Whether state and federal courts can operate by void judgment and without authority to maintain convictions in violation of Rule 10(c) while disregarding established Supreme Court precedent

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : : This case presents an Important Nationwide issue concerning whether State and Federal Courts can operate by void judgement and no authority in to maintain convictions in violation of Federal’ and State Rule of Civil procedure Rule 10(c) to keep those wrongfully convicted incarcerated white disregarding © Federal Laws as settled by the Supreme Court, and conflicts with or departs from other States District Courts or Courts of Appeal and has far departed from accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings. — ist: Did the District Court and 9th Circuit err by deciding to not rule on the . merits by<not properly examining Rule 10(c) records that were attached to * the Habeas petition, when denying the Habeas or denying the Certificate of. appealability? 2nd: tas the Supreme Court overturned it's own president in Franks v Deleware 438 US 154, 985 S.Ct 2674, 57 L.fd.2d 667, 1978; Mooney v Holohan’294 US 103, 112, 79 L.Ed.2d 794, 55 S.Ct 340(1935); Napue v Tllinious 360 US 264, 269, 3 L.Fd.2d 1217, 79 S.Cct(1950): or Alcorta v Texas 355 US 28, 2 L.fd.2d 9, : 78 S.Ct 103(1957); where it now allows a different standardl' of review for State prisoners as-compared to Federal prisoners who are similarly situtated, where thesCourt:allows the conviction of someone on the known use of perjured testimony? ; 3rd: Does the Supreme Court decision in United.States v Johnson 1946, 327 US 106, 112, 66 S.Ct 464, 90 L.Fd 562, that this Court cannot second guess a trier of fact,. to be handled differently for State prisoners and federal prisoners and does hornbook law apply differently between state and federal prisoners? : : oe Oe