Did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abuse its discretion when it refused review after discovering omitted cross-examination testimony that potentially proved actual innocence?

1] Did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abuse its discretion when it refused Review after Petitioner discovered approx. 20-25 min. of Cross-Examination testimony,, from the State's ONLY Witness on guilt/innocencefhad been Edited/Omitted from the Appellate Officii Transcript; and, the edited/omitted testimony contained explicit statements which proved ACTUAL INNOCENCE as a matter of Fact and Law? 2] In light and consideration of 40 years of Stare Decisis and the increasingly chaotic body of Case Law developed therein; is the term "lewd exhibition" in child pornography statutes proven to be absolutely unworkable'under the principles set forth by the Court in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 605-06(2015)? 3] Did the Trial Judge abuse his discretion when he refused the Petitioner, compulsory attendance of subpeonaed Witnesses SOLELY on the Judge's assertion: "I'm not going to make anyone come to my Courtroom who does not want to be here;" in violation of Petitioner's Constitutional Right to such in Due Process? 4] When a term is codified as an element of a criminal offense, and that term has meaning solely and exclusively based on and rooted in a religious mythology unique to ONE Religion's edict; does it violation 'Separation of Church and State' when said term is applied subjectively to a Citizen NOT ADHEREING TO the Religion from which the term comes and attains its meaning? 5] Does applying an ad hoc, case-by-dase determination rule?in which Fact Finders are permitted to exercise exclusively their own personal perspectives!to determine what constitutes an Element of the charged offense, with absolutely no ..guidance nor / limitation from either the Trial Court or Legislature, consti tute a violation of the "Fair Notice" Doctrine and/or the Rule set forth by this Couft in Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 JU.S. 385, 393(1926) , and cited in Johnson, supra? 6] When a Pro Se Appellant proceeding in forma pauperis discovers and alleges there are substantive ommissions in the Trial Transcript which contained evidentuary testimony that proves ACTUAL INNOCENCE; doeslit violate the Appellant's DUE PROCESS on appeal to NOT order an investigative review of the ORIGINAL audio recording of the Trial testimony in question? 7] Where the factual determination of what is/isn't "lewd" can literally be made based SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY on the Fact Fl Finders' RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL from Birth onward (i.e. perspective inherently ingrained in their Societal biases); does it violate the U.S. Constitution's First (separation of church and state), and Fourteenth . Amendments (equal protection, privildges and^rights under the laws) to permit individual Citizens to be tried by a Jury of viii QUESTION(S) PRESENTED CONTINUED 7 cont.] exclusively made up of a Culture/Religion with a history KNOWN to be hostile toward the Culture/Religion from which the Defendant originates, when the central Element of the charged offense's MEANING is malleable and differs dramatically between the two opposite Cultures/Religions? Restated ; when the key Element of a criminal offense is such that it's MEANING is variable and depends on HOW.a fact finder PERCEIVES it base on their INHERENT BIASES borne of lifelong Cultural/ Religious indoctrinations; Does allowing a Citizen from Sociocultural & Religious life 'A' to be judged EXCLUSIVELY by. Jurors from Sociocultural & Religious Life 'B' (which is known to be hostile to adherents of 'A') constitute a "fundamentally unfair" Trial such as would racial exclusion/exc