Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims

No question identified. : CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE ; FIRST AMENDMENT: , Boes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Protect the Rights of each Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to receive any’ Petition to the Court, after it was properly mailed into a prison'’s internal mail system,[S.Ct.R. 29.2], as weli as the Petitioner's? OR : Does the State have the sovereign right to regulate what mail or pleadings it allows sent, and to destroy anything which could reasonably harm the State; Judicially and financially? ; Does the Public have a First Amendment Right to Knowxef’ this?? CIRCUMSTANCES: The present (R) Montana Attorney General, refuses to honor or remedy the prior (D) Montana Attorney General's legal waiver that the Petitioner is wrongfully convicted, and illegally punished, based on the waived Double Jeopardy violation, the Actual Innocence [DNA] Bindings evidence, and (3) seperate Malicious Prosecutorial Misconduct claims. [lack of Probable Cause/ Fraud upon the Court, and. Perjury (all conceded to by waiver, MT.R.Civ.P.12(b) and (h),. MT.R.App.P. 12(2)]. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE: “The Fourteenth Amendment precludes Indiana [like Montana herein] from keepin, Cook [Like Ellison here] imprisoned if it persists in depriving him of [this] type of appeal." Dowd v U.S. Ex Rel Cook, 340 US 206, 210, 71 S.Ct 262(1951). “almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues.", is the right to receive mail sent by Petitioner, and received by the Supreme Court's Justices. Lamont v Postmaster General, 381 US 301,305, 14 L.Ed.2d 398, 85 S.Ct 1493(1965). “Access to the Courts through the mails has been constitutionally protected since 1941, when Ex parte Hull, 312 US 546 held that the state could not constitutionally refuse to mail a prisoner's inartful pleadings to the court." Procunier v Navarette, 434 US 555, 594, 98 S.Ct 855(1978) at n.9. "no free person (Nullus Liber homo) shail be taken or ‘the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land." Common Law guarantee in the Magna Carta, See Dept.Homeland Sec. v Thuraissigion, 140 S.Ct 1959(2020). j QUESTIONS . 1) Where. Petitioner was acquitted of Arson at Trial; the State in Post-Conviction proceedings knowingly waived Petitioner's Double Jeopardy Claim on remaining counts, per MI.R.Civ.P. 12(b),(h); requiring relief under waiver and party presentation caselaw, with the State Court therefore lacking jurisdiction upon waiver; and on appeal the then (D) State Attorney General waived under MI.R.App.P. 12(2), that the State was NOT "dissatisfied" with Petitioners New Actual Innocence Forensic (DNA) Science Findings and Jurisprudence; waiving (3) Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims, as 'Fraud upon the Court'related to Lack of Probable Cause, Perjury, and unlawful attack on Eye-Witness Credibility, that a detective was the perpetrator, in §I; and continued 'Fraud on the Court’ in §II, with a 'Bounty' on Petitioner. 2) Where the. present (R) State Attorney General refuses to honor the prior (D) waiver, nor apply remedy or relief, required under MT.R.Prof.Conduct 3.4 and 3.8; nor abide by the MI.R.Evid. 402 and 901, nor the above Rules of Procedure; but instead gave an official written directive to State Prison Warden to destroy all evidence of State wrongdoing, including this Certiorari. from prison internal: mail, and the related §1983/ civil: R.1.C.0. suit:casefiles, documenting ‘Fraud.upon.the Court', violating the Petitioners 1st Amendment Rights, and also the 1st Amendment Rights of this Court's Justices, as joint victims of Federal Crimes; done to suppress the waived collusion between a County Detective, hiring Mexican Cartel Members , who, admit to Torturing and Raping Petitioner to extort a signature on a release of liability form, for:.an Oregon Company caught in 'Bond Fraud' by Petitioner, and who paid 'Bounty' monies to halt, :that:."Bond Fraud’ suit; with the attached overwhelming conclusive evidence and Cartel admissions of State corruption and