Issues being raised

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Ds tt not a vislehen of the RehKenev's 4 Ste BF and 1h Amendment rights then! a SEI Unknown officec/oPicers search ancl setee lis vehicle by entering oad driving ot From porting area absent Filing any peperisavk ov fal~ Vousing any steacerdied procedure, when it Was nok facideat te arcesh noc did sacch ofRcers have any vaformalon tHe vehicle hed been usecl wn acy crim laa | ochvit y! 2.) Ds it not a wolekon of the Pebhonesk 4 Ss aac IS Qirend ment rights ushens law enforcermnent oBicerc cons pice 4. Freudulert y concec| the ideaky and ttle gel echKens of officers thet Megelly Seerched and setzed the Peh'Hanes's vehicle? 3.) Hs tk not ce Wolehon of the PehhHones's gts Prrmeadment veqh* to be free Gom excessive Fines/punichment and his 1H Ayendment right to duc precess when ¢ law enforcement Megelly xr QUESTIONS PRESENTED (ConTd) seizes Wiis vehicle due ts allecedt betng Snvolved tA erimina\ wetuity, yh l econ cher ges sere BAited by sarvd ofRcers? : +.) Ts it nct a wolehon of the Rh Noner!s HSE and 144 Amendment eights whent law enfevcemeat civeumvents all kaswa pocemcters of skk and federc\ lees by conducting on "Favertory" search of ls vehicle oFterLeaphesis added] being denied a search Werrect by a Stele Attorney duc te the Keb Here sas no nevus betuecan the alleged chime and vehicle® : &) Bes th moh 2 WoleWon of He RKRonek He SEB and is Amendment eights wheat law enforcement seires he vehicle ask just once but tesice, price Lemphesis odded | Te receiving uAco> vvaorated hearsay thet the vehicle had poss bly been Used tA carina achviky MA anot they vavisdichtsn 2 =) | iL QUESTIONS PRESENTED CCONT’ sy) G) Ts He decuston by the US, Dishict Court for the Northern District of Flonde and dhe Cleventh Circuit Court of Appec(s be Faregs tHe telling of He stehk of imadbeh one uthen oh wes evident thet the Defendant conspired bs Freudulently esnceel their Nlegel eehons a on attempt te prevent ead prolong pr Pel honer from aiscovesing gard achksas MA ia Heonely meaner an uncansht-bonel denrel of Due Process under the IM Amendment? 1.) Ts te decision by He U.S, Dishict Court For the Northern Orshict sf Flavide and the Cle verth Circult Couct of Appects te Fore gs en evidenRery hearing Ctelephons) as regue shed by He Pet~ (Ronee, to deleraviar ushen fhe PehHanee kacw or hed peasen bo kas of his Payerdes Calnee thea merely speculate ead alismiss hix complet ot | vight an uncanchhbhenct dental of due process’ am :