Whether clear contradictions between Universal Human Rights and State and Federal constitutional articles and amendments, which provide the non-denial and non-impairment of political power to government officials, should allow the fraudulent actions of others to supersede and eviscerate the bill of guaranteed human and constitutional rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Dwhen tare are clear contradictions between Unwersel Human Rights and Stete ond Federal constitutional articles and amendments and Hase astides ond amendments provide He nor-denal and non ~teaparment of poli hol power to geuernmest officials, should had forth roudulestactions of others rebeinad by Ha people be allaved To supercede ond eviscerate the. bill oF gvoracteed human ond constitohoral rights ? @When a criminol deedant ofa stfe has comalied with thet cles ruler ond lows, Teclaically echHirg He doferdont-to reltefond exhausting all sfede remedies, and Stele oficralr clearly octed ir Lad Fecth with a premedcteted incest to commit “Froud on the_court} violating every due process right to exculpotory discovery and He right tobe heard all by Manufecuriag probeble couse by Froud , should Stee and Fecha! court rules ond sketutory laws be exempted for polrhcal corruption | GyWhar officials, involved ti a muth-pro aged conspiracy, conceal thai own achdas and achons of otker Col leogues, proving cConrsciousness of guitall orgs ing IA Griminal COnSpIrocy ageest rigkts y Suppressiag exculpatory ‘poblie Fecords and medental w tress Testimeny should they not he held accountohle for obstuctiag justice ank depriving Mghkts Under color af )Shoud He cetoolly inocent victim oF o fraudulent prosecuffoa of Aon existent Crimes be sacrificed, by permanent Concealment and folse. mpnsonment unthout so muck as an offer by He government for a, jest mondlary, nen~disclosure sethement? @bid He founding Fetlacs talend for Fraudvlect UNcorrabe rotted J Mon fect= Ored "me Teo ‘allesohons to deprive an actval ly lAnocenhenmnal deferd~ ont of the Fight To een a Sige evidestiary hearing or fou tial ? QVhen Here ts proof of intent te conceal] evidence oFections ond feds, etal) costs by Hs. undue uFleence by government off elals jis itnot probable thet the federel court, precidiag over disfricl, would defer to, ond apply the Sedes choice of subsfactive bow to Reilitete the continved Concealmentof tnenmineding ach ons of officials and te felee WApris~ onment af an tAnocert defendart despite te existence of a "fiadomental miscarrage of juste” Te ° ® Should net He. doctrine of defimentel impost fo unrecessory redundancy, ia He danialtard Aeek to apord rele H's peldhon in this court, show Ha need to gent cert Hea. First tee, (@)ibou Id not th achive Avestigetion and concealmant by The Aopertment ; of Justice ,The U.S. Morskolls ard other federa\ Co-Conspiretors, locetbed A Weshinaten B.C. whe, onnivonce wth the sffe of Florida ove become tHe larser, precidiig cwrhonely, creating crmimal, andor neglisert liability Hos estab lishiag He sorisdiction and ‘the proper Veave of Th. Uarkd Stefes Supreme. Cou rf c (Dohan tis Supreme Covet se determin ing wheter Tt will hear aad PEVIOW) OW oe and tere ore severc| Atepated / Aeteronvining facts by opposing pasties onoddresred ond onresol S shoul nest He Preper admuictretion of justice iatag fis Steel ond ev idence necessary in He four defermination af verve and proper Jorisdietion , Ge) Would not Here. Combined issues eskhlish o Jjesticiable care ar Controversy by He “Trpact of Actiol MY and warrant venue OAK dseretionay juricdich BN ank great weit fer review, . vit ;