Whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence can overcome AEDPA's gatekeeping provisions and/or whether a prisoner may be entitled to federal habeas relief based on a freestanding claim of actual innocence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Colorado Attorney General has conceded, sub silentio, that Petitioner likely stands convicted of an act the law does not make criminal yet is drowning : Petitioner in a procedural morass to prevent his being able to obtain his freedom. Prior to this Court’s decision in Class _v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018), Colorado precedents precluded Petitioner from being able to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction in toto because he plead guilty. However, using the look through presumption federal habeas courts must employ, the Court will witness that Colorado’s Supreme Court has both procedurally barred | Brooks from challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s Securities Act, while simultaneously holding Petitioner “has other remedies” available to adjudicate his actual innocence claims, which simply do not exist. The Colorado Supreme Courts irreconcilable conflict on the matter cannot be harmonized, establishing the State is attempting to time-bar Brooks actual innocence claims ever having to be | adjudicated. In addition, the Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”’) has numerous gatekeeping provisions, all of which have also precluded } Petitioner from having his actual innocence claims adjudicated on their merit. | Consequently, the Suspension Clause is clearly indicated in this circumstance | because refusing to hear Brooks actual innocence claims would constitute a complete denial of any collateral review of a claim that arose only after the decision i | | | in Class was announced. Because on the face of the record the State court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence in this case, this Court must answer: (1) Whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence can overcome AEDPA’s gatekeeping provisions and/or whether a prisoner may be entitled to federal habeas relief based on a freestanding claim of actual innocence? (2) Whether the State of Colorado had the power to enter the conviction or | impose the sentence in this case, including: (a) Whether Brooks was involved in selling securities? , (b) Whether the State of Colorado had jurisdiction to Indict Brooks? (c) Whether criminal enforcement of the Colorado Securities Act (“CSA”) is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and is criminalizing otherwise innocent conduct? PARTIES The petitioner is Jason Brooks, an inmate recently released from physical custody on August 16, 2021, now serving the mandatory parole portion of his sentence. The respondents are the Colorado Parole Board. | ii |