Raymond Dean Ordoukhanian v. Leah Wommack Chaney, et al.

P.l of 2

1. Whether the importance to the public of this issue, does the word " cannot " still retain its meaning, when it is on record, the "altering" of "facts and evidence" done intent­ ionally, purposely, willingly, with full knowledge what is being presented to the court is by means of "bad faith" and "ill intent" found out only years later during years of in­ carceration, should those prosecutors and/or law officials be immune?

2. Should the HECK Rule be modified when it found out by irrefutable evidence in the form of photographs and DNA Lab reports, or other conclusive exculpatory evidence found years later during a post-conviction stage, because prosecut­ ors (i) abused the adversary process by presenting False DNA results and False destruction of evidence scenarios, causing the [*2] defense to assume mitigating exculpatory Brady facts did not exist while suppressing evidence opposite the scenario they presented to the jury (ii) capitalized on their conceal­ ment and fabricated scenarios repeatedly, and (iii) when the jury requested that evidence, took steps to remove that evidence that would have been opposite their theory outing their misleading of the jury, and denying that evidence, once again only found out after years of incarceration, should immunity still be provided when steps are currently still active, denying a full "habeas" review? Page 1 of 2 8 8