Whether fraud, false and misleading statements in arrest & extradition warrant affidavit irrespective of the subsequent indictment in this case entitles Petitioner to equitable tolling for extraordinary circumstances?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1 Whether fraud, false and misleading statements in arrest & extradition warrant affidavit irrespective of the subsequent indictment in this case entitles Petitioner to equitable tolling for extraordinary circumstances? 2. Whether the trial court’s adjudication — or lack thereofof Petitioner’s Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60.02 Motion for relief from Judgment, Tennessee Rules ; of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence and/or Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-21-101 et. Seq., was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States? 3. Whether the trial court’s failure to adjudicate the grounds in Petitioner’s motion and petitions pursuant to the Rules above, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, resulted in a waiver of the AEDPA § 28 U.S.C. standard regarding the statute of limitations? . 4. Whether the trial court’s arbitrary alteration (“construction”) of Petitioner’s motions and petitions aforesaid, addressing his sentence of “life without parole” into one seeking to “set aside certain convictions” and post conviction relief, for statute of limitations purposes, resulted in subsequent denial of these causes of action as “untimely”, amounts to fundamental denial of procedural and substantive due process? 3. Whether an unknowing not understandingly made guilty “plea” to a sentence of “life without parole” where the only “mitigation” offered by counsel was a trade of the death penalty for pleading guilty to the alternative of life without parole, is an involuntary : waiver of federal constitutional rights resulting in cruel and unusual punishment and ° denial of due process of law? 4. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6" Circuit abused its . discretion by failing to order an evidentiary hearing or allow Petitioner time to amend to resolve disputed factual issues on Petitioner’s claims? 5. Whether Petitioner was denied his right to due process where trial court refused to grant or fairly consider his Motion to Recuse? 6. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6" Circuit decision is in conflict with the decision of other appellate courts? 2