Is it written in the U.S. Constitution that a person may be indicted, reindicted 3-times with same cause number: broaden, abandon, and bring abandoned charges back?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED “4 IS IT WRITTEN IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT A PERSON MAY BE INDICTED, REINDICTED.3-TIMES WITH.SAME CAUSE NUMBER: BROADEN, ABANDON, AND BRING ABANDONED CHARGES BACK? * U.S. v. Palomha, 31 F. 3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1994) * Arizona v. Fulminante, 111 S.Ct. 124. (1991) : 2. DOES. AN INDICTMENT TOLL THE STATUTE OF ‘LIMITATIONS ON A REINDICTMENT THE STATE KNOWINGLY. FABRICATED THE CHARGES GN SAID REINDICTMENT? . * Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1973) * Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426 : 3. DID THE COURT ERR BY PERMITTING THE STATE TO MENTION IN OPEN COURT, A RECORDED JAIL.PHONE CALL NOT INTRODUCED INTO. EVIDENCE THE STATE MISREPRESENTED THE RECORDINGS CONTENTS? . * Mooney v. Holohan, 55 S. Ct. 340 * Berger v. U.S., 55 5. Ct. 629 (1935) * ULS. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) 4a, DID THE COURT ERR WHEN IT PERMITTED THE STATE AND DEFENSE WITNESS TO PRIVATELY LISTEN TO A RECORDED. JAIL PHONE CALL WHITLE NOT ALLOWING THE JURY THE OPPORTUNIMY'TO LISTEN TO SAID RECORDING? © * Bruton v. U.S., 88 S. Ct. 1620, 1624 (1968) 5. DID THE COURT ERR BY DENYING AN EVE-WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT WHAT SHE PERSONALLY EYE-lWITNESSED; CRAWFORD? . * Davis v. Alaska, 94 5. Ct. 1105 * -Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004) i 6. IS IT A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATE TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION ON THE USE OF KNOWN FALSE / PERJURED TRIAL TESTIMONY? * Napue v. Illinois, 79 5S. Ct. 1173 (1959) * Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 7. DID THE COURT ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL TO IMPEACH COMPLAINANT ONYKNOWN TRIAL TESTIMONY-PERIURED? * U.S. v. Bagley, 105 S. Ct. 3375 (1985) * U.S. v. Keller, 595. F.. 3d 884, BBD (2nd Cir. 1995) 8B. DID THE COURT ERR IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO FILE A MOTION TO CUMULATE SENTENCE AFTER GUILT / INNOCENCE JUST BEFORE SENTENCING NOT KNOWN BY THE JURY (TRIER OF FACT)? 9. DID THE APPELLATE COURTTS ADOPTING TIME BARRED COUNTS NOT ALLOWING PETITIONER HIS GUARANTEED RIGHTS OF MEANINGFUL APPEAL ON CLAIMS OF VOID JUDGMENT AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE? * Williamsonev. Berry, 49 U.S. 495, 551 (1850) * Main v. Thihoutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980) ii