Whether the Suspension Clause, 28 U.S.C. § 2248, and Rule 8(d) require courts to accept habeas allegations when respondents fail to traverse or deny, and whether due process mandates enforcement of Rule 60(b)'s mandatory relief from void judgments

This petition addresses: (1) the refusal to grant mandatory relief from void judgments under C.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(3) and its federal counterpart 60(b)(4), and (2) the denial of habeas corpus relief. Petitioner, a father of eight, has been prosecuted for a four-word text ("Have [daughter] call me") and unlawfully separated from his children for years. Although properly invoking Rule 60(b) and habeas relief, Colorado courts have refused to address his claims, acknowledge defaults, or vacate void orders —violating protections in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Suspension Clause, 28 U.S.C. § 2248, and Rule 8(d) require courts to accept as true habeas allegations that respondents fail to traverse or otherwise admit by failure to deny —granting relief when petitions present prima facie evidence of constitutional violations —resolving the circuit conflict between courts treating such admissions as legally dispositive versus those permitting summary denial without opinion despite established constitutional infirmities. 2. Whether, following Loper Bright Enterprises, courts must independently scrutinize claims that civil protection orders are void due to fraud and religious discrimination, rather than deferring to lower court determinations when fundamental parent-child relationships and constitutional liberties are at stake. 3. Whether due process requires enforcement of Rule 60(b)'s mandatory relief from void judgments when courts refuse to vacate void orders procured through fraud upon the court and deprivations of rights, creating a direct conflict with decisions from multiple circuits holding such relief is "not discretionary." l