Whether the concealed 28 U.S.C. 2244(c) facts caused the Supreme Court to unwittingly suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus for all Arizona indigent prisoners when it decided Casey v. United States in 1996

No question identified. : RULE 10' QUESTIONS FOR cert.! Aleksys requests for a C.O.A. were denied by both the District Court and by the En Banc Ninth Circuit. This : Petition for Certiorari timely follows and raises the following grave 2244(c) Suspension Clause and Herrera, infra, questions. ; (1). Did the concealed 28 U.S.C. 2244(c) facts cause this Court to unwittingly Suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus for all Ariz. indigent prisoners when it decided Casey, infra, in 1996, and did those factual omissions equate to fraudulent material would justify this Court's rare exercise of its inherent powers to remedy frauds that were perpetrated upon the Court by a Party, Chambers, 504 US., NT 44, 224AAKAXD). ; (2). Could reasonable Judges debate, Slack, infra, whether or not this 1996 Court's directions to violate the Suspension Clause. Were the root cause that enabled Ariz. in 1997, to Suspend over 10,000 indigent prisoners’ rights to file for the Great Writ? While further debating whether or not the 2020 lower courts were simply | following this Court's Suspension Clause violation directions and intentions; when they likewise errored by Suspending this Court's Whitmore, infra, "Next Friend" and 2nd Circuit Court Preiser, infra, class action filing rights for indigents? Assuring that the indigents could have no method to properly file for the Great Wnit of Habeas | Corpus on their own or by another next friend person as this 1996 Casey Court gave the appearance of intending? (3). Could reasonable judges debate the lower courts made-up 28 USC 2244(d)(1)(B) legal standard which requires proof of the indigents efforts to overcome the State's conceded unconstitutional obstacle to filing. Their made-up Schlup and Perkins, infra, legal standards which require the same proof, and their new 2244(d)(1)(D) legal standard which conflicts with 10th Circuit law by requiring indigents to timely discover a claims Supreme , Court legal basis even when the prison has intentionally made that legal basis and its material facts "unavailable" to the indigent, to forbid indigents from complying with their 2244(d)(1) filing duties? _ (4) Could reasonable Judges debate, Slack, infra, the lower Courts decisions to accept all Aleksy$ Suspension Clause facts, which proved this Court and Ariz. had forbid him from timely filing for the Writ. Further accepting his facts that this Court and Ariz. made the Supreme Court legal basis and material facts for his 4 grounds | "unavailable" to Aleksys so he could not file for the Writ. Then failing to apply this Court's unavailable claims, | Carrier principle, or Holland, equitable tolling principles, to this uncontested and accepted factual pattem, under | their 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1}(B)(D) constructions? i 1 | \ | (5). Could reasonable Judges debate, Slack, infra, the lower Courts decision to rely upon unsworn state record , facts which both Parties agreed are false facts. Rather then the material under oath new facts, which both Parties | agreed were true and had corrected the false record facts. As being error when deciding a scientifically validated Herrera, infra, and Perkins, infra, Due Process and freestanding claim of substantive innocence? ii