Whether the Montana Supreme Court violated the petitioner's due process rights by denying the right to habeas corpus to challenge an unlawful conviction, disregarding the intent of the state constitution framers and the doctrine of stare decisis

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the Montana Constitution it clearly states that the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall never be suspended; the Convention Notes of the Delegates determinations support that the Great Writ shall always be available for persons to challenge his or her unlawful detention. However, the Montana State Legislature has set forth in §46-22-101 (2), MCA, that the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be utilized by a person who has exhausted the remedy of appeal. The State Supreme Court has held that this State Statute is unconstitutional, stating so,: for example, in State v Lott and State v Jackson. 1. Is it lawful for the Montana Supreme Court to deny me Due Process of Law by denying me the right to utilize habeas corpus to challenge my unlawful detention caused by an unlawful conviction when such a denial disregards the. = .iuri:: intent OF THE Framers of the State Constitution as-well-as disregards the Doctrine of Stare Decisis? The Montana Supreme Court 'recharacterized' one of the main issues that I raised in my attempt to receive justice via habeas corpus. This was done so the court could avoid ‘recognizing’ the evidence I presented which substantiated that the intent of the Delegates who framed the State Constitution requires that either a Preliminary Hearing. before a magistrate, or a hearing comparable to such an examination must be held in the state district court before the district judge may "grant leave to file the information" document as the instrument of indictment, i. (Questions Presented continued) 2. Was it a violation of my right to Due Process of Law when the Montana Supreme Court recharacterized my issue relating to the intent of the State Constitutional Delegates, wherein those delegates held that prior to a judge granting leave to file an information document as the isntrument of indict~ ment either a Preliminary Examination or a hearing comparable to such examination must be held? | . ‘In the 1971-72 Montana Constitutional Convention Notes it is made clear and obvious that neither legislation, nor court order is to ever suppress or infringe upon the right of nay detained person to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his or . her unlawful detention, 3. Was it unlawful and contrary to justice for the Montana Supreme Court to disregard the intent of the Delegates, the very foundation of State Law, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus after having declared §46~22-101. MCA unconstitutional, thus failing to uphold State Law in violation of Supreme Court of the United States precedent holdings requiring a state to adhere to it own laws? The practice in the Montana Criminal Justice System of filing the information document without having held either a preliminary Examination or a comparable hearing before a district judgeiittilizes §46-11-201 which instructs the district judge regarding granting "Leave To File Information": Therein the judge is authorized to examine the “affidavit supported by evidence as the judge...may : require. If it appears tat there is probable cause to believe That an offense has been committed by the defendant, the judge... shall grant leave to file the information." By statute this procedure in the district court is the "accusatory stage" of a felony case; in Montana's criminal justice system the ‘information document' is considered to be an ‘indictment', see State v Pease. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a judge who acts in the accusatory stage of a felony case must recuse; in the State of Montana's case against me the same judge who acted in the accusatory information stage of the case went on to sit as the trial court. 4. Was it a violation of my rights under Amendment 14--due process of law and equal protection of the law--for the justices of the Montana Supreme Court to 'overlook' the , fact that a structural error occurred: when the trial judge : failed to recuse after acting in the accusatory information stage of the case the State bro