Does congress illegally nullify the Due Process amendment and the Fair Trial Guarantee of the Supreme Law of this Land

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Does congress illegally nullify the Due Process amendment and the Fair Trial Guarantee of the Supreme Law of this Land by forcing innocent convictees to satisfy the impossible requirement of 28 USC sec. 2254 (b)(B)(ii) ‘due diligence’, which sets up a Xeno's Paradox where there is ALWAYS a SHORTER, PREVIOUS INTERVAL that is used to deny justice by insisting "You could have dug up the innocence proving evidence ‘sooner’, so you had no 'due diligence’ and thus "waived your right" (to have the proof | accepted by appeals judges and sent to a new jury to evaluate)? | How does ‘sooner; due diligence; you waive' have any purpose OTHER than to prevent use of suppressed, innocence-proving evidence, to preserve false convictions and to stealthily nullify the Due Process and Fair Trial amendments of the Supreme Law of this Land? How is it legal for chains of appeals judges to thwart Due Process and the Fair Trial guarantee of the Supreme Law of this Land by falsely claiming that irrefutable proof is ‘insufficient' in order to usurp the function of the required new jurors due to the original jurors having been cheated out of their job of evaluating this proof at trial by Tulsa police, FBI Lab and DA Jerry Truster, all of whom lied to jurors in court, at trial, under oath, about the number and quantity of the killer's blood samples that they collected in a conspiracy to convict a teen whom they all knew was innocent? Didn't Tulsa police/FBI lab/DA Jerry Truster violate BRADY v MD numerous times when they lied to 3 PDs before trial, claiming they had NO blood, then lied to Page 1 of 2 jurors months later at trial, claiming to have only "the" "insufficient" blood sample when in fact they had at least 9 samples, EACH of which were enough for typing and which were never made available to the defense despite requests? How does a mere convention or even a statute (Laches, res judicata, 28 USC sec. 2254 (b)(B)(ii), etc) get to trump the Supreme Law of this Land, which says we citizens ; have the right to Due Process of Law and a Fair Trial, not a swift, blanket denial based upon "Finality", a time limit on finding proof of innocence or the first denial, generally from the local appeals judge, or the actual trial judge, who may be mistaken, misled by his police/DA team, mal-informed by the media, biased or even corrupt, and who has the largest, natural, career-based bias and interest in preserving convictions? Doesn't the Fair Trial guarantee of the Supreme Law of this Land require appeals judges to vacate false convictions or at least order new trials in cases, like mine, where proof of BRADY evidence suppression, perjury and abuse of office, etc. is irrefutably documented in signed, official records? Page 2 of 2