Can the Indiana Supreme Court make an exception to the U.S. Constitution, Illinois Supreme Court, and 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decisions regarding deliberate-framing, due-process, police-misconduct, state-constitutional-rights, federalism, wrongful-conviction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The First Circuit said in Limone v. Condon 372 F.3d 39, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2004 ): [I]f any concept is fundamental to our American system of justice, it is that those charged with upholding the law are prohibited from deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for crimes they did not commit . Actions taken in contravention of this prohibition necessarily violate due process (indeed, we are unsure what due process entails if not protection against deliberate framing under color of official sanction). The Illinois Supreme Court, in addressing police misconduct, wrote “Simply put, there are some forms of official misconduct that are so | offensive to the values of the State of Illinois that they can never be ignored.” People v. Wrice, 962 N.E.2d 934 (IL. 2012). In Wrice the Court quoted Justice Brandeis: “Almost eighty years ago, Justice Brandeis recognized that “a single courageous state may...serve as a laboratory” in defining the rights of its people.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebman, 285 U.S. | 262, 311 (1932)(Brandeis, J., dissenting). And in this light, each state retains the sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual | liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal | Constitution.” Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980). In a seminal article describing the protections of individual rights within ii | the federalist system, Justice Brennan emphasized that state constitutional provisions were not “adopted to mirror the federal Bill of Rights.” William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protections of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489, 501 (1977). Rather, he noted, “It]he lesson of history is otherwise,” since “the drafters of the federal Bill of Rights drew upon corresponding provisions in the various state constitutions.” Jd. In light of this country's historical reliance on local rights-making, Justice Brennan explained that “the decisions of [the United States Supreme] Court are not, and should not be, dispositive of questions regarding rights guaranteed by counterpart provisions of state law.” Id. At 501. He called for the states to “step into the breach” left by more limited federal remedies, and to strengthen the liberties and protections afforded citizens. Jd at 503. See also Ellen A. Peters, Capacity and Respect: A Perspective on the Historical Role of the State Courts in the Federal System, 73 N.Y.U.L. REV. 1065, 1067(1998)(Justice Brennan's ! article “ was a clarion call to lawyers and judges not to overlook the | capacity of state law...to assist in the pursuit of justice for all.”). Judge Learned Hand famously called “the ghost of the innocent man | convicted” an “unreal dream.” United States v. Garsson, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923). iii Justice Sandra Day O’Connor touted how “[o]Jur society has a high degree of confidence in its criminal trials, in no small part because the Constitution offers unparalleled protections against convicting the innocent.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 420 (1993) (O’Connor, J., concurring). In light of the above: The questions presented are: Can the Indiana Supreme Court, in violation of both the United States Constitutions, IHinois State Supreme court, and cases decided by this Court, make an exception to those authorities to the uncontroverted allegations made 7 April 2019 in his verified unchallenged complaint that the Respondent sworn law enforcement officer, boasted to a Reporter that he had planted evidence to gain the Petitioner's wrongful conviction, then threatened to kill the Reporter after she made a police report and told other authorities. And after the Petitioner filed suit, the law enforcement officer, his . legal counsel, and all other Respondents failed to file anything, in any court denying or controverting this admission of evidence planting, thereby deeming the facts admitted by operation of Indiana law. Indiana | Trial Rule 8D. This petition seeks to harmoniz