Due-Process-Clause-Violation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Would the Supreme Court of the United States disregard a Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment violation that the sixth circuit court had relinquished well established constitutional law that would protect a citizen's constitutional rights and resolve violation that were intentionally committed by the State Agents, that now seek relief through deference allowances to avoid a citizens redress. The State Govt. deems it is to arduous to convict without valid evidence and had surrender review to the sixth circuit court, conceding their claims against the petitioner. Why would the sixth circuit court penalized a citizen that had attempted to safe guard his well established constitutional rights and allow a Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment violation by deeming the citizens's method — to maintain his rights is evaluated as suspicious behavior and determining equivalent to circumstantial evidence to out weigh and dismiss the facts of physical evidence which concludes innocence as a method of removable of the sufficiency of evidential evaluation. Thereby, to give the state the deference to their surrender claim of the review of merit, has caused injury and prejudice to the petitioner; the charge offense against the petitioner had been totally devoid of evidentiary support as to render his conviction unconstitutional under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Would the Supreme Court of the United States disregard whether or not the question is upon the sufficiency of the evidence but on the whether this conviction rest upon any evidence at all. That by given deference to the state is disregarding the Constitutional Rights violation suffer by the petitioner and his lost of liberty is dismissed as a arduous task to be performed by the state. e | Table of Authoritys Case: Brecht v Abrahamso 507 U.S. 619 (1993) Fulminate v Arizona 499 U.S. 279 (1991) Henddix v Palmer 893 F.3d 906, 919 (2018) Jackson v Virginia 99 S. ct 2781 (1979) Miller-El v Cockrell 123 S.ct 1029 (2003) Moore v Berghurs 700 F.3d at 889-890 (2012) O'Neal v Balcarcel 933 F.3d 618,624 (2019) O'Neal v McAnnish 513 U.S. 432, 436 (1995) Slack v Medaniel 529 U.S. 473, 484-485 (2000) Tennard v Dretke 124 Sc. 2526 (2004) Statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (4) (2) (3) 28 U.S.C § 2254 (b) (A) (d) (4) Constitutional Amendments 4th 5th 14th ce ty