Whether mandamus should compel the prosecutor to fulfill his constitutional duty and correct the known false record

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has jurisdiction over the filed and pending certiorari petitions Salguero v. California, No. 23-610, (Brady issue) & Salguero v. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, et al., No. 23-609 (Napue issue) (hereafter Salguero v. Court of Appeal). It is well established that this Court renders decisions on the facts and issues of the particular case before it. With both of the Salguero matters involving a known false record, distinguishing “facts” from their antonym “perjury” becomes crucial. This raises the question: How can the Court make fundamental constitutional law, guiding countless courts and affecting the rights of millions, without knowing what to rely on? According to the U.S. Constitution, Article III vests the judicial power in one Supreme Court, extending to all cases, both in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, with appellate jurisdiction in both Law and Fact. The use of false evidence is a usurpation of the core judicial power in this country. This mandamus petition does not merely aid this Court’s appellate jurisdiction; it seeks to restore Article III to its rightful owner. The question presented is: Whether mandamus should compel the prosecutor to fulfill his constitutional duty and correct the known false record.