Does the disclosure of altered, modified, and deleted federal veterans affairs medical records constitute a deprivation of constitutional right to true, accurate and correct records?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. DOES THE DISCLOSURE OF ALTERED, MODIFIED, AND DELETED FEDERAL VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL RECORDS -IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 641 & 2071(b)INRECIPROCAL DISCOVERY BY THE GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTE A DEPRIVATION OF MR. BRODIE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRUE, ACCURATE AND CORRECT RECORDS WHEN THE UNMODIFIED FEDERAL RECORDS EXIST AS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE OF GOVERNMENT WITNESS TESTIMONY IN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS IN THE CRIMINAL RECORD i.e. NEW JERSEY CR-18-162-NLH. 2. DID MR BRODIE'S INVOCATION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IN NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT TO CHARGES INCLUDING A CHARGE IDENTICAL TO THE FEDERAL CHARGES CONSTITUTE A DEPRIVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT -5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE ONESELFAS IT APPLIES TO AN FBI INTERVIEW 4 DAYS AFTER THE INVOCATION AND WHILE MR BRODIE WAS HELD IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WITHOUT BEING PROPERLY MEDICATED FOR 5 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FBI INTERVIEW. 3. IS THE STATEMENT ALLEGED BY OFFICIAL 2 AND IN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CONSTITUTE STATEMENTS THAT WERE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND THE CRIMINALIZATION OF SUCH CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF MR. BRODIE'S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN LIGHT OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY USE OF MURDER, DEATH OR KILL IN THE AFOREMENTIONED STATEMENTS. 4. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY NOT GRANTING A MISTRIAL ONCE IT WAS CONCEDED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS WITNESSES THAT TWO WITNESSES SHARED THEIR TESTIMONY WHILE UNDER SEQUESTER AND THAT IT WAS NOT PROPERLY REVEALED TO THE TRIAL JURY; ESPECIALLY AS IT CAUSED CONFUSION EVIDENCED IN THE JURY NOTES AND QUESTIONS TO THE COURT DURING DELIBERATION. 5. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY ALLOWING PHOTOS OF MR. BRODIE'S FIREARMS SHOWN TO THE JURY IN AN ASSEMBLED STATE WHEN CRIME SCENE PHOTOS DEMONSTRATES THEY WERE FOUND DISASSEMBLED AND WITH A SMALL GAME HUNTING LICENSE WAS ATTACHED TO THE RIFLE WHEN FOUND; i.e., DID THE DISTRICT COURT RULING CONSTITUTE A DEPRIVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND UNFAIRLY CRIMINALIZED HIS FIREARMS THAT WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED THREATS OF VIOLENCE. 6. DOES THE ACCESS OF MR. BRODIE'S CELLULAR PHONE -EVIDENT BY USAGE RECORDSWHILE IN THE NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE'S POSSESSION CONSTITUTE A DEPRIVATION OF MR. BRODIE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AT A TIME IN WHICH THE NJSP DID NOT HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT FOR SAID DEVICE; ESPECIALLY SINCE CELLULAR RECORDS AND DEVICE EXTRACTION RECORDS DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF NO LESS THAN 656 SMS MESSAGES BETWEEN BRODIE AND A NJSP TROOPER IN THE 4 WEEKS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO HIS ARREST. 7, DID THE NUSP DELIBERATE CORRUPTION (UNPLUGGING CAMERA WIRES DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH OF HIS RESIDENCE) OF MR BRODIE'S HOME SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM -IN COMBINATION WITH AN ABSENCE OF BODYCAM AND/OR DASHCAM RECORDING OF MR BRODIE'S ALLEGED MIRANDA INVOCATION AT HIS RESIDENCECONSTITUTE A DEPRIVATION OF MR BRODIE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS THROUGH AN ACT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EVIDENTIARY TAMPERING BY NJSP. 8. DID THE DISCLOSURE OF ALTERED RECORDS REFERENCED IN 1.ABOVE CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF RULES 3.6., 3.8, AND 8.4 BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO SWAY THE DISTRICT COURT'S EVIDENTIARY RULINGS, THEREBY CONSTITUTING AN ACT IN WHICH THE STRUCTURAL ERROR DOCTRINE APPLY.