Whether the Supreme Court's holding in Weaver v. Massachusetts clarified the Constitutional Doctrine of Structural Error

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ‘ iWhether the substantial holding in case on point Weaver V. Massachusetts U.S. 137 S. CT 809 (2017). WHEREBY, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified some of the confusion surrounding the Constitutional Doctrine of Structural Error, and whether the finding of such error always require reversal? 2. Should this Court reverse/remand the case, due to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, | decision to dismiss Mr. Brown's petition because, as a matter of law, the state failed to disclose prima facie material fact that Warden Eric Tice, was no longer warden of SCISomerset? . , 3. Whether this Court should reverse/remand the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, because said court did not specify that said dismissal was without prejudice? 4, Whether this Court should reverse/remand the case for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania . to only dismiss Mr. Brown's petition with leave to Amend? 5. Whether the amendment that identified the deficiencies that could be corrected apply . | the same de novo standard of review to the grant of a Writ of Certiorari? , 6. Whether petitioner essentially challenges the validity and not the execution of his conviction and sentence? 7. Whether there's Jurisdictional basis for this court to entertain that said challenge here? 8. Whether petitioner has met his burden of demonstrating that the remedy provided by Post Conviction Collateral Relief (PCRA) is inadequate or ineffective? 9. Whether the “Savings Clause" in 28 U.S.C.§2255. Should be broaden to use with a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to inquire into the cause of detention, or on behalf of any person restrained of his liberty within state prison under any pretense whatsoever. Especially, when said person is denied exceptions because of due process violations by the courts, and said due process violations meets the burden which demonstrates that all remedy within the exception is rendered inadequate or ineffective because of improper obstruction of we ; : a QUESTIONS PRESENTED i NN ; % government officials of the right of appeal. Or a violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. Or extremely rare circumstances, such as where an intervening change in the law rendered the petitioner innocent of the alleged crime for which he had been convicted? 10. Whether the inducement of a investment contract, by the endorser who knows that she was signing an instrument for contractor duty, and that said investment contract having economic value that is necessary to support a fraud claim. The fraud claim concerns endorser's misrepresentation about her age, or consideration or other matters, by the undue influence of State Police, and subsequently prosecution, on said matters relied upon by principal. Require unequivocally the Vacate, Reversal, Remand of the execution of ‘petitioner's conviction and sentence. According to the newly narrowed legal definition of fraud under "Bridgegate" by the United States Supreme Court? 41. Does