Should the U.S. Constitutional Fifth Amendment requiring indictments be applied to the States, thereby overturning precedence from 1884; Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. Should the U.S. Constitutional Fifth Amend requiring indictments be applied : to the States, thereby overturning precedence from 1884; Hurtado v. ; California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884? IL. Must Aggravating factors be presented to a State grand jury and be in the State indictment in order to have Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) over aggravating factors used to enhance a State sentence? Il. If the Trial Court does not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) over a defendant or case and they are convicted by a jury, does this make him actually or factually innocent of the crime, thereby allowing lower courts to disregard time and other procedural violations in challenging his conviction? IV. Does Lack of Notice to an indigent, Pro Se criminal defendant, of the Court’s time frames and other procedural requirements by any Court or Federal, State or local government official, and in so doing causing a procedural default due to defendant not knowing of time/procedural requirements, violate 14¢ Amendment Due Process, equal protection (poor vs. rich people with lawyers) and/or access to the courts, or any other Constitutional violation? V. Can a State or any Court prohibit the requirements for sentencing under Apprendi because of time or procedural (other than retroactivity); in other words, if a defendant squarely falls under Apprendi but the court sentences the defendant outside of what Apprendi requires and the defendant never objects or becomes aware of it until years later, can a court default the request for resentencing under the Constitutional requirements of Apprendi, thereby requiring the Defendant to completely serve this knowingly unconstitutional sentence? 2 |