Is the deprivation of due process rights in state criminal litigation exempt from the civil prisoner litigation clause 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims filed in lieu of habeas corpus petitions?

1. Is the deprivation of due process rights, in underlying state criminal litigation, exempt from the civil prisoner litigation clause 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims filed in lieu of habeas corpus petitions? 2. Does established law protect and enforce rights violated by vague, ambiguous, conflicting state legislation and prolonged ex-parte influence? 3. Does established Federal and International laws enforce the right to a fair speedy trial and correct the deprivation of the right, perpetrated through trickery, deceit, extrinsic fraud depriving face to face confrontation, material evidence of impeachability, actual innocence? 4. Does the deprivation of to courts, with the purpose of preventing challenges to rights violations, entitle the victim, through established law, to review of the disqualified challenges and or dismissal of criminal charges and release from custody? 1 5. Should the established, freestanding public records right be enforced, the State lacking any compelling evidentiary privilege, to insure the correction of false testimony, fabricated evidence, fraud and the release of a falsely imprisoned victim? 6. Do established laws protect and prevent the indefinite suppression of public records that show fraudulent prosecutions of non-existent crimes, impeachability of prosecution witnesses, and the insufficiency of evidence to sustain any conviction? 7. Does stare decisis, established laws and rights, prevail over judicial political partisanship, concealment of fraud by unlawful rulings, and judicial immunity facilitating and authorizing abuses of discretion where the state court lacks jurisdiction? 8. Is this Court obligated to revisit, under stare decisis, the internal constitutional conflict between the 9th and 14th Amendments for vague and ambiguous wording in the 9th Amendment, violating International Law, when the application results in arbitrary detention perpetrated by elected officials or others, falsely claiming a lawful authority? 2 9. Where the courts have shown the appearance of bad faith, bias and political partisanship, disregarding stare decisis principle, but has an intent to divert case to the U.S. Supreme Court for the proper administration of justice, does this not obligate this court to review, rule and prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice for either a bad faith obstruction of justice, or diversionary, scenario, regardless of the good or bad faith of the judiciary? 10. Is it not justiciable, involving the highest levels of controversy, requiring the supervisory correcting power of the U.S. Supreme Court, where judges facilitate and participate in a fraudulent scheme and conspiracy disregarding the stare decisis doctrine, to deprive an actually innocent rights to impeaching public records, a judgment of acquittal and the correction of prolonged, arbitrary detention? 11. Do established laws need to be enacted to correct and settle the variations in issues leaving discretionary authority unbound to deprive rights and condone/conceal fraud? 3 12. Will this Court accept the duty to acknowledge petitioner's allegations and the deprivations of rights under color of law, as his final remedy, and fully resolve the in favor of the American Spirit of Liberty or all party's? 4