Does AEDPA deprive federal courts of the power and obligation to review claims not previously known and could not have been known through reasonable diligence but were promptly raised after the basis was discovered - that a defendant was convicted under void state statutes which violate federal constitutional law and that did not apply to the alleged conduct of the conviction?

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED Because Arizona’ Dangerous crimes against children statute and statutes for underlying offenses therein do NOT give reasonable notice of the dangerous nature of the conduct necessary to constitute a dangerous crime against children, Cervarles was convicted oF dangerous cnwes against children based solely upon NON-dangerous offenses. Cervariles had NO knowledge of the dangerous nature of the charges —NOR the opportunity for objection te them— because the State made a FALSE statemett of a material fact to Cervarites that te offenses were dangerous because the accusers were under Fifteen years Fage. Following a jury trial where the. State FAILED to proffer quy evidence of a dangerous offense the judge NOT the fury — found Cervavites guitty of dangerous crimes against childven inviclation of $13-604-01. Cervaites promptly raised his claims by Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus after the basis was discovered. His claims could NOT have been raised in any previous proceeding, because the basis was NOT then known and could NOT have beex known trough reasonable diligence, because Cervailes had NO reason to suspect tat the statutes were VOID for vaqueness avd that the State had FALSELY misinformed, misled,and deceived him regarding the. vature and cause of the charges, The slate courts ERRED by concluding that his claims are precluded because they could have been raised on direct apgeal or ina previous petition. the federal courts ERRED by concluding that his claims are barred by the one year statute of limitations of the AutiTerrorism and Effective death Renalty Act of 1996 C“nEDPn”), This case Hus presents the Following questions. 4, Does “AEDPA” deprive federal courts of the power and obligation fo review claims “NOT previously known and could NoThave been known through reasonable diligence but were promptly raised after the basis was discovered — that a defendant was cowvicted under Void state statutes which violate Coderal constttitional law and that did NoT apply te the alleged conduct of the conviction’ ; 2. Did both she Nicth Cireuitand district court ERR in concluding that AEDPA barred the void for vagueness claims, and denial of jury trial and notice f charges claims, the basis of which was NOT previously known by Cervantes ? t