Whether ineffective assistance of counsel occurred when discovery was not properly provided and multiple constitutional rights were allegedly violated

1. Whether fail to provide Discover was ineffectice assistance of Counsel ? 2. Whether the indictment of information-was deficient by laking elements of essential facts require by statute ? Was Mr Lopez, imprisionment under defective indictment ? Was the indictment of charges can be prove beyond reasonable doubt when all the allegations in the indictment was no support by the record.? 3. Was none disclosure favorable evidence, like scientific DNA, Physical examination Reports prior to trial Constitute Brady violation ? was Due Process violated by prosecution fail to disclosed Brady material? 4. Was the Sixth an Fourteenth Constitutional rights violated by trai court interference to defense counsel to investigate the case.? Was the preparation for trail was prejudice ? 5. Was Pie Constitutional right to counsel violated by trial court compel defense counsel to labor on conflict of interest after court was Inform the he cannot provide Constitutional assistance to his client? Was the right to counsel violated by fail to provide unconflicted counsel? 6. Was the Sixth an Fourteenth Amendment violated by trail obstructed the process of law upon the defendant constitutional rights.? 7. Was the Sixth an Fourteenth Constitutional right violated by counsel fail to investigate an present evidence the exculpate the defendant? Was Trial Court Committed legal error by no aplying the facts to case ? 8. Was Due Process Violated by trail judge holding out court meeting an her Chamber’s wit a witness for the prosecution on same case ? Was the trial judge committed inpermissible unconstitutional plain error ? 9. Was the Fourth Amendment violated by Police Charged, an arrest without Probable cause an without process ? Was The R&R using the exclusionary rule conflict with U.S.Supreme Court ? Was the Constitutionally of the Act of Congress draw into question ? <S 3 A RELATED CASES LIST OF COURT OPINIONS 1. APRIL 18,2025. U.S. SUPREME COURT. No 23-2149. ,D.C. #2:22-CV-00296-T0R. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS RETURN FAIL TO COMPLY WITH Rrule 14.1(g). and AND A CONCISE STATEMENT OF CASE. see.