Does Equitable Tolling or the Accrual Rule apply to 28 USC §2244(d) when previously concealed material information about trial counsel's deficient performance is discovered, and can a Federal court dismiss a case without a fully developed record or proof of state action?

1. Does Equitable Tolling or the Accrual Rule apply to the application of 28 USC §2244(d), upon discovery of previously concealed material information concerning trial counsel's deficient performance subject of a criminal trial, when a defendant timely attempts to bring claims based on that information to the highest state court, further should a Federal court, then without a developed or certified record as required by 28 USC §2254(g) presume a rejection of the claims on the basis of a time bar, when there is no record or otherwise proof of state action presented, contrasted to an explicit right of habeas review under the state's Constitution, wherein the state's highest court fails, or refuses to render a legally cognizable order adjudicating any claim, effectively denying the applicant access to courts, substantive process, and procedural due process? 2. Upon challenges to effective assistance of counsel, one of those errors being the failure to preserve the right of direct appeal, wherein the right of direct appeal is statutory, coupled with the state court's officers having a statutory obligation to ensure a record of a criminal trial is preserved, where subsequently the convicting court FINDS that no trial record EVER EXISTED, or was lost or destroyed, does said absence of an official trial record, deny the right to due process under the 5th or 14th Amendment, or the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment, and does the absence of a renewable certifiable trial record invalidate the complained of lower court's judgment? 3. Where habeas review is constitutionally established as an inalienable right, the right statutorily enacted with provisions requiring a hearing to answer specific claims, can a ♦ * li « t > court without jurisdiction, override an applicant's claims, and right of due process by foregoing the hearing in favor of an unrecorded, in-chambers in-camera hearing without the actual participation of any or all parties? 4. When the petitioner asserts claims subject to Equitable Tolling, does a Federal court commit error under 28 USC §2244(d)(l) when it dismiss a case citing preliminary review via 28 USC §1915A, when the reviewing court fails to conduct a fact inquiry concerning the two necessary prongs of 1.) reasonable diligence, and 2.) extraordinary circumstances including dishonesty by trial counsel, or court officials? 5. When one or more elected judges of a multi-panel court (state actors) creates, or participates in carrying out a (secret) unpublished process in the highest state court of appeals, said process allegedly responsive to lawfully filed instruments in that respective court, yielding so-called decisions entitled a variant of "(denied / dismissed/ refused) without written order", said process not having been open to the public, nor conducted in an open court, not utilizing a court reporter, not having a quorum of justices participating, nor enabling the court's Clerk the ability to certify any so called decision including the participation of relevant justices, that court being created by the state Constitution, said Constitution establishing that a majority of the enbanc court is required to deliver a concurring opinion on each ground raised, where said unpublished process explicitly violates state Constitutional enactments, or reservations, including statutory requirements, does it violate a person's civil rights when that person attempts to exercise one, or more of their rights of review provided » f 4til I1 u*1v by that same state Constitution in said court when that person receives only a notice of decision either via U.S. Mail, or online, said notice being irreconcilable with a CERTIFIED ORDER from the Clerk of court, further, could it be said that the notice of the unrendered, so-called decision is an adjudication consistent with STATE ACTION? RELATED CASES Clark v. Collier, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28219 (5th Cir. November 6, 2024); Clark v. Collier, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105134 (Western Dis