Whether the petitioner's due process, equal protection, and First Amendment rights were violated

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED See attached alse /) Seltclefeack me —O) Taabilitye Fo rest Byala of Dex per” pesetfahiey _ 2 Kpra5 i o Pepe Gi vec : | (5) Doe ppocess ; ca's meswe (Il )lew in Coutradichion o Ne rhe. ere ll) et Of Hee Uoteck HRs vention (9 Ypeseated £ pefeve my Ged given risa, AY nal eae natavel mstiucl ef Ff — a presurvagion AY exYuberah!l2 yatural Command — <x yo — Facto The Geusrrturion ef phe United Spates gud phe Leqrr Ih Blows ln 2 (9 belus Aeured, Tvs Ne dveprecess, Life “Liberty 44d gue presat of heyygse 235 has [fpeett 14 Friuged ‘apou. [2 Wife of Oresenrs (/aek eof Bgoalilperr| yi oF ght 5 couutyy's céustitunNeual! (ace by Ulich 5 </Ffefeice (9 Atenaged 15 Their lack oF awe Wwocess, _ TH nisar oF free eset (alee 7 (amlrisa (cus) betas otininish (5 SUNession oF bays Aue goces5, phy A inAdual lipecty (6 elas (ddoughe upyou fy lack 2h arcess fo councel, pHe (ack of aay pers Pollewterg fivete cal, phe lack oF accurate ets ¢hroug flue vege!’ Hou S Ne select ctf having auy erfertr ~oreusics ov bi Y XY ured proper, \Wvestageh a of Aacts purest is’ (ack 2f hive | Oreseus Yefuse | AA (uayre Vahe flack cA vse of rfp Facto Tue NS, Coustitafion aud the tratica c& phe Praencay vray bens SulpyerteA 15 uo Alek Voces >, TA€ youre LPAVG vinent or Ailigert CHEFSe KA YI NATE Ay Wy ceouue;/ eu prerpicvabg/e Packs 19 lack aan oatyighf vetusal of “PS