Did the Commonwealth of Virginia adopt a trial framework that allows elected officials to brake their oath by presenting, publicizing and spreading disinformation to grand jury's, judges, attorneys, public and press, causing the loss of witnesses do to their inability to pierce the veil of the state deception; And was the U.S. Constitutional Amendments 1, 5, 6 & 14 adequate defense and public trial right violated?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Petitioner offers these questions in hopes that all, one, or part of a question will be heard. . QUESTIONONE: Did the Commonwealth of Virginia adopt a trial framework that allows elected officials to brake their oath by presenting, publicizing and spreading disinformation to grand . jury’s, judges, attorneys, public and press, causing the loss of witnesses do to their inability to pierce the veil of the state deception; And was the U.S. Constitutional Amendments 1, 5, 6 & 14 adequate defense and public trial right violated? QUESTION TWO: ; Did the prosecutor to commit fraud on the grand jury by maintaining the case number given by the Circuit Court to a certified General District Court reduced Simple Possession ; charge, when the prosecutor wrote back into the certified reduced charge, the District Court struck charge Possession With Intent to Distribute, falsely presenting it to the grand jury as certified by the General District Court; And could the Circuit Court obtain © jurisdiction where these actions are the derivation of the disinformation pervading the : trial frame work; And did this violate U.S. Constitutional Amendments 1, 5,6 & 14? ; : QUESTION THREE: . Can attorneys be ineffective when they fail to object to a structural error that pervades the trail framework in a way that renders the proceedings fundamentally unfair, i.e. violate the adequate defense and public trial right; And did this violate U.S. Constitutional ; Amendments 1, 5, 6 & 14? QUESTON FOUR: ; Is a defendant constructively denied counsel when the court blocks presentation of : ; mitigation of punishment for a Intent to Distribute drugs, ie. as an accommodation, where ~ under state law provides presentation only in the sentencing phase after guilt is . established; And was counsel ineffective for failing to put a proffer on the record or object to the court’s erroneous ruling, (it must be “argued and instructed on the case and chief”) due to ignorance of the law; And is the current law that puts the burden on the defendant to prove accommodation and precludes one from presenting accommodation during the guilt phase a violation due process and U.S. Constitutional Amendments 5, 6, 14,?