Whether established laws protect against indefinite suppression of public records showing fraudulent prosecutions and constitutional rights violations

reVttkisA 1. Should the unsettled issue in Heck v. Humphrey and Spencer v. Kenma^where this court has not definitively ruled that criminal defendants may use a §1983 lawsuit for evidence suppression when the accused has exhausted all state remedies, a habeas petition is not an adequate remedy, and the accused has been irreparably injured by bad faith concealment of evidence needed to show fraud and unlawful arbitrary detention? 2. Do established laws protect and prevent the indefinite suppression of public records that show fraudulent prosecutions of non-existent crimes, impeachability of all prosecution witnesses, an insufficiency of evidence to sustain any conviction and the lack of any lawful authority by non-elected, appointed judges and prosecutors to perpetrate and conceal unconstitutional processes facilitating extrinsic fraud and false imprisonment? 3. Do established Federal and International laws enforce the right to a fair, speedy trial and correct the deprivation of that right, perpetrated through trickery, deceit, extrinsic fraud, depriving face to face confrontation, material evidence of impeachability and 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? 5. Does established law protect an enforce rights violated through vague, ambiguous, conflicting state legislation, non-elected appointed officials and prolonged ex-parte evidentiary support and arguments? 6. Is this court obligated to revisit, under stare decisis, impact of actuality, highest level of controversy, 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 non-elected, appointed judges and assistant prosecutors falsely claiming a lawful authority? 7. Does the manifest disregard of established laws and rights, through intentional plain errors and the abuses of discretion, by federal appellate and district judges, require the 1 enactment of legal precedent to correct and settle the variations in issues leaving discretionary authority unbound to deprive rights condoning and concealing fraud on the court by the court, Petitioner challenging state court jurisdiction? 8. 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 disregarding federal rights doctrine, state evidentiary breach of contract laws, new light evidence, fundamental miscarriage of justice doctrines? 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 petitioners case to the United States Supreme Court for the proper administration of justice, only the highest court can render, 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. Will this court accept the duty to acknowledge Petitioner's proven, supported, allegations and the deprivations of rights under color of law, as his final adequate remedy, and fully resolve the in favor of the American Spirit of Liberty or all party's? 2