1. Can the State of Texas "dry lab" test results in order to obtain a conviction under TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.104(a)(2) and § 481.114(a)(c) ? Meaning/ can the Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory Forensic Analyst draw her conclusions by. masquerading the use of the internet/ "drugs.com", as conclusive forensic evidence in identifying alleged controlled substance without identifying the source of the library spectra used to compare her instrument data to a reference in order to identify the compound as CLONAZEPAM? In other words/ can the State's expert "guess" what the alleged substance is? And if not/ is this action/ and/or inaction/ a violation of Petitioner's rights under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution?

2. Does the Texas 11.07 statute deprive pro se litigants a full and fair opportunity to litigate/ where a litigant has a color able claim of extrinsic fraud and the statute fails to mandate the appointment of counsel? And if soz is this a violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution?

3. Can this case's emergence be the reason that this Court constitutionalized and proclaimed that the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the appointment of post conviction habeas counsel/ where un-skilled/ indigent/ pro se litigants are deprived equal protections under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Whether the State of Texas can 'dry lab' test results to obtain a drug conviction without identifying the source of library spectra and whether this violates the 14th Amendment due process rights of an accused