Rafael Verdejo Ruiz v. Derek Edge, Warden

I. WAS MILITARY APPELLATE COURT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT PETITIONER'S LATE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM WHERE IT WAS FILED BY APPELLATE COUNSEL WITHOUT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHERE THE MILITARY APPELLATE COURT HAD NOT YET MADE A FINAL DECISION IN THE CASE? II. QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORTANCE, NAMELY, WHETHER OR NOT CIVILIAN COURTS MUST REVIEW A MILITARY MEMBER'S CONVICTION FOR AN INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL CLAIM EVEN IF NOT RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL? III. WHETHER OR NOT CIVILIAN COURTS MUST REVIEW A MILITARY MEMBER'S CONVICTION IF THE MILITARY APPELLATE COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT AND REVIEW AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM ON DIRECT APPEAL OR THE APPEAL WAS LEGALLY INADEQUATE? IV. CAN A VIOLATION OF A FULL AND FAIR MILITARY APPEAL BE EXEMPT OF BEING PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED AND BE RAISED AT ANY TIME TO A CIVILIAN COURT? V. CAN A MILITARY MEMBER RAISE A LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION CLAIM AT ANY TIME AND ANYWHERE TO INCLUDE DURING HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, AND IS A CIVILIAN COURT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT, REVIEW, AND ADDRESS THE CLAIM EVEN IF NOT ORIGINALLY RAISED? VI. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO PRESENT TO THE JURY FACTS WHICH ARE HIGHLY PROBATIVE OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH IF ACCEPTED BY A JURY WOULD RESULT IN PETITIONER'S ACQUITTAL, AND WERE UNDISPUTED AND UNCONTROVERTED BY RESPONDENT IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF 'ACTUAL INNOCENCE' TO EXEMPT HIS CLAIMS FROM THE BAR OF PROCEDURAL DEFAULT? VII. DOES SUPREME COURT CASE LAW IN MARTINEZ V. RYAN, EVITTS V. LUCEY, MASSARO V. UNITED STATES, RHEUARK V. SHAW, DOUGLAS V. CALIFORNIA, AND GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS ALTER AND/OR CLARIFY SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN BURNS V. WILSON AS TO A CIVILIAN COURT'S LIMITS IN REVIEWING MILITARY CONVICTIONS? VIII. IS A MILITARY MEMBER'S INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL CLAIM EXCEPTED FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL BAR IN CIVILIAN COURTS AS AN ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE THAT MUST BE REVIEWED EVEN IF NOT RAISED ON MILITARY APPEAL? PAGE 1 IX. IS A MILITARY APPEAL JUDGMENT VOID AB INITIO WHERE THE ORIGINAL MILITARY OPINION IS CONDUCTED ILLEGALLY BY WAY OF A CONFIRMED-ILLEGALLY-APPOINTED JUDGE AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION IS CONDUCTED WELL AFTER PETITIONER HAD REQUESTED GRANT OF REVIEW TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES (CAAF), AND NO REMAND EXISTS FROM THE CAAF FOR THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) TO CONDUCT THE SUBSEQUENT OPINION, AND ARE THE CIVILIAN COURTS IN A HABEAS PROCEEDING OBLIGATED TO REVIEW PETITIONER'S CLAIMS, OR IS THERE ANY REMAINING JURISDICTION FOR THE AIR FORCE COURT VIA ANOTHER AVENUE TO REVIEW PETITIONER'S CLAIMS DUE TO PETITIONER NOT HAVING FULL, FAIR, AND COMPLETE APPELLATE REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 66, 67, AND 70 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, AND WOULD A FUTURE OPINION DUE TO THIS FAILURE TO PROVIDE A FAIR APPELLATE REVIEW CONSTITUTE PETITIONER'S FIRST.APPEAL AND NOT A COLLATERAL ATTACK, CAUSING ANY NEW SUPREME COURT DECISIONS TO APPLY TO PETITIONER? X. THE MILITARY TRIAL COURT LACKED SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE AND THE MILITARY APPELLATE COURT'S JUDGMENT IS VOID AB INITIO DUE TO A LACK OF SUBJECTMATTER JURISDICTION. ARE CIVILIAN COURTS OBLIGATED TO ADDRESS THESE CLAIMS AT ANYTIME AND ANYWHERE TO INCLUDE ON APPEAL OF CIVILIAN HABEAS WRIT AND EVEN NOW IN THE SUPREME COURT? PAGE 2