Did the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policies and procedures violate the Petitioner's U.S.C.A. 14 Amendment and the Cal. Const. Art 1, §7 Due process Rights Arbitrarily when Petitioner was denied Early Parole Consideration under Prop. 57 as a non-violent felony inmate serving a non-violent sentence although having a 22year old conviction for a non-registrable offense

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Did the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policies and procedures violate the Petitioner’s U.S.C.A. 14 Amendment and the Cal. Const. Art 1, §7 Due process Rights Arbitrarily when Petitioner was denied Early Parole Consideration under Prop. 57 as a non-violent felony inmate serving a nonviolent sentence although having a 22year old conviction for a non-registrable offense. 2) Did CDCR create a disparity in treatment in not considering non-violent inmates serving time for Early Parole Consideration who have no prior registrable offense in their background history as opposed to other inmates who are also serving time for a non-violent crime but who do have a prior registrable offense in their background??? And if so, (2) Does this infringe on an inmate’s Constitution rights??? 3) Can CDCR, along with its officers, agents, representatives and or employees of the State be held in contempt and financially responsible for each inmate that is held in custody beyond the maximum time allotted to be served under the Cal. Const. Art. I, §32(a)(1)(A), is “eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his . . . primary offense.” If so (2) Does this court give a legal remedy for the injustice. 4) Did the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) regulations adopted to implement the added provision of the Cal. Const., Art. I, §32, subd. (a)(1) (hereafter section 32(a)(1)) to validly exclude admittedly nonviolent offenders serving sentences for any nonviolent offense, even if that that person was never convicted of a Registrable Offense jn the past (OAL File No. 2017-032801EON, §§ 3490(a)(3) and 2449.1(a)(3)) excluding anyone convicted of a Registrable Offense from the early parole_process under and in direct violation of Proposition 57 statute and its Constitutional stare decisis. See CAL. CODE REGS. Tit.15, §§ 3491(b)(3) (hereinafter, the Final Regulations) dated January 1, 2019 from Proposition 57 relief.?? 5) Did CDCR and the State of California Discriminate by Denying the Petitioner his rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Laws of both the Federal and State Constitutions when CDCR did not give the [R]etroactive 2-for-1 time credits to Petitioner because of his Medical Disabilities and for Mental Health Inmates as ordered by the three panel 9" Cir. Federal Court J udges as of January 1, 2015 which CDCR in turn further denied him immediate release from prison custody. And, if so (2) Was Petitioner held far longer in State Custody than he was actually sentenced too??? (See, Petitioner’s Exhibits — Zero (0) thru Seven (7) in the Cal. Supreme Ct.) 6) Did CDCR violate the Petitioner’s guaranteed right to serve 33.3% of a three yr Primary Prison Term under the Retroactive 2-forl time credits by willfully denying a Federal Court Order by using the Director’s Operation Manual (DOM’s) Underground Regulations §12010.6 to purposely abridge & disregard the Petr’s Fed. & State Rights. Verheee 7) Does the (CDCR) policies and procedures create a disparity in treatment by arbitrarily and purposely denying all inmates (including Petitioner herein) from the benefit of receiving the [RJetroactive 2-for-1 time credits as ordered by the three : panel 9" Cir. Federal Court Judges for inmates who have Medical Disabilities and for Mental Health Inmates due to having any old conviction(s) for either a registrable_ or non-registrable offense although their prior or current sentence was and is a nonviolent one?? And, if so, (2) Does those policies and procedures violate the Petitioner and all other inmates similarly situated of their U.S.C.A. 14 Amendment and the Cal. Const. Art 1, §7 Due process Rights to the relief and benefit of that Mandated Order as it was made by the three panel 9" Cir. Federal Court Judges as it relates to the Plata and Coleman cases??? If so, (3) should Petitioner be Forthwith Discharge from the arms of CDCR, a political subdivision