Does the U.S. Constitution protect a convict from imprisonment under a falsified document?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED LL After Mr.Watsons September 72005 Convittion » the state. materially altered the Original Judgment ana committed him to prison via a countertet ted and Bondulend Document: Does the WS, Constitution protec a convick from imprisonment under a folsifved document? 2: The state linprisoned tr, Watson past the 125 month maximum sentence ordered jt the 2005 Origrnal Tudgment, Does the conshtution offord protection to convicts from being incarcerated past the maximum Sentence allowed by law? 3. Does the conshitubyin profecta defendant supervise trom Fraud) Obstru chen of Tustice sand Consp iro d uring court proceedin ry Ss P LOn May 22,201? s the state commited miniWatson to 4 state prison to process hefore adjudrction of guilt for pending oharg tf and hetore — any process for post -release supervision Cees), Is a parole warrant aloe suftrcrent to commit an individual fo prison who has heen accused of a crime while on PRS? 5; Mr, Watson wat subje cted to invelun tary strvi tude asa pretriol detainees Does a parole warrant alone Sanehion this treatment? b. Does the const tution protect the breach of an agreement by the clate when state waiver implicates liberty ? 7 Are defendant —Supervisees protected under pretrial detainees rlght to be tree trom punish ent until convicted ordue process Si ati shed P 8. When a state habeat petitioner is afforded counsel b YY State statute, is Preju dice presum ed under Strithk/an dv Wash ing ten» when the court tails to a yooint counsel, whereas Counsel 1S prevented from ass sing ana the pelib oner IS allowed to proceed prose without a wairerofcounvel ? 9+-Is a detendani? —-S upervisee protected under the conchthubyon when Ye State tals to appoint counsel for ¥ months tin those proceedings leading to Arial? | 10. Are Federal Habeas Petitioners protected From the bras and abuse of aiserethions of lower Lleval Courts ? . I1. The Respondents ‘nitial councel has entered counterlert documents and Fraudulent claims into the record of federal proceed; ngt and then pumped off the Case. Does due process require Ahy notice to prose pebtioners before Counce! can be substituted ? /Z. On September 8202/5 the U.S. Court of Ampeols denied Mr.Watsons Petition for Rehearing » Pebibor tor Rehearing Llene, and Mohon To Amend Pleading pp Requested Relich , betore they recreved fhe supporting dicuments that Mr.Watson assured wauld be sent and before the Respondents disclosed any discovery f Ir, Watsons In herrogatovies and Requeth for /rodithin of Dioeuments , Does this comport with the usue) andaccepted Courre of ( fudichal proceedings ? 13, The US. Court of Appeols Aid po} address 2 1 Inittol Motion To Amend Pleading tir addiponol veliet end review July 812021 opinion + C Z)Interrogate r7es and Request hy Priduthin of Deel y ents fu Porpurdeaks. Septem ber &:2001 order and (3) entiHement fo review of Ground Three right fo counsel clam supported by He record Septimber 81 202/ order, Does this comport with He usual and accepted Course of judicio | p raceedings ? /4, At the November 1612017 State habeas hearing Mr Watsons origsnal habeas Applicobion was concealed, as the vecord ret lochs. Ts atiled motion essential to a full and farr heaving and goportunity to be heard swhen that motion comes on for hearth p i$» Docs He constitution protect habeas pebhonert from Von arbitrary actions of the government P fe fn ib. Mr. Watson was released trom prison to PRS om April lb 2015 and Charged with new er'mes on December 29/1016 , , Whith resul 1 in pare Mel praleedi ngs “regardin PRS (2005 Tudament) and the to1b felon Monit iron 4 merit), each of Mbich were subject to du process reouiciler? Does Hu state's premiture and wrong fi! terminahon of PRL preclude review of the 200s Tudgenent tn thie cace? (See Section 3.0. of peh tion). 17. In re sponse to thr. Watson's Ground One choi wa ia hit FAP , the Kespondents defense was to obrihute Wir. Wadsont Joce of of Iberty to the LUO0S Judgment Does a Sraudulenf L