whether-court-judges-uphold-constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW UNDER S.C. RULE 14.1(a); RULE 20.4(a) FIRST QUESTION WHETHER ... RESPECT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT JUDGE’S WHOSE MEMBERS TAKE THE SAME OATH AS THE USS. . CONGRESS THAT UPHOLD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §453 REQUIRES NO LESS WHY THE COURT JUDGE’S MAKE AND _ USE RULING TO DENY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHEN THE POWER UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IT FOLLOWS THAT THIS POWER IS NO LIMITED? SECOND QUESTION : WHETHER ... BETWEEN THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS VIOLATION, CONSTITUTION STATUTORY PROVISION AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION WHICH OF THESE THREE LAWS THE JUSTICE’S AND JUDGE’S MUST OBEY FIRST AND PROTECT THE MOST? THIRD QUESTION WHETHER ... BETWEEN THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS VIOLATION AND THE COURT’S JURISDICTION RULES, WHICH OF THESE TWO LAWS THE . JUSTICE’S AND JUDGE’S SHALL FOLLOW OR GO BOUND FIRST TO CORRECT THE US. CONSTITUTIONS AMENDMENTS VIOLATION OR THE RULE OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION? FOURTH QUESTION . WHETHER ... CONVICTION JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLAIN ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. HOW OR WHY SUCCESSIVE MOTION OR ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1996 LAW BAR PETITIONER’S CLAIM FROM THE COURT? ii FIFTH QUESTION WHETHER ... CONVICTION OF CRIME NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT BY THE GRAND JURY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLAIN ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE’ FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, HOW OR . WHY SUCCESSIVE MOTION OR ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1996 LAW BAR THE PETITIONER’S CLAIM FROM THE COURT? SIXTH QUESTION WHETHER... CONVICTION FOR A CRIME IN THE INDICTMENT BY THE COURT WITHOUT ANY EXISTING EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE US. CONSTITUTION. HOW OR WHY SUCCESSIVE MOTION OR ANTI-TERRORISM ACT 1996 LAW BAR THE PETITIONER CLAIM FROM THE COURT? SEVENTH QUESTION WHETHER ... THE QUESTIONS IN THE FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH QUESTION IS A. VOID JUDGMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE US. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT FIVE AND FOURTEEN(1) AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, §§9; 15(A); AND 16(A); HOW AND WHY THE STATE COURT’S SANCTION AND BAR THE PETITIONER’S CLAIM FROM THE STATE COURTS? EIGHTH QUESTION WHETHER ... THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT’S UNDER THEIR OWN JURISDICTION THAT SHALL NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICITON TO MAKE THEIR OWN LAW OR RULE OR FOLLOW ANY OTHER LAWS TO DENY A UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE OR AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. HOW OR WHY THE COURT’S TODAY IN THE COUNTRY USING RULE AND LAWS THAT OVERRULE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BY DENIAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS VIOLATION CLAIMS LIKE IN THIS CASE? Lis The Petitioner’s Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus for review by the United States Supreme Court by Justice(s) Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Thomas, under S.C. Rule 20.4(a); Rule 36; and Title 28 U.S.C. §2241(a)(1)@). ; The Petition’s questions presented for review justify the granting of a writ of habeas corpus which that show exceptional circumstances the Article and Amendment of the U .S. Constitution warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. This writ is rarely granted. [The Act of Congress is drawn into question ... The Constitution is written”]. Thus, “[E]very law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution of the ‘United States’”. iv SAMUEL RIVERA v. STATE OF FLORIDA The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida Case No.: 85-25037