the Southern District have abused their discretion by either : ignoring, falsifying, and/or twisting Petitioner's facts, ignoring the perjured testimony, and the ineffective assistance of trial and habeas counsel, and the 9 Circuit erred by just rubber-stamped the District Court’s ruling. ii