Can a state prisoner be incarcerated forever based on falsehoods to prejudice parole decisions?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Can a state prisoner be incarcerated forever based upon falsehoods deliberately created to prejudicially bias future decision makers in the exercise of discretionary authority when determining the prisoner's suitability for release after the mandatory portion of his sentence has been completed? 2. When it is well-established that it violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment when a state prosecutor deliberately creates false evidence or suborns perjury then knowingly offers it into evidence at trial to get a conviction; does it also violate the Due Process Clause when a state prosecutor does the same thing after conviction and sentence in his confidential report to state criminal justice officials in order to prejudicially bias future decision makers in the exercise of discretion in the parole process? 3. When state statutory law mandates that the trial judge and prosecutor "shall furnish...a summarized statement of the facts proved at the trial...together with a recommendation for or or parole;" does it violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment when a prosecutor substitutes falsehoods ; directly contradicted by evidence and testimony presented by the state at trial for the actual facts proved at that same trial? ee ee . . 4. In the context of a parole hearing where no constitutional ; right to parole exists, the overriding concern in determining a claimed Due Process violation of a statecreated liberty interest is minimizing the risk of error by allowing parole officials wide lattitude consistent with their discretionary authority when making parole decisions. Does this overriding concern require federal courts to dismiss habeas corpus petitions based on the claim that known falsehoods were deliberately created by . , a state prosecutor and conveyed to state criminal justice officials as facts of the offense in order to deliberately mislead parole board members to a prejudicial bias against favorable exercise of their discretion while considering the offender for release? 5. Does evidence and testimony presented at trial by the state meet the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" that is necessary to establish that inaccurate facts reported after conviction and sentence are actually falsehoods that need to be corrected? 6. If a state's highest court has established that prisoners have a due process expectation to accurate parole records and that the state parole board must investigate and correct any substantive inaccuracies when there is clear and convincing evidence that their information is substantively false; does the state parole board divest 7 itself of jurisdiction over the remaining discretionary portion of a sentence by refusing to vindicate the as we prisoner's constitutional Due Process right and continuing to use false information, demonstrated to actually be false by clear and convincing evidence when exercising their discretion? 7. Once a state prisoner discovers that his trial judge and prosecutor did not provide an accurate summary of the facts proved at trial to state criminal justice officials as they were required.to do by mandatory state law, and that prisoner fails to convince those state criminal justice officials to investigate and correct those imaccuracies as they were required to do by mandatory state law; what is the next step that prisoners need to take in order to vindicate the abuse of his constitutional Due Process rights? Is that prisoner obligated to begin his legal quest for vindication in the court wherein the facts were originally presented under his original case number; or may he begin his legal quest for vindication in federal court under 28 U.S.C. §2254? 8. If a state prisoner litigates his challenge to the accuracy of facts in his parole file by filing a Motion to correct them under his original case number in the court that originally established what those facts were; does that original trial court divest itself of jurisdiction