Michael Woolen v. California

I. WHETHER PETITIONER ,1 OF 60 MILLION AMERICANS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS WAS DEPRIVED BILL OF RIGHTS PROTECTIONS OF AMENDMENT I ,V ,VI ,IX ,AND XIV. WHERE TRIAL COURT PRECLUDED HIM [49] OCCASIONS FROM TESTIFYING HIS INNOCENCE, FREELY, WITH NO ENUMERATION. WHILE PRESENTING A DEFENSE. DOES DUE PROCESS AFFORD STIPULATION AS TO RELEVANT DEMONSTRATIVE I.E MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS WHICH ARE INFERRING AND PRESUMED IN TESTIMONY. II. WHETHER CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SANCTIONED HABEAS TRIAL COURT'S SUPPRESSION OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH EXPOSES [3] TRIAL DA SUPRESSIONS ,[1] ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPRESSION ,[1] HABEAS JUDGE SUPPRESSION ,AND [1] HABEAS DISTRICT ATTORNEY LITIGATION TEAM SUPPRESSION. III. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ,A SUBSIDIARY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD IMPEDE I.E. DENY PETITIONER XIV AMENDMENT AND EQAUAL PROTECTION OF PRESENTING A NON PIECEMEAL HABEAS PETITION IN THE STATE COURT. IV. WHETHER APPELLATE COUNSEL'S NON OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE HABEAS CLAIMS SHOULD PRECLUDE PETITIONER FROM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS WHEN ALL CLAIMS PRESENTED ARE PREMISED IN FACTS FROM THE TRIAL FILE WHICH WAS IN A DEAD LETTER FACILITY FOR 14 YEARS. V. WHETHER -VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION WHICH ESTABLISHES STRUCTURAL ERROR STEMMING FROM JUDICIAL DERELICTION OF DUTY AND MANIFEST DISREGARD FOR THE LAW CONSTITUTE ERROR OF CONSTITUTIONAL MAGNITUDE. VI. WHETHER CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE SCHLUP GATEWAY STANDARD WITHOUT GRANTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE PHYSIOLOGICAL QUESTIONS. ANSWERS ONLY A PHYSIOLOGIST OR PHYSICAL THERAPIST CAN PROFESSIONALLY PROVIDE IN REGARD TO SHOULDER RANGE OF MOTION DEFICIENCY. VII. WHETHER FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON FELONY MURDER RULE WHEN ASKED WHEN IS A CRIME NOT PREMEDITATION BECAUSE NO FELONY EXISTS AND THE CHARGE IS RENDERED ASSAULT WITH A FIREARM CONSTITUTE DIRECTINGTHE JURY TO CONVICT. VIII. DOES TRIAL JUDGE DERILICTION COMBINED WITH MULTIPLE PROSECUTORIAL BRADY/NAPUE VIOLATIONS INVOKE THE BRECHT RULE APPLYING CHAPMAN/SARRAZAWSKI. IX. WHETHER DETERENCE IS NECESSARY WHEN 'FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE' EVIDENCED AND CONCEDED TO IN THE TRIAL FILE .THEN INSPIRING MULTIPLE FALSE TESTIMONY COMPEL FULL AND FAIR STATE LITIGATION TO AFFORD DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION.