Whether the Respondent has valid authority to punish the Applicant and keep him incarcerated without a valid conviction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ce, | 1 Whether the Respondent [Warden Hansen] employee of the Colorado Department of : Corrections} has valid authority (in accord with the thirteenth and fourteenth : Amendments of the United States Constitution) to punish this Applicant [Rudnick] and to keep him incarcerated (to serve a life term) without Rudnick having been duly convicted of the statutory offense indicated* on the State's Warrant of Committment (or Mittimus) issued through the State Judicial Branch? 7 (*) Exhibit I,III,IV,V,VI_& VIIT (sha\\ be provided ok Wearing) 2 Whether Respondent's "holding authority" is constitutionally maintained after receiving multiple [altered] official mitimus document s*( each containing false conviction and sentence terms) that were issued without jurisdiction against Applicant Rudnick to punish him without due process or giving any notice, hearing, or opportunity to be present to challenge (new) convictions indicated? (and) ** 3 Whether these "new" or “added" statutory offense convictions and sentence terms [entered against Applicant Rudnick by way of mere issuance of new mittimus still provides legitimate holding authority AFTER the criminal "counts" indicated have been ¢hangea (without due process); then changed again; then REMOVED; then changed again with NEW charge added (shown in Exhibit I V)..(and) ** (**) Neither Respondent (warden) or C.D.0.C. officials will specify on which, ' of the many, holding documents issued, they are using to rely upon for exer, cising their authority to keep Applicant Rudnick in their custody. _