Whether the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error and constitutional violations in denying the appellant's due process rights during direct appeal review

1. WHETHER THE STATE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN JURIS DICTIONAL ERROR WHEN GRANTING STATE APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR EXTENTION AFTER FILING DEADLINES HAD PASSED FOR CONSIDER ATIONS ? 2. ’ WHETHER THIS CASE INVOLVES THE DEPREVIATION OF APPELLANT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO SELF REPRESENTATION AND RISHT • TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON DIRECT APPEAL REVIEWS UNDER THE U.S. CONST. XIV. VI. AMENDMENTS ? 3. WHETHER STATE OF LOUISIANA APPELLATE COURT CIRCUMVENTED THE LEGAL PROCESS FOR ALLOWING THE AGGRIEVED APPELLANT ON REMAND," ONE FULL ROUND " OF STATE COURT'S DIRECT APPEAL REVIEW AND CHALLENGE TO IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BARRED/PROHIBITED RE-TRIAL ? QUESTION(s) FOR REVIEW 4. WHETHER CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURAL DEFECTS AND THE SERIOUS SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES REQUIRING THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT/ORDER/ MANDATE TO "VACATE" THE LOUISIANA APPELLATE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT ' S.-'.JUDGMENT-OF "CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN VICTOR vs ■ LOUISIANA, 14Q S, ct. 2715 (2070 ) , AND REMANDED BACK WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO GRANT RELIEF AS ORDERED, APPLICANT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE IS ENTITLED TO THE TIME LIMITATION OF ANY ATTEMPT TO RE-INSTATE RE-INSTITUTION OF RE?PROSECUTION WITHIN 90 DAYS'.AFTER THE "AUTOMATIC "' RULING OF THE STATE'S APPELATE COURT'S JUDGMENT TO " VACATE ", OR BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASE FROM CUSTODY ? 5. WHETHER LOUISIANA FIFTH CIRCUIT APPELLATE COURT'S ORDER TO RE-SENTENCE AFTER TWO (2) YEARS ON DIRECT APPEAL REVIEW, THE APPELLANT DIRECT APPEAL " BRIEF PENDING ", AND AFTER AGGRIEVED APPELLANT ON REMAND PRO-SE OBJECTIONS ON RECORD TO THE STATE'S TWICE DEFAULTED/FAILURE TO FILE APPELLEE'S BRIEF DEFAULT JUDGMENT . UNANSWERED , IS NOT A~RES~HERRING ORDER-TO IMPROPERLY DIVEST JURISDICTION TO ALLOW THE STATE A PROCEDURALLY BARRED RE-START, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S FEDERAL DUE PROCESS ABSOLUTE RIGHT UNDER STATE LAWS TO THE DIRECT APPEAL REVIEW AND LIBERTY INTEREST ? ii. QUESTION(s) FOR REVIEW 6. WHETHER STATE OFFICER OF THE COURT IN COMMITTING FRAUD UPON THE COURT,RECORDS IN A SHAM AND DECEPTIVE MANNER CREATING JUDICIAL IMPRESSIONS FOR THE RECORD THAT "APPLICANT" WAS AFFORDED " ONE FULL ROUND OF OF DIRECT APPEALS " IN STATE COURT PROCESS AFFORDING CRIMINAL DEFENDENT DIRECT REVIEWS AFTER CONVICTION AND SENTENCING PHASES PROVIDES PROOF EVIDENT OF THE STATE COURT'S LEGAL SCHEMES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW ? 7. WHETHER THE LOUISIANA FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE COURT OF OF APPEALS OFFICERS OF THE COURT AND MEMBERS OF THE CLERK OF COURT OFFICE ACTING IN SHAM AND DECEPTIVE MANNER/ TO PREVENT APPLICANT REV.' VICTOR, FROM MEANINGFULLY ACCESSING THE STATE APPELLATE COURT FOR ONE FULL ROUND OF DIRECT APPELLATE REVIEWS IS NOT " MANIFEST OBVIOUS " AND PLAIN CONSTI TUTIONAL STRUCTUAL ERRORS IN THE DIRECT APPELLATE COURT REVIEWS NOT SUBJECT TO HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS ? iii. QUESTION(s) FOR REVIEW 8. WHETHER APPELLANT CAN BE COMPELLED TO ARGUE OVER 20 MOTIONS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT PRE-TRIAL PRO-SE, WITHOUT A FARETTA HEARING PREVIOUSLY HELD,IS NOT. IN SCOPE OF REVIEW, PRIMA FACIE IN VIOLATION OF THE U.S. C. SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STRUCTURE ERROR, GROSS PROCEDURE DEPARTURE ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD THAT REQUIRES APPELLANT ENTITLEMANT TO REVERSAL ? 9. WHETHER AN APPELLANT HELD IN STATE PRISON WITHOUT A CONVICTION,WITHOUT SENTENCE, WITHOUT BOND, WITHOUT A D.O.C. NUMBER, HELD ON 23/1 LOCKDOWN WHILE DENIED SELF-REPRESENTATION WITHOUT A FARETTA HEARING ;. IS IN VIOLATION PRIMA FACIE OF THE Is t, U.S ; G .'AMENDMENT., THE/ 4TH, 8th AND THE 14th U.S.C. AMENDMENTS ENTITLEMENT TO REVERSAL AND RELEASE ? NOTWITHSTANDING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S.C. QUESTION(s) FOR REVIEW 10. WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVING APPELANTS LACKING ACCESS TO THE STATE COURT APPELLATE RECORDS FOR PROPERLY SUBMITTING A PRO-SE DIRECT APPEAL WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE REVIEWING OF THE FULL RECORDS FOR FILING AN PRO-SE INCARCERATED APPELLANT BRIEF RENDERING direct appellate constitutional right as matter of the PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT'S REASONING/ RATIONAL RESULT IN FARETTA