Whether the court of appeals judgments were invalid for failure to resolve numerous preexisting fundamental jurisdictional defects?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENTS WERE INVALID FOR FAILURE TO RESOLVE NUMEROUS PREEXISTING FUNDAMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS? . 2. WHETHER THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY LACKED STANDING TO PARTICIPATE AS A PARTY-RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND APPEAL A § 2254 HABEAS JUDGMENT GRANTED AGAINST THE STATE? 3. WHETHER THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN HEARING A MOOT AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ISSUE? 4. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO VACATE ITS 1/17/2006 JUDGMENT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND ORDER PETITIONER UNCONDITIONALLY DISCHARGED? , 5. WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT LACKS AUTHORITY UNDER HABEAS CORPUS RULES 2(a), 2(c) AND THE MODEL § 2254 FORM, TO SUPPLY A HABEAS PETITIONER WITH AND REQUIRE USE OF A § 2254 FORM LISTING THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AS AN ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT? 6. WHETHER THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS WERE PRECLUDED BY MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137, 178 (1803) AND DAY V. MCDONOUGH, 547 USS. 198, 199 (2006), FROM APPLYING THE AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SUBSE_. QUENT TO THE GRANTING OF A MERITORIOUS § 2254 HABEAS PETITION?