Christopher J. Rahaim v. Bruce Bartlett, Individually and in His Official Capacity as State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al.

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 self-representation/access 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 influence/inadmissible 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