Whether the courts can refuse and/or feign review of habeas corpus claims asserting constitutional violations, would warrant habeas corpus relief?

No question identified. : JURISDICTION | i Having already traversed the, state courts and lower federal courts, and there being no. . adjudication ov the merits of valid one of last resorts.:(35 The jurisdiction of this Court by habeas corpus, when not restrained by some special law, extends, generally, to imprisonment, by inferior, courts, which have had no jurisdiction, of the,,. éatise-or whose proceedings are‘othefwise void and not [1ierely] ertoneous.* Personal liberty is of so great moment in the eye of the law that the judgment of an inferior court affecting it is not deemed so conclusive but that, as have been seen, the question of the court’s authority to try and imprison the party may be reviewed on habeas corpus by a superior court or judge having , authority.fo award the writ)... oe 4 . Pursuant also to the United States Supréme.Court Rule [20.4(a)], to “justify the granting of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must show that exceptional circumstances warrant the . woe exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court”. in Oe 2 OPINIONS BELOW The prerequisite are thus satisfied for this Court to exercise its “discretionary” powers hereto, to wit: 1. The United States court of appeals refused your petitioner its plenary powers and de novo ; review, where there is no adjudication on the merits, nor any answer thereto, and no facts : are in dispute. See U.S.C.A. 3" Cir. Docket No. 19-1069. “ 2. The United States district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused your petitioner procedural and substantive due process, denied habeas corpus, and COA, on procedural grounds, where there is no adjudication on the merits, nor any answer thereto, and no facts are in dispute. See U.S.D.C. Docket No. 17-CV-0881. 3. The United States district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to provide your petitioner with mandatory de novo review and determination of timely filed objections made to portions of the magistrate’s report. See U.S.D.C. docket No. 16-CV5710. . 4. The Supreme Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused your petitioner certiorari, habeas corpus review, and lawful judgment in a per curiam denial without any opinion of record. The court then, subsequently, refused to clarify its reasons or authority to deny an uncontested habeas petition, per curiam, without any opinion of record. See Supreme Court Docket Nos. 202 MT 2015, 538 MT 2016, 487 MT 2017, 160 MM 2017. 3 5. The Superior Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to issue the writ and transferred your petitioner to the Commonwealth Court. See Docket No. 43 MDM 2018. 6. The Commonwealth Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania also refused to issue the writ on jurisdictional false imprisonment and cruel and unusual punishment claims; and, deprivation of sacred liberty rights. See Docket No. 612 MD 2018. 7. The York County Court of Common Pleas denied your petitioner fundamental fairness of process; and, subsequently, corrective processes (i.e. the right of appeal). ; Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Court of last resort is invoked under your petitioner’s right to the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a). 4