Does Tennessee's arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal application of its parole review and release consideration utilizing the seriousness of the offense to deny parole to those with protesters, hence causing them to serve more time than those equally situated or having more serious offenses but have minimal or no protesters, violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ; TENNESSEE’S PAROLE SYSTEM, AS DOES THOSE OF MANY STATES, UTILIZE . SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE AS A MEANS OF DENYING PAROLE. THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE SAME IS BEING USES AS A POLITICAL VEHICLE AND HENCE APPLIED IN AN ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND ILLEGAL MANNER. INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED THE SAME AND/OR MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES, BUT HAVE NO PROTESTERS, ARE GRANTED PAROLE DISPROPORTIONALLY TO THOSE WHO DO NOT. MR. GREENWOOD FILED A STATE COURT WRIT OF CERTIORARI CHALLENGING THIS, HOWEVER, ABSENT ANY DISCOVERY OR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS, THE TENNESSEE COURTS DENIED THE SAME AS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. THE SINGLE QUESTION HERE ASK: 1, Does Tennessee’s arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal application of its parole review and release consideration utilizing the seriousness of the offense to deny parole to those with protesters, hence causing them to serve more time than those equally situated or having more serious offenses but have minimal or no protesters, violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution? . . | ili :