Whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated by the omission of material testimony from the trial transcript

No question identified. : TRULINCS 22712424 JOHNSTON, ANDREW J Unit: TCP-D-B wa HP | Amendment V, Due Process Clause : . Statutes 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 Cases Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19 (1956) : ! Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 490 (1994) Hernandez v. Mesa, 206 LED2D 29, 43 (2020) Ziglar v. Abassi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) Other Sta're Deci'sis : . . . STATEMENT OF THE FACTS In December 2020, | filed the action below while my petition for writ of certiorari in this Court, No. 20-6487, was pending. | noticed in March 2020 during the briefing of my direct appeal, No. 19-1624, when I received access to my trial transcripts for the first time, that material omissions from the transcript were evident. Having proceeded pro se in trial, | know what questions | | asked the bank tellers across the substantive elements. The missing questions from the January 9, 2019 transcript, Dkt. 330, | Page 47, are: Johnston: Did the suspect use force? Byrne: No. Johnston: Did the suspect attempt to use force? Byrne: No. . Johnston: Did the suspect threaten to use force? Byrne: No. Johnston: Did the suspect imply a threat of force? . | Byrne: No. Johnston: Did the suspect state ‘if you don't do this then he would do that’ or anything along those lines? Byrne: No. . As such, the complaint requested a mandatory initial discovery order requiring immediate production of the audio from the courtroom microphones on January 9, 2019, $14,000.00 monetary damages under the Bivens act, a corrected transcript from an independent transcriber paid for by the court reporter Frances Ward, and an order requiring Judge Pallmeyer to recuse | herself from all of my cases pending in the district court. Please see,