Issue being raised

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . Cae * ($(BYOB Galea) QU). 1s THe KipwarpiInG STATUE (17.01.10. (3)) as STATED I PETITIONERS AMENDED 2Is4 DeckeT (413 *33.*43 zp ¥3H NON STITUTIONAL 7 sew: |sgue * 1 ele) wp me US. Disraicr CRT Violate PETITIONERS ColsteT TIONAL RIGHT te DUE PROLESS , BY MOT PROCESSING OR ADDRESSING PETITIONERS Collsqitu TIONAL ChaLLenge Té KIDNAPPWG © STATUE 767.01 (4 (3) when ALL PARTIES weRe DY (9 NOTIFIED, AND HAD OPPORTUNITY TD oRJECT TO THEM | CHAWLENGE AN DIDNT ? SCE ISsuc #)) Q(D. WAS THERE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE To PROVE KIDNAPPING IF THE (167.0). 14 (3)) STATUE 18 CONSTITUTIONAL IN PETITIONERS CASE? FA. #2 SEE issue 42) QU). DOES sys COURT AGREE WITH THE REASONING AND LAW ANd LOGIC W THE CONNER -VSSTATE case #19. 80. 3D. 1117), REGARDING we FASON THRE ApPLicATION 40 PETITIONERS CASE? See issue (2) OG) 1s HE Conner -is STATE cage * (19. $0. 3D. 17) IN DIRECT CONFUCT with PETITIONERS CASE AND IF SO) witL THIS CouRT RESOLVE +tMS Poneuct? . See (SSE £2) eN#L SEE: DockeTS (713,23, 43,34) Gh * 2254 Procee Des ENtL SEES JACKSON —-VSVIRGINIA 443 US 307 (1979) AND FREEZE -V— SEC. D.C, 201 we. aiseu4es (MD. eva. /ac/i) QUESTIONS PRESENTED. GASE#1& 12452-2B Ole). IF PETITIONER WAS A)UDICATED INCOMPE TANT IN DEC. 2006, ASE * 3066-3701, AND NO WRITTEN ORDER Do ADJUDICATE HIM COMPETANT , 1S PETITIONER CONSIDERED INCOMPETANT WUTIL A WRITTEN ORDER iMuEs? (SEES ALL REZORDS Wo WRITTEN OKDER EXSITS) tee: 18SuE * (3) (2 . kA Q(). WAS IT REVERSAGLE ERRoR, WHEN THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE, Made A FINDING IN (DockET +40) @Round (*7)( PAGE 53 oF 91) THAT THE STATE INTRODUCED THE INJUNCTION (C4SE *2006-DR004182) THAT. WAS SEVERED BY THE CouRT FoR PREJUD CE AS IT WAS A FEATURE AT TRIAL, CHANGING THE ovTcome 7 see: Issue *(4) OW. Was PETITIONER PLACED IN “Doves JEOPARDY" vioLA TING HIS 5% AND 4A AMENDMENTS OF THE US. CONST. AS EXPLAINED IN GRoUND *IS_ IN 2254 PROCEEDINGS (SE: DOCKETS * 13,3343) See! [SSue *(s) CX%, wAS iT REVERS4ELE ERAOR, BY PETITIONER BEING ConvicTED OF “BURGLARY “To HS QwA HOME" WHEN jo ATUDIFICATION OF GUILT WAS HAD IN INJUNCTION (case *200b ~ DR004182) see: issue *(6) Qlic). Were PETITIONERS PLEACS) IN ARRAIGNMENT AND | PRETRIAL INVOULENTARY AND/OR Misanvice? (SEE: GROUND “19 WW 2354 PROCEEDINGS, Darke T(S) */3 33 43) | see: ISSUE *(7) pegesa/ AX). was TRIAL COUNCELS PERFORMANCE CANSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT, WHEN HE ABANDON PETITIcNERS INSANITY DEFENSE” WHEN ADliseD NOT To BY PETITIONER? (See: GROUND *& iy 2354 PROCEEDINGS: pec kes) *13,33 43). see: issue *(B) Q(2) WAS TRIAL CounceLS PERFORMANCE Con STiTUTIONALLY DEFICIENT, WHEN He MISERABLY FAILED TO Move THE couRT, *OR ORY VIEW" OF THE ALEGED Came SCENE ?( See: Group (2) IN SY PaoceediNGS , DockeT(S)* 13, 33, 93) (4) QUESTIONS PRESEN TED, case* 1% 145a-B Ql). WAS TRIAL. counceLS PERFORMANCE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT BY NOT INVESTIGATING RADIO TRANSMISSION REPORT * (OC SOOLCADISIZSS )? (SE; GRoulD “10 IN. PETITIONERS a254 PROCEEDINGS, DockeT(s) *13 #33 ys) seer issue #9 (i). WAS IT REVERSABLE ERROR Fok THE STATE tm wiTHoLD EXCULPRATORY "BRADY" MATERIAL EU IDENcE? (see: GROUNID™ [f 3254 PRoceennGs Dockets) *G, ¥3, 43). see issue +10 o('9) WAS IT REVERSARLE ERROR FOR THE +RIAL CouRr JUDGE, To Twice MAKE INCULPATURY COMMENTS RELATED To THE Mask wexpipir? (SE? Goonp*ia iW DaSY PaoceeDINGS, Dekets *1> 33,43, See? 1Ssoe* Il CLD. d10 PaceATiol ave PARoLE, CA AGENT FOR THE STATE) Vio LATE PETITIONERS CONSTITOTIONAL RIGHTS IDENTIFIED IN GROUND #13 (SEE: GRoND*13 IN SaSyY PROCEEDINGS no kETs * 13,3343. see® issue te . a) WERE PéETiTioNeRS CONSTTUTIONAL RIGHTS VloL ATED BY THE OKALOOSA | CO. SHERIFES OFF Ice, REPECTING THE OUTCOME — OF THE “RIAL | ACTING AS A AGEAT FOR THE sTATE? (See: AMENDED das}, ERowwD * 4 dockET(S)*13, 33, 43 SEE: (S$9vE 713 nae Al's) DID “WHE STATE Commit A “BRADY -YS-MARYLAND 373.US. £3 (1963) VloLATION WHEN IT FAILED WILCFULLY AND WTEMTIONALY To PROVIDE DEFENSE CONCEL wiTH A CoPY AMD AUDIO OF CAD, RERRTC™ OC 00GCADIT 1335), AFTER NumEAous REQUESTS) BY TRIAL