Whether Contra Costa County California's blanket policy of depriving a criminal defendant the facts and the evidence (exculpatory or otherwise), surrounding their arrest and incarceration is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 2 Whether Contra Costa County California’s blanket policy of depriving a criminal defendant, the facts 3 || and the evidence (exculpatory or otherwise), surrounding their arrest and incarceration is an unreasonable . 4 application of clearly established federal law ~ and if so whether the policy violates a defendant’s right to ° counsel, right to the due process of law, right to a fair court proceeding/trial, and my right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. I am alleging this is a policy that has been practiced and enforced by 8 and/or, with the knowledge of the officers of the court, representing the Office of the District Attorney, 9 Office of the Public Defenders & the Superior Court. The policy is said to stem from an unspecified 10 || California Supreme Court ruling claiming that it is unsafe for a criminal defendant to obtain facts or 11 || knowledge of his case exculpatory or otherwise. I further allege that the above claimed policies are more 12 || than likely unvritten tules that are so long standing that they have become law (policy). I made everyone 13 111 talked to in and out of court of all matters brought forth in this suit. : 4 Whether I have a right to correct court if the incorrectness of those transcripts "8 affects the outcome of court proceedings. "6 Whether court reporters can be held liable under 42 U.S. Code section 1983 for producing incorrect , court transcripts, that they know or should know, would leave a criminal defendant at a disadvantage in 19 his criminal proceedings and would affect future proceedings. 20 Weather the lower courts were in error, by dismissing my lawsuit because the defendants refused to 21 || answer/acknowledge my discover requests, motion to compels, etc. until the lower court made a ruling to 22 || dismiss. . 23 Whether a deputy public defender can be held liable under 42 U.S. Code section 1983, for actions that 4 24 || would lead to the purposeful conviction of a client, for acting as a surrogate prosecutor. 25 Whether a District attorney can be held liable for the actions of a deputy district attorney in court. Suc! 26 ‘as malicious prosecution, Brady violations, using evidence that is known to be incorrect, etc., to obtain an *7 unlawful conviction. Whether the office of the district attorney be held accountable for the same. 8 a 1 ‘Whether the lower courts were in error refusing to take my declarations, as truth. Declarations based 2 |\ not on heresy, but firsthand knowledge. 3 Whether the office of the public defenders and the public defender can be held liable for refusing to 4 properly train and hire deputy public defenders, for practicing and enforcing a county policy of depriving a criminal defendant knowledge of the facts and evidence surrounding their arrest and incarceration, any and all pre-trial knowledge of any and all unprivileged information, to deprive a criminal defendant 8 discovery that would allow him to educate himself in matters of his arrest and incarceration. 9 Whether allegations that the defendants conspired to get me unlawfully convicted, are legitimate, 10 || taking into account I was deprived knowledge of the facts and evidence surrounding my arrest & 11 || incarceration. Deprived discovery. Put on trial even after questioning the legality of being put on trial 12 |) while deprived of the facts and evidence of my arrest and incarceration. The fact that all of the timesI | 2B questioned the courts about the legality of my criminal proceedings, are not reflected in the transcripts. — '4 |) The fact that I was unable to confront a witness against me (Zierke) during my criminal trial. Zierkes 15 admissions of intoxication are not in the preliminary transcripts, yet alleged evidence concerning her 6 (admissions of intoxication) are incorrect. The fact Rick Hendricks appeared to be very intoxicated at . trial, and was asked about his wellbeing, which is also not in the trial transcripts. The fact that I tried to 19 fire