Curtis Van Stuyvesant v. New York

[1] While states are not required to allow appeals from convictions to the intermediate appellate courts, must they abide to due process requirements if they do ad is it also a violation of United States Constitution Ninth Amendment unenumerated rights by depriving petitioner rights to a criminal appeal under United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment and New York State Constitution Article VI Section 4[k] ? [2] Although torture is prohibited by United States Constitution Eight Amendment but where New York State deprived petitioner appellate counsel in an intermediate appellate court direct appeal subjected him to psychological and physical torture evincing depraved indifference by rendering him blind and then ordering him to proceed pro se from administrative segregation special housing unit with no access to legal research materials, prison law library, typewriter, desk top computer, copier, jail house lawyer does United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause offered and additional layer of protection and under the strick scrutiny is the state required to prove that the discrimination and torture serves a compelling state interests? [[3] When both the New York County District Attorney Office, New York State Attorney General Office and New York State Unified Court System Judges committed fraud on the court in other to deprived petitioner appellate court remedies in other not to vacated an ultra vires void for voidness judgment of conviction which is a nullity procured on a defective indictment on non-existing united States Constitution Article III federal subject matter immigration fraud which was fabricated from a whole cloth, r did the state violated petitioner's First Amendment petition Clause access to the courts or unconstitutionally missed use the law for an improper purpose in the criminal context by abusig process or was it a Ninth Amendment constitutional violate II LIST OF PARTIES. [1] Curtis Van Stuyvesant is the Petitioner. [2] New York State is the Respondent III RELATED CASES Curtis Van Stuyvesant v. James Conway Superintendent Attica Correctional Facility 506 U.S. 1030 [2011] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b][l][2][3][4]6] 28 U.S.C 2254 Federal Habeas Corpus to the United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit.